Aloysius Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 I am very sympathetic to both sides of this debate and find it quite interesting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 [quote name='hot stuff' date='Jul 14 2005, 10:55 PM']Oh we're just getting warmed up Don. But this was the deal. I provided the documentation that the Church recognizes the contributions made. You can rephrase your challenge if you want. But how about backing up your opinions with some documentation? Where are the Church documents that reject psychology? [right][snapback]644091[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I already have, I have made point after point of the Church rejecting Materialism with regards to the mind, you have made no response to any of them. Now if You want to say that some psychology rejects Materialism, it rejects that personhood is in the Brain-- ( or in any material object) and accepts that the Mind is immaterial. Then do that, please tell me where I can read about this branch of Psychology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted July 23, 2005 Author Share Posted July 23, 2005 First glad you're feeling better. Second of all you have provided no documents whatsover. Where are they? I've quoted Church documents that while give warning about the appropriate uses of psychology, acknowledged that there were "irrefutable truths" learned by the science. I've quoted documents that showed where the Church was incorporating psychology in the training of our priests. Documentation [quote]The Church recognizes the contrabutions of the field of psychology --agian REALLY please point me to [b]the document in which THE CHURCH and not a member of it does so[/b]. I will get back to you with documents which reject Psychology's givens.[/quote] When I do that you rephrase the question. [quote]So I will rephrase my earlier challenge can you provide a document which recognizes POSITIVE contrabutions of the Field of psychology,[/quote] The use of psychology in the training of priests goes directly to that. You respond "JPII was wrong" Not good enough. Just because you don't like what the Church has said, doesn't make it true. Yet you have yet to provide any Church documentation to demonstrate that the Church rejects the practice of psychology. I've actually quoted from the documents most critical yet still accepts the practice. All you've offered is opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 [quote name='hot stuff' date='Jul 23 2005, 03:57 PM']First glad you're feeling better. Second of all you have provided no documents whatsover. Where are they? I've quoted Church documents that while give warning about the appropriate uses of psychology, acknowledged that there were "irrefutable truths" learned by the science. I've quoted documents that showed where the Church was incorporating psychology in the training of our priests. Documentation When I do that you rephrase the question. The use of psychology in the training of priests goes directly to that. You respond "JPII was wrong" Not good enough. Just because you don't like what the Church has said, doesn't make it true. Yet you have yet to provide any Church documentation to demonstrate that the Church rejects the practice of psychology. I've actually quoted from the documents most critical yet still accepts the practice. All you've offered is opinion. [right][snapback]655973[/snapback][/right] [/quote] JPII was not and is not[b] the Church[/b], the above document was not a Statement as the Head of the Church anymore than his books where, don't over blow it. If we are going to play the " a pope said it that means it is the Church saying it" game then you really aren't going to like how this arrgument turns out. Pope Paul VI was condemning it in the post you made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted July 23, 2005 Author Share Posted July 23, 2005 (edited) [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jul 23 2005, 04:29 PM']JPII was not and is not[b] the Church[/b], the above document was not a Statement as the Head of the Church anymore than his books where, don't over blow it. If we are going to play the " a pope said it that means it is the Church saying it" game then you really aren't going to like how this arrgument turns out. Pope Paul VI was condemning it in the post you made. [right][snapback]656006[/snapback][/right] [/quote] No a pope can say it and SEMINARIES PUT IT INTO ACTION is quite different than JPII saying "Psychology is good". Who assigns the cirriculum for the seminaries anyway? Could it be the bishops? You wanted documentation. It isn't an infallible document. It is an document reflecting what the Church put into action in their seminaries. Therefore it answers your request. Edited July 23, 2005 by jaime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted July 23, 2005 Author Share Posted July 23, 2005 Also you ignore in Paul's apparent "condemnation" of psychology he says (and I will quote again [quote]that we must respect the scientific contributions which it makes to the study of the religious problem, [b]with arguments drawn from unquestionable sciences such as psychology and sociology[/b];...[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jul 23 2005, 02:06 PM']I believe he has already stated what his qualifications where, so stating he has no qualifications is not factually correct, nor is it appropriate since unless you know Ironmonk personally you really don't know what his qualifications regarding anthing, simularly I have not seen Carrie's degree, nor Jamie's ,they could both be lying about having "qualifications" and who would know-- we are on the internet. Jamie and Carrie I am not acccusing you of anything just pointing out the stupidity of the " you aren't qualified statement". Personaly I think a doctorate in psycology qualifies you for nothing more than janitorial work at the stockyard but that is just my opinion. [right][snapback]655810[/snapback][/right] [/quote] As far a hot stuff's degrees go, I have seen them. They are lovely, by the way. And he is more than qualified to speak about this issue. That was not only rude and insensitive, but intollerably crass and defeating. Your arrogance is only matched by your intolerance. I would hope that you apologize for making such a disgusting statement. Why would anyone lie? There is no need. I didn't know that this was a popularity contest. Incidentally, what qualifies you to judge hot stuff, Carrie, or anyone else's education. That is a sad commentary......sad, sad, sad..... I am just curious, how am I supposed to know, for certain that you are a man and that Ironmonk's name is really Max? I mean this the internet and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pio Nono Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 JMJ 7/23 - St. Apollinaris of Ravenna [quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 23 2005, 05:17 PM']As far a hot stuff's degrees go, I have seen them. They are lovely, by the way. And he is more than qualified to speak about this issue. That was not only rude and insensitive, but intollerably crass and defeating. Your arrogance is only matched by your intolerance. I would hope that you apologize for making such a disgusting statement. Why would anyone lie? There is no need. I didn't know that this was a popularity contest. Incidentally, what qualifies you to judge hot stuff, Carrie, or anyone else's education. That is a sad commentary......sad, sad, sad..... I am just curious, how am I supposed to know, for certain that you are a man and that Ironmonk's name is really Max? I mean this the internet and all. [right][snapback]656029[/snapback][/right] [/quote] w00t w00t! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilroy the Ninja Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 23 2005, 05:17 PM']As far a hot stuff's degrees go, I have seen them. They are lovely, by the way. And he is more than qualified to speak about this issue. That was not only rude and insensitive, but intollerably crass and defeating. Your arrogance is only matched by your intolerance. I would hope that you apologize for making such a disgusting statement. Why would anyone lie? There is no need. I didn't know that this was a popularity contest. Incidentally, what qualifies you to judge hot stuff, Carrie, or anyone else's education. That is a sad commentary......sad, sad, sad..... I am just curious, how am I supposed to know, for certain that you are a man and that Ironmonk's name is really Max? I mean this the internet and all. [right][snapback]656029[/snapback][/right] [/quote] What part of "Jamie and Carrie I am not acccusing you of anything just pointing out the stupidity of the " you aren't qualified statement". " didn't you understand? And while I'm almost certain you are correct about hot stuff's degrees, DJ has a point...this is the internet, anybody can be anyone they want to be. We've already had our share of that sort of thing here - people pretending to be what they weren't - WAY before ya'll came along. It's good that you can vouch of hot stuff, and vice versa. I most certainly can vouch that Don John is a man. So can dUSt. And inDEED, and most of Point 5 Covenant, and Sarah, and dUSt's wife, and Winchester, and XavierBlaise, and MC Just and a couple of other people here I've probably missed. "Why would anyone lie?" Huh. Wow. Gosh, I dunno. Ya'll are the psychologists. The simple answer would be, "Because they can". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilroy the Ninja Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 And as an aside, Don John is an [i]educator[/i], a [i]teacher[/i] and therefore imminently qualified to judge a person's education. It's kinda what he does for a living... judging people's educations, determining what they need to know about the subjects he's teaching.. that sort of thing. But really that's kind of off-topic. Back on track people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 I think that was a rude statement and this thread needs to be closed. You don't need to be almost certain of hot stuff's degree, you can be certain. The PhD. statement was completely inappropriate and rude and following the criteria you established yesterday, we need to see some consistency. Honestly, if you can explain how these statements were any less rude, and therefore acceptable, I would love to hear it, otherwise, I think that the standard should which all should be adhered. No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 23 2005, 08:19 PM']I think that was a rude statement and this thread needs to be closed. You don't need to be almost certain of hot stuff's degree, you can be certain. The PhD. statement was completely inappropriate and rude and following the criteria you established yesterday, we need to see some consistency. Honestly, if you can explain how these statements were any less rude, and therefore acceptable, I would love to hear it, otherwise, I think that the standard should which all should be adhered. No? [right][snapback]656147[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I concur. I'm not picking sides in this debate, but Don John's original remarks towards hot stuff were incredibly rude, and would have been censored, rather than defended, had they been made by any other individual. I know this will proabably stir up bad blood, but I just thought I'd speak out honestly about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 the part about a psychology degree qualifying you for nothing more than a janitorial job was insulting, and "rude and insensitive, ...intollerably crass and defeating." however, the point about the degrees should not be taken with offence, as he was not accusing anyone of anything just pointing out the fact that he doesn't know hot stuff or carrie... just pointing out the fact that you can't discount Ironmonk just because he hasn't claimed to have a degree in psychology. I don't think the thread should be closed, cause it is an interesting topic (that I still can't pick sides on cause my head's still spinning ... i'm especially interested in DJ's point about seminary formation since it is quite obvious to me that ever since we've had psychological formation there seems to be increasing amounts of priests that are spiritually mature... and it worries me that this is possibly due to an overly materialistic evaluation of their seminary formation) when people aren't throwing around insults at other people's hard earned degrees and the professions they devote their lives to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Angelak Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 Who knows if my post will actually be read. My opinion of therapy has nothing to do with the faith. It has to do with my experience with therapy. Yea, there are Catholic therapists who will be like "ok I disagree with this and this and this thing that physcology teaches because they're opposed to the Church." But my experience is that they really just learn some professional stereotypes of people. "Oh you fit in this category. Try this this and this." People are way too complex than that. Meanwhile people so blindly trust it that others are afraid to give you advice because they're not professionals. I've gone to counciling for a number of reasons. It always ends up focusing on my self esteeme. "you need to build yourself up." The problem is that they give you a temporary solution. It works only if you're going to continue living in your pride. So long as what you deem as making yourself valuable as things you've succeeded at and qualities you think make yourself a better person, whenever you fail to be who you think you ought to be, it hurts your self esteem. They do not understand the value of humility and in Catholic counciling cases, they like to seperate between "well that's a different humility. Its ok. God doesn't want you to hate yourself." Well no of course he doesn't. But its your pride that makes you hate yourself and despair and not be satisfied with who God has made you. Its humility that accepts your weaknesses...that its not just admits them, but is content with God's plan and creation of who they are while meanwhile being willing and excited to grow without growing impatient. Counciling totally has that backwards and some of learning humility is just learning to think about others, serving others rather than sitting there moping about your problems and thinking "I gotta fix myself." We are selfish people. On the other hand, there are seriously ill patients who need counciling just to get through their daily lives. But counciling doesn't heal a person. For those who have difficulty understanding themselves, it may help them. I have friends who are in the field and I won't argue with them too much about it. I just know that I tend to dumbfound my physcologists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts