The disorder of homosexuality

[CopticChristian]

Your attempts to take so many to tsk are sadly lacking, as from them I would surmise that your understanding of Veritiatis Splendor is less than miniscule.

Gaber,

I need a little help here to understand you and I mean you.

Define “Ronin Catholic”…what is it you are trying to say here. I for the life of me cannot get an adequate understanding of Ronin. I saw that there was a movie with Robert Dinero…are you Robert Dinero?

Define “Many”…you say I am taking many to task…how many is many and who are the many…list and name the many…just to help me out here

Sad. I understand sadness. My attempts you say are sad and lacking. Many of my attempts at most things these days lack and honestly sadly so. I continue to put forth effort. I now have to learn an entire paradigm to assist in establishing an online mode of helping people get over some major problems and I am sadly lacking in time however fortunately grateful for the task. Tasks like this give me impetus to learn and grow.

You surmise correctly. I really want to be honest with you. My understanding of most things is miniscule. You know the stuff about when I was a child, I thought like a child, and now that I am a man…you know where that comes from…but the guy who wrote this also was found in time as he matured to say this

Early on…I am the least of the Apostles
Later…I am the least of the Saints
Last…I am the greatest of sinners…

Now I gotta tell you I ain’t no Apostle, no way no how. Saint? Someone get the aerosol spray for the stink of me…now how do you compete with a guy who says he is the greatest of sinners…I am certainly no Paul…so the best I can do is say that I am among those that believe that one greater than I is the greatest of sinners…in that regard recognize this…

Early on…I knew lots and perhaps discounted others
Later on…I recognized that perhaps there was much to learn
Last…as I get older I know squat…so you are quite correct that my understanding of Veritatis Splendor is minisicule…

Your insight give me hope. I should read it again, and again, and again…and then I probably will still probably know squat…but at least I will know that there is Veritatis Splendor…would you like to start a thread on that and all on this thread can discuss it?

Then at least all those that know squat can learn more and know less squat…OK

 

[CopticChristian]

Perhaps you can answer if the reputation of APA, that it is more ideology-driven than science-driven, is undeserved. As you know, the Association endorsed same sex ‘marriage’ and gay adoption.

I realize you need to make a living out of your chosen profession, and you rely on the APA to validate your professional license. Do you as a Catholic however not find its policies and ethical guidelines incompatible with Catholic teaching and values? You must know that APA is decidedly gay affirmative. It even directs its member mental health professionals to discount if not effectively dismiss the complaints of ego dystonic homosexual patients who seek management of their unwanted same sex attraction. Do you have an independent thought about this or do you simply support the party line? For instance, the Committee badmouths NARTH; do you feel you also have to badmouth NARTH? NARTH is a group of professionals that has taken an independent stand from the dominant Association (which by the way holds the advantage necessarily in peer reviewing and publication of studies). Small does not mean fringe. Nicolosi and company are not fringe. Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons is not fringe. They just don’t kowtow to the APA.

Since you brought up reparative therapy, or sex orientation change efforts (SOCE), can you provide the empirical evidence by APA or you that SOCE has actually harmed patients, and if so, in what way(s)? I realize that the pervading belief now but not before in your discipline is that homosexuality is a normal variant of sexuality and that there is no ex-gay in reality. Even if it is now known that the homosexual condition, homosexual experience and value systems are not the same across patients.

It appears that APA postured, in effect, to close the door to those who seek SOCE. What happens to those who genuinely seek it because of their value system, those with unwanted homosexuality? They deserve help or therapy, a right to self-directed treatment. If they approach a NARTH or NARTH referred mental health professional, you would align yourself with the naysayers, it would appear.

In this forum alone, there are members who have related or gave accounts that sexual orientation change is possible, or at least can leave the lived out homosexual life. I can not say how much therapy if or where undertaken contributed to the change. There are some that disagree or remain doubtful. It is clear in reading an array of accounts that success of SOCE is tied to setting objectives from the get go and the motivation factor.

Exactly. In a previous discussion I had with a forum member who said she was a graduate student in psychology, we went down a similar line of argument. I posited that the APA could have just shifted to using NOC, not otherwise classified, but perhaps diagnosing ‘situational depression’ would solve the insurance reimbursement problem after APA removed hiomosexuality as a mental illness in 1973. The APA decided to ride the train of homosexuality is not a mental disorder school of thought, brought about by pressure from homosexual psychiatrists and a vocal and demanding bloc of homosexual(ist)s.
,

Lisa,

There is a distinction between Health Care and manipulation of Health Care. A knowledgeable practitioner can make the system work for reimbursement. The reimbursement works as follows.

ICD-9 codes are basicelly diseases…or disorders

Computers scan every submission for reimbursement and spit out ones that are suspect. Greasing the wheels is done as follows…

There must be a matching ICD-9 for every CPT or E/M code that pays…the way to make it smoothe is to put as many ICD-9 codes you can. There are also some ICD-9 codes that are never rejected.

Suicidial ideation
Concern for Cancer
etc

Once you know how to grease the wheels, then Health Care as it regards diseases etc is less about what is the problem and more about how to get paid. No discussion concerning ICD-9 is valid insofar as it relates to payment…the only reason this book exists is to get paid…not to help treat…that is the rub.

The other problem is that with traditional medical care problems are resolved. A broken leg is healed and then it is part of the past medical history, not active.

In mental health once labeled the label sticks forever and a day. As far as I know there is no such thing in the mental health field as “resolved” in other words get labeled Alcoholic and you never resolve this label…that is part of the thrust for homosexuallity not being a disease I believe…once labeled…diseased forever…

 

[InSearchofGrace]

CopticChristian I am sorry if you thought this was to derail the thread. **Since the theme is the “disorder” of homosexuality, the health and medical impact (negative) of homosexual activities is IMO relevant to the thread. Our bodies were made to for different functions and in using them properly for lack of a better term, we not only maximize the results but we maintain or improve our health.

One bit of evidence that homosexuality is disordered, abnormal, a pathology or whatever term you might wish to use, is that the RESULTS of homosexual activity are negative both physically and emotionally.

No matter how much homosexuals try to claim that their “love” is just as natural as man/woman marital sexual activities, our bodies demonstrate the lie.**

Thank you for the other thoughtful posts.

Lisa

I agree. Actually, I had a post in reaction to a statement of yours upthread that one cannot fool Mother Nature. And that Catholic teachings have cohesion, unity and consistency, the reason you were attracted to convert to Catholicism (and mine in remaining as one unabashed Catholic!). I just integrated it here.

As for fooling Mother Nature. How do homosexual practitioners who got scared in the 80’s when young men were dropping like flies from AIDS do it these days? Solution: safe sex with the use of condoms. But injuries to the penetrated partners are still happening. Harvard trained Dr. Edward Green, then AIDS Prevention Research Project, Director, at one time advised that homosexuals should refrain from doing it hard. Anyway, the solution in dire circumstances, I suppose, is rectal repair. In the meantime, the supposedly smart ones have better techniques in performing anal sex. There is a Gay Health site and others like it where questions on how to do it better to minimize health problems stemming from habitual gay sex acts are answered by a medical doctor. There are practices that are too lurid to put in print, but they do get covered in such sites. Then there is a percentage of active homosexuals who would make it a point to stop short of anal sex, IOW, just oral sex. Result: an increase in oral cancers as you and CC have pointed out.

Yep, they can fool Mother Nature. Or so, they think.

Let’s get ready for the argument by gay apologists in this forum that heterosexuals are also engaging in anal and oral sex.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Lisa,

There is a distinction between Health Care and manipulation of Health Care. A knowledgeable practitioner can make the system work for reimbursement. The reimbursement works as follows.

ICD-9 codes are basicelly diseases…or disorders

Computers scan every submission for reimbursement and spit out ones that are suspect. Greasing the wheels is done as follows…

There must be a matching ICD-9 for every CPT or E/M code that pays…the way to make it smoothe is to put as many ICD-9 codes you can. There are also some ICD-9 codes that are never rejected.

Suicidial ideation
Concern for Cancer
etc

Once you know how to grease the wheels, then Health Care as it regards diseases etc is less about what is the problem and more about how to get paid. No discussion concerning ICD-9 is valid insofar as it relates to payment…the only reason this book exists is to get paid…not to help treat…that is the rub.

The other problem is that with traditional medical care problems are resolved. A broken leg is healed and then it is part of the past medical history, not active.

In mental health once labeled the label sticks forever and a day. As far as I know there is no such thing in the mental health field as “resolved” in other words get labeled Alcoholic and you never resolve this label…that is part of the thrust for homosexuality not being a disease I believe…once labeled…diseased forever…

I posted, not Lisa. But it’s okay, CC. It is the message that is important.

 

[ringil]

In mental health once labeled the label sticks forever and a day. As far as I know there is no such thing in the mental health field as “resolved” in other words get labeled Alcoholic and you never resolve this label…that is part of the thrust for homosexuallity not being a disease I believe…once labeled…diseased forever…

Again, Alcoholism is not a clinical term and will not be found in diagnostic workups or in official psychiatric discharge summaries. It is a term used in AA, recovery literature, and in common parlance. It does have some value, but not every professional stresses this conceptualization.

The term “resolved” is used ALL THE TIME when referring to Alcohol Abuse, Depression, Bi-polar, and Anxiety Disorders. I, have personally used it hundreds of times. How could you not know that? I suspect you are just talking out of your head in some of this stuff.

THis is my field. This is what I do and have done for fifteen years.

 

[CopticChristian]

Again, Alcoholism is not a clinical term and will not be found in diagnostic workups or in official psychiatric discharge summaries. It is a term used in AA, recovery literature, and in common parlance. It does have some value, but not every professional stresses this conceptualization.

The term “resolved” is used ALL THE TIME when referring to Alcohol Abuse, Depression, Bi-polar, and Anxiety Disorders. I, have personally used it hundreds of times. **How could you not know that? I suspect you are just talking out of your head in some of this stuff./**QUOTE]

I said as far as I know and you then offered not a question but a conclusion. You may want to ask a question before drawing a conclusion. By the way I happen to like the Talking Heads.

 

[fix]

Depends if you hear that in the mystical sense or in the authoritative sense.

Do they contradict each other?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Gaber,

I need a little help here to understand you and I mean you.

Define “Ronin Catholic”…what is it you are trying to say here. I for the life of me cannot get an adequate understanding of Ronin. I saw that there was a movie with Robert Dinero…are you Robert Dinero?

…OK

I get a kick out of these self-descriptives, I tell you. It really gets to a creative level, doncha know. For the life of me, I am trying to understand why bellyaching Catholics don’t just sign up with one of the 30,000+ Christian denominations. Surely, there are enough sects in that long list that offer in their menus the accommodation to their issues with Catholic doctrine and teachings, including the declassification of homosexual acts as non-sins and blessing of same sex unions and the like. Instead, they will persuade or rile against the Church and tradition in a Catholic forum. Tolerance for this particular pet sin is not requested, it is demanded. And the demand is actually a demand for affirmation, for the Church and the faithful not to be Catholic anymore.

I would just bid this Robert De Niro character sayonara with a smile. The forum and its membership deserve better than posters whose debating talents include incivility and uncouthness when they are unable to convince.
,

 

[CopticChristian]

I get a kick out of these self-descriptives, I tell you. It really gets to a creative level, doncha know? For the life of me, I am trying to understand why bellyaching Catholics don’t just sign up with one of the 30,000+ Christian denominations. Surely, there are enough sects in that long list that offer in their menus the accommodation to their issues with Catholic doctrine and teachings, including the declassification of homosexual acts as non-sins and blessing of same sex unions and the like. Instead, they will persuade or rile against the Church and tradition in a Catholic forum. Tolerance for this particular pet sin is not requested, it is demanded. And the demand is actually a demand for affirmation, for the Church and the faithful not to be Catholic anymore.

I would just bid this Robert De Niro character sayonara with a smile. The forum and its membership deserve better than posters whose debating talents include incivility and uncouthness when they are unable to convince.
,

InSearch,

So you are saying that Ronin is not Robert Dinero, rather Ronin was Robert Dinero in the movie but Ronin Catholic is not Robert Dinero…bummer…:doh2:

 

[LisaA]

Again, Alcoholism is not a clinical term and will not be found in diagnostic workups or in official psychiatric discharge summaries. It is a term used in AA, recovery literature, and in common parlance. It does have some value, but not every professional stresses this conceptualization.

The term “resolved” is used ALL THE TIME when referring to Alcohol Abuse, Depression, Bi-polar, and Anxiety Disorders. I, have personally used it hundreds of times. How could you not know that? I suspect you are just talking out of your head in some of this stuff.

THis is my field. This is what I do and have done for fifteen years.

Not to argue since this is your field of expertise but in my experience and understanding of alcoholism and many mental illnesses, you never resolve them permanently as Coptic Christian noted. Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic is really the standard within the treatment community. One might be able to stay ‘dry’ and thus the medical and emotional issues following the alcoholic might be kept at bay but all it takes is to start drinking again. Ditto with other substance abuse. Ditto with some mental illnesses. The issue is resolved as long as the person stays on their meds. It is a label that lasts unlike the broken leg example CC mentioned.

The disease model as CC noted is more for the benefit of reimbursement as we are all captive to the CPT Codes and IDC9 categorization. With respect to homosexuality and its labeling as a mental illness, then a mental illness only if the homosexuality causes the person mental anguish to the final decision to toss out the diagnose completely, it only makes the APA look like a political organization that simply sways to the prevailing wind rather than basing decisions upon empirical research. Quite honestly, is there any other medical diagnosis that you can vote in or out of existence? Truly I’m curious about the DSM and how often or how easily it is changed and for what reason.

Also hoping Tsk would respond to my questions regarding homosexuals and their seeming TMI Syndrome…why must we know about anyone’s personal sexual practices and why does that become the defining characteristic of so many activists within the homosexual world? I truly cannot imagine any heterosexual self defining by their sex life.
Can you?

Lisa

PS When I see the term Ronin I think of the renegade soldiers in Shogun. Is that where it originates? A Ronin Catholic would there for be a renegade

 

[Petersmate]

. I’m quite sure our brothers and sisters in committed and loving homosexual relationships would not consider the gift of their life and their love to be a disorder.

First of all you deny the effects of serious sin and the tragedy that it leads to. People living sinful lives end up in destruction.

an alcoholic must admit he has a problem otherwise he justifies his behaviour and lives a life of destruction.

there is no such thing as a happy and content alcoholic. They live a life of quiet desperation.

If your mental illness is such you desperately desire homosexual sex your in anything but a commited and loving relationship. Most of them die before the age of sixty (usually of aids) and those still living and they.are few are in poor health.

Sin leads to destruction

 

[ringil]

Not to argue since this is your field of expertise but in my experience and understanding of alcoholism and many mental illnesses, you never resolve them permanently as Coptic Christian noted. Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic is really the standard within the treatment community. One might be able to stay ‘dry’ and thus the medical and emotional issues following the alcoholic might be kept at bay but all it takes is to start drinking again. Ditto with other substance abuse. Ditto with some mental illnesses. The issue is resolved as long as the person stays on their meds. It is a label that lasts unlike the broken leg example CC mentioned.

The common conceptualization you describe around Alcoholism grew out of the AA program and has been implemented in perhaps, the majority of treatment modalities in helping addicts/alcoholics. This paradigm does have it’s benefits and has been successful for thousands of “Alcoholics” or “problem drinkers” or “Alcohol Abusers”- whatever we want to call them. Alcohol problems are popularly seen through the lens of a disease model. In this model, once someone has acquired “Alcoholism” they have this “illness” for life. One wouldn’t use the word “resolved” to describe a client using this model. However, in writing diagnostic workups, discharge summaries, and referrals, the qualifier “resolved” would be used once the individual seems to have stabilized in their intra-psychic functioning and social environment. This is what I was replying to CC about- the use of the term “resolved”. A relapse in drinking and disruption in functioning would constiute a re-evaluation of their situation.

The term “desease model” really only retates to the alcohol treatment parlance. Mental Illness isn’t conceptualized using this desease model as the term desease model relates specifically to how some clinicians have come to approach thinking about alcohol abuse.

Other programs like SMART recovery, for instance, do not follow a desease model but employ a Rational Emotive approach (a variant of Cognitive Behavioral Treatment) to tackle the problem. They would be more likely to describe alcohol problems and behavior in terms of a dysfunctional cognitive system resulting in personal and social disruption. SMART would also reccommend life-long abstinance. Many people have also been helped through SMART.

The same qualifier “resolved” can be used in describing certain mental illnesses once the client has sufficiently stabilized, even if they are taking medications. Another term “Remission” either partial or full, can be used, but this is more in the coding using the DSM, while “Resolved” is a narrative descriptor and not related to the specific diagnosis per se.

I’m not an addictions specialist so you might want to take that into account. I have dealt with addictions but usually as one piece of a larger puzzle. Mental illness (and cognitive decline- dementia) is really more my specialty.

The disease model as CC noted is more for the benefit of reimbursement as we are all captive to the CPT Codes and IDC9 categorization. With respect to homosexuality and its labeling as a mental illness, then a mental illness only if the homosexuality causes the person mental anguish to the final decision to toss out the diagnose completely, it only makes the APA look like a political organization that simply sways to the prevailing wind rather than basing decisions upon empirical research. Quite honestly, is there any other medical diagnosis that you can vote in or out of existence? Truly I’m curious about the DSM and how often or how easily it is changed and for what reason.

The parties accusing the APA of being political with their diagnostic criterion are in fact using their own agenda (Judeo-Christian) to shape their efforts. NARTH, for instance, is made up largely of self-identified Christians. Many of them use their Christian faith as a major component in their practice. Some identify themselves as “Christian Therapists”. I would wager that this group has the agenda. The APA uses exhaustive empirical research in making changes to the DSM. They don’t take this stuff lightly.

I suspect you aren’t going to accept that however.

BTW I am Catholic of course. I just don’t describe myself as a “Catholic Therapist.” At times, when appropriate I may mention my faith to a client, but this is not so common for me. Depends on who I am working with. “Start where the client is” as they say.

I hope that was helpful- as it took a bit of time to type out.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

BTW I am Catholic of course. I just don’t describe myself as a “Catholic Therapist.” At times, when appropriate I may mention my faith to a client, but this is not so common for me. Depends on who I am working with.** “Start where the client is” as they say.**

I hope that was helpful- as it took a bit of time to type out.

And if the client says he wants help in reducing or erasing his same sex attraction so he does not engage in homosexual acts, which in his value system is wrong, how exactly do you handle it?

Btw, I directed a post to you # 257 which you may have not read yet. Do you mind addressing it. Thank you.

ISoG

 

[LisaA]

The common conceptualization you describe around Alcoholism grew out of the AA program and has been implemented in perhaps, the majority of treatment modalities in helping addicts/alcoholics. …seems to have stabilized in their intra-psychic functioning and social environment. This is what I was replying to CC about- the use of the term “resolved”. A relapse in drinking and disruption in functioning would constiute a re-evaluation of their situation.

The term “desease model” really only retates to the alcohol treatment parlance. Mental Illness isn’t conceptualized using this desease model as the term desease model relates specifically to how some clinicians have come to approach thinking about alcohol abuse.

Other programs like SMART recovery, for instance, do not follow a desease model but employ a Rational Emotive approach (a variant of Cognitive Behavioral Treatment) to tackle the problem. They would be more likely to describe alcohol problems and behavior in terms of a dysfunctional cognitive system resulting in personal and social disruption. SMART would also reccommend life-long abstinance. Many people have also been helped through SMART.

Thank you for the explanation. I have some experience with alcoholism being on the Board of a successful (name removed by moderator)atient treatment facility that had nationally high rates of recovery among 4th stage alcoholics. Not sure what model they use but the treatment is very intense.

Another well known treatment facility in our state pioneered use of the disease model. Incidentally both were started by Catholics and maintained some Catholic elements. I wonder if our faith’s tradition of redemption, new life and forgiveness is part of the reason these two facilities were so successful.

I’ve not encountered the SMART method but will try to get some information.

The parties accusing the APA of being political with their diagnostic criterion are in fact using their own agenda (Judeo-Christian) to shape their efforts. NARTH, for instance, is made up largely of self-identified Christians. Many of them use their Christian faith as a major component in their practice. Some identify themselves as “Christian Therapists”. I would wager that this group has the agenda. The APA uses exhaustive empirical research in making changes to the DSM. They don’t take this stuff lightly.

I suspect you aren’t going to accept that however.

BTW I am Catholic of course. I just don’t describe myself as a “Catholic Therapist.” At times, when appropriate I may mention my faith to a client, but this is not so common for me. Depends on who I am working with. “Start where the client is” as they say.

I hope that was helpful- as it took a bit of time to type out.

Honestly I would accept a factual account of the change to the DSM. What I read from several sources is that there was extreme pressure to remove homosexuality from the DSM by gay activists and in 1973 the incoming President of the APA was (at the time) a closeted homosexual so perhaps there were agendas aplenty. I guess I don’t know how one could do empirical research to make such a decision. It’s more a matter of redefining the word “normal” to encompass a set of behaviors that had been considered abnormal. IOW not so much a matter of study and statistics but to sway enough people to vote something in or out.

I read several statements by the APA (and I can’t seem to distinguish which is the psychiatrist group versus the psycologist group) and all concluded that homosexuality was normal sexual activity within a continuum of various practices. In addition there were variants in the scale from those who never had anything but same sex attraction and relationship to the opposite end where the the subject would have a series of relationships with the same sex, the opposite sex, and perhaps returning to same sex.

While I can understand that removing homosexuality from the DSM would reduce the stigma attached, I think it’s had very adverse consequences in attempts to force the majority to accept the behavior as normal and equivalent to man/woman marriage, making homosexuality a part of school curriculum (note California textbooks MUST indicate that a particular figure in history was homosexual as if that mattered one iota), and looking for real or perceived ‘discrimination’ as fodder for more lawsuits.

Again I ask, why on earth must homosexuals’ private lives be forced upon the public? I think DADT was a brilliant strategy and wish it not only still existed in the military but in public life everywhere.

Lisa

 

[Hadrianus]

The first serious attempts to decide whether or not homosexuality could be considered a psychological disorder were made by the US Military in 1943. Major Carl Jonas, and Dr Clements Fry both concluded that homosexuality did not constitute a disorder in such a way as to make an individual unsuitable for military service. Unfortunately, I do not know what kind of diagnostic tests they employed.

Subsequently Evelyn Hooker did a blind study of 30 homosexual and 30 heterosexual men employing the Rorschach, TAT and MAPS tests, which were, and I believe still are considered fairly reliable in the diagnosing of mental disorders. It was her findings, conducted in the late 1950’s and 60’s which found that there was no way of distinguishing sexual orientation in accordance with these tests which strongly contributed to the APA decision to drop homosexuality as a mental disorder.

That there may have been political pressure to do so is quite possible. But that in itself would not have been decisive, had the medical evidence not been there.

None of this is, however, of any relevance to the use of “disorder” by the Catholic Church.
In the language of Catholic moral theology “disordered” or “inordinata” refers to any sinful act. Some actions, such as contraceptive use, homosexual acts and masturbation are called “intrinsically disordered” because they can never have a good end, and thus are always sinful. As is adultery. On the other hand shooting someone, may be in self defense and thus not disordered at all, or it could be murder which is disordered. But the action of shooting someone is not intrinsically disordered, though it can be extrinsically so.

In any case, anyone seriously interested in this topic can find a wealth of material in Vatican
documents and those of the various English speaking Episcopal Conferences; and from a clinical perspective an enormous amount of material on the web.

 

[CopticChristian]

The first serious attempts to decide whether or not homosexuality could be considered a psychological disorder were made by the US Military in 1943. Major Carl Jonas, and Dr Clements Fry both concluded that homosexuality did not constitute a disorder in such a way as to make an individual unsuitable for military service. Unfortunately, I do not know what kind of diagnostic tests they employed.

Subsequently Evelyn Hooker did a blind study of 30 homosexual and 30 heterosexual men employing the Rorschach, TAT and MAPS tests, which were, and I believe still are considered fairly reliable in the diagnosing of mental disorders. It was her findings, conducted in the late 1950’s and 60’s which found that there was no way of distinguishing sexual orientation in accordance with these tests which strongly contributed to the APA decision to drop homosexuality as a mental disorder.

That there may have been political pressure to do so is quite possible. But that in itself would not have been decisive, had the medical evidence not been there.

None of this is, however, of any relevance to the use of “disorder” by the Catholic Church.
In the language of Catholic moral theology “disordered” or “inordinata” refers to any sinful act. Some actions, such as contraceptive use, homosexual acts and masturbation are called “intrinsically disordered” because they can never have a good end, and thus are always sinful. As is adultery. On the other hand shooting someone, may be in self defense and thus not disordered at all, or it could be murder which is disordered. But the action of shooting someone is not intrinsically disordered, though it can be extrinsically so.

In any case, anyone seriously interested in this topic can find a wealth of material in Vatican
documents and those of the various English speaking Episcopal Conferences; and from a clinical perspective an enormous amount of material on the web.

Hadrianus,

In my experience the testing is something done by Psychologists and not necessarily Psychiatrists. I have a copy of the TAT and MMPI, the Rorsharch is available in a library and the answers are too. These tests can be studied and answered to suit the needs of the person being examined. I dispute that they are reliable. The TAT is subjective, the Rorsharch is subjective, MMPI is just a series of lie scales and category scales that as I said can be studied. I am not familiar with the MAPS.

The diagnosis of homosexuality was dropped because of Gay activists and implemented by Gay psyshciatrists…I previously posted the link and will post it again that explains ths.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

The problem with the Evelyn Hooker study

THE EVELYN HOOKER STUDY AND THE NORMALIZATION OF HOMOSEXUALITY

by Thomas Landess

Evelyn Hooker has been among the most influential figures in the highly successful movement to convince the American people that homosexuality is a “normal variant” of human sexual behavior. Her 1957 study, “The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual” (Journal of Projective Techniques, 1957, 21, 18-31) is the most frequently cited scientific source for the argument that homosexuality is not a pathology, that homosexuals are as free from mental disorder as heterosexuals.

Such assertions have not only found their way into standard psychology textbooks but have also provided a scientific basis for decisions in major court cases involving the legality of state sodomy laws and prohibitions against homosexual employment in certain state and local agencies (e.g., schools, police departments). Indeed, when the American Psychiatric Association debated the issue of homosexuality in 1973, Evelyn Hooker’s work was Exhibit A for those who wanted to remove homosexuality from the group’s list of mental disorders.

For many commentators and activists, the Hooker study effectively ended the debate over whether or not homosexuals were in any way abnormal in their relationships with each other and with the community at large. Today many Americans have accepted the idea that homosexuality is “normal” and “healthy” without realizing that such an opinion is derived in large measure from a single study – one conducted by a UCLA professor whose previous laboratory subjects had been rats.

In all this extravagant homage to Hooker and her study, several points have escaped her admirers, to say nothing of the federal courts:

1. In her 1957 report, Evelyn Hooker did not use a random sample to test the stability of homosexuals, but allowed gay rights activists to recruit those homosexuals most likely to illustrate her thesis that homosexuality is not a pathology. Individuals who proved unstable were deleted from the final sample.
2. Hooker’s published account of how she recruited heterosexual subjects is not consistent with a more detailed later account.
3. Six subjects in her study, three from each group, had engaged in both homosexual and heterosexual behavior beyond adolescence.
4. Hooker made several errors in her mathematical calculations that raise doubts about her care and competence as a researcher.
5. Hooker did not attempt to prove that homosexuals were normal in every way, nor does her study support the idea that homosexuals as a group are just as stable as heterosexuals.
6. Hooker was relatively inexperienced in administering the Rorschach test, and this inexperience may have led to mistakes in the administration and evaluation of the Rorschach.
7. On the Thematic Apperception Test and the Make-A-Picture-Story test – which require subjects to make up fictional narratives about depicted scenes – the homosexuals could not refrain from including homosexual fantasies in their imaginary accounts. For that reason, Hooker altered the nature of the study by no longer asking the judges to use the TAT and MAPS in an attempt to determine the sexual orientation of each of the 60 subjects, since the differences were apparent from the narratives.

In order to understand fully the nature of the controversy over Hooker’s study, it is helpful to review its history.

[Read the rest of document]
,

 

[CopticChristian]

The problem with the Evelyn Hooker study

THE EVELYN HOOKER STUDY AND THE NORMALIZATION OF HOMOSEXUALITY

by Thomas Landess

Evelyn Hooker has been among the most influential figures in the highly successful movement to convince the American people that homosexuality is a “normal variant” of human sexual behavior. Her 1957 study, “The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual” (Journal of Projective Techniques, 1957, 21, 18-31) is the most frequently cited scientific source for the argument that homosexuality is not a pathology, that homosexuals are as free from mental disorder as heterosexuals.

Such assertions have not only found their way into standard psychology textbooks but have also provided a scientific basis for decisions in major court cases involving the legality of state sodomy laws and prohibitions against homosexual employment in certain state and local agencies (e.g., schools, police departments). Indeed, when the American Psychiatric Association debated the issue of homosexuality in 1973, Evelyn Hooker’s work was Exhibit A for those who wanted to remove homosexuality from the group’s list of mental disorders.

For many commentators and activists, the Hooker study effectively ended the debate over whether or not homosexuals were in any way abnormal in their relationships with each other and with the community at large. Today many Americans have accepted the idea that homosexuality is “normal” and “healthy” without realizing that such an opinion is derived in large measure from a single study – one conducted by a UCLA professor whose previous laboratory subjects had been rats.

In all this extravagant homage to Hooker and her study, several points have escaped her admirers, to say nothing of the federal courts:

1. In her 1957 report, Evelyn Hooker did not use a random sample to test the stability of homosexuals, but allowed gay rights activists to recruit those homosexuals most likely to illustrate her thesis that homosexuality is not a pathology. Individuals who proved unstable were deleted from the final sample.
2. Hooker’s published account of how she recruited heterosexual subjects is not consistent with a more detailed later account.
3. Six subjects in her study, three from each group, had engaged in both homosexual and heterosexual behavior beyond adolescence.
4. Hooker made several errors in her mathematical calculations that raise doubts about her care and competence as a researcher.
5. Hooker did not attempt to prove that homosexuals were normal in every way, nor does her study support the idea that homosexuals as a group are just as stable as heterosexuals.
6. Hooker was relatively inexperienced in administering the Rorschach test, and this inexperience may have led to mistakes in the administration and evaluation of the Rorschach.
7. On the Thematic Apperception Test and the Make-A-Picture-Story test – which require subjects to make up fictional narratives about depicted scenes – the homosexuals could not refrain from including homosexual fantasies in their imaginary accounts. For that reason, Hooker altered the nature of the study by no longer asking the judges to use the TAT and MAPS in an attempt to determine the sexual orientation of each of the 60 subjects, since the differences were apparent from the narratives.

In order to understand fully the nature of the controversy over Hooker’s study, it is helpful to review its history.

[Read the rest of document]
,

InSearch,

So as I understand it you are saying that suggesting that homosexuals are normal is being proposed by a Hooker, whose first name is Evelyn. Is that correct?

 

[Gaber]

InSearch,

So as I understand it you are saying that suggesting that homosexuals are normal is being proposed by a Hooker, whose first name is Evelyn. Is that correct?

A that comment was made by a police mentality (cop) blood sucking insect that spreads disease (tic) who claims to embody Christan ethic?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

**That there may have been political pressure to do so is quite possible. **But that in itself would not have been decisive, had the medical evidence not been there.

Not may have been. There was political pressure and the board of the psychiatrist association caved. The pressure was from gay activists who wanted to change the DSM made possible by gay psychiatrists in the organization who played key roles to get the board to remove the stigmatizing label of mental illness attached to homosexuality.

I believe CopticChristian provided a link elsewhere of 81 Words which sheds the account as told to Alix Spiegel by her grandfather Dr. John Spiegel, then president-elect of the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 when the historic change took place. Here is another for facility to those following this thread, which leads to the actual transcript.

None of this is, however, of any relevance to the use of “disorder” by the Catholic Church.
In the language of Catholic moral theology “disordered” or “inordinata” refers to any sinful act. Some actions, such as contraceptive use, homosexual acts and masturbation are called “intrinsically disordered” because they can never have a good end, and thus are always sinful. As is adultery. On the other hand shooting someone, may be in self defense and thus not disordered at all, or it could be murder which is disordered. But the action of shooting someone is not intrinsically disordered, though it can be extrinsically so.

In any case, anyone seriously interested in this topic can find a wealth of material in Vatican
documents and those of the various English speaking Episcopal Conferences; and from a clinical perspective an enormous amount of material on the web.

True!
,