Jaime Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 The obvious mistake of drawing in Veritatis Splendor is that when JPII is talking about behavioral sciences, ethics and morals, he is talking about sinful behavior and actions, not attraction or inclination. He is rightfully defending the Church against moral relativism. The psychology of a person is far greater than behavioral. JPII states that normality itself bears the traces of original sin. We are all burdened with that. It applies to us all. Yet many of us can be deemed mentally healthy. Psychology does use a flawed benchmark for what is "normal" for all of us. Then it assesses to what degree someone falls even further away from what is construed as normal. But normal is not the appropriate term to be used. Mentally healthy people are often times not "normal". A person with a genius IQ is not normal but can be mentally healthy. You make the leap from objectively disordered to being mentally disordered. Yet the Church doesn't. Also it would be even more logical to take the step from objectively or intrinsically disordered to intrinsically evil. But the Church does not do that either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 [quote name='hot stuff' post='986517' date='May 21 2006, 11:24 AM'] The obvious mistake of drawing in Veritatis Splendor is that when JPII is talking about behavioral sciences, ethics and morals, he is talking about sinful behavior and actions, not attraction or inclination. He is rightfully defending the Church against moral relativism. The psychology of a person is far greater than behavioral. JPII states that normality itself bears the traces of original sin. We are all burdened with that. It applies to us all. Yet many of us can be deemed mentally healthy. Psychology does use a flawed benchmark for what is "normal" for all of us. Then it assesses to what degree someone falls even further away from what is construed as normal. But normal is not the appropriate term to be used. Mentally healthy people are often times not "normal". A person with a genius IQ is not normal but can be mentally healthy. You make the leap from objectively disordered to being mentally disordered. Yet the Church doesn't. Also it would be even more logical to take the step from objectively or intrinsically disordered to intrinsically evil. But the Church does not do that either. [/quote] Homosexual desires are an objective disorder of the mind ([i]psyche[/i]) and will. In other words, they are a psychological disorder resulting from the fall of man. Thus, it is abnormal for a man to desire to have sex with another man, and this abnormality is a psychological condition, and has been called by the Magisterium itself, a "pathological constitution" when it perdures over time. hot stuff, I am concerned that you appear to be unable to admit this to the case. In fact, your unwillingness to admit this is distressing to say the least, because it is a doctrine of the Church that the homosexual condition is an objective disorder of the mind and will, and so far all you have done is talk about "statistics" and other irrelevant matters in order to try and deflect my criticism of your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 [quote]I am concerned that you appear to be unable to admit this to the case. In fact, your unwillingness to admit this is distressing to say the least, because it is a doctrine of the Church that the homosexual condition is an objective disorder of the mind and will, and so far all you have done is talk about "statistics" and other irrelevant matters in order to try and deflect my criticism of your position. [/quote] Ap I have admitted to and shown everything that is true and factual, not conjecture. Normal and mentally healthy are not necessarily synonomous. The Church makes no such correlation yet this is the premise of your position. I have stated in my very first post the Church's position on this. I've said it is objectively and intrinsically disordered. And while the desire is not deemed normal, a homosexual can be mentally healthy. You and others faultily leap from normal to healthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 [quote name='hot stuff' post='986517' date='May 21 2006, 11:24 AM'] [. . .] A person with a genius IQ is not normal but can be mentally healthy. [. . .] [/quote] This is a [i]non sequitur[/i], because no one would ever say that a man with a genius IQ is objectively disordered in his intelligence, or that his intelligence is unnatural. Moreover, you are comparing a good (i.e., intelligence), to something that is not good (i.e., an objective disorder that is ". . . a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil.") [CDF Instruction [u]Homosexualitatis Problema[/u], no. 3] The homosexual condition is a disorder of the mind that frustrates the sexual complimentarity of man and woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 [quote name='hot stuff' post='986536' date='May 21 2006, 12:55 PM'] [. . . ] a homosexual can be mentally healthy. You and others faultily leap from normal to healthy. [/quote] A man suffering from this disorder is not healthy as far as his sexual development is concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 [quote name='Apotheoun' post='986546' date='May 21 2006, 03:20 PM'] A man suffering from this disorder is not healthy as far as his sexual development is concerned. [/quote] That should be prefaced with "In my opinion" because that is all it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 [quote name='hot stuff' post='986547' date='May 21 2006, 01:35 PM'] That should be prefaced with "In my opinion" because that is all it is. [/quote] No, it is not simply my opinion, because the Church teaches that the homosexual inclination is an objective disorder. Your position mirrors that of Sister Jeannine Gramick in many ways. The homosexual condition is an objective disorder of the mind that frustrates the proper complimentarity of man and woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 documentation seems fitting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 [quote name='Apotheoun' post='986551' date='May 21 2006, 03:48 PM'] No, it is not simply my opinion, because the Church teaches that the homosexual inclination is an objective disorder. Your position mirrors that of Sister Jeannine Gramick in many ways. The homosexual condition is an objective disorder of the mind that frustrates the proper complimentarity of man and woman. [/quote] It is your opinion when you transfer objective disorder to that of a mental disorder. So answer this one for me Todd, If homosexual desires are a mental disorder because its intrinsically disordered? Then do people who lust have a mental disorder? Because the Church provides no distinction between objectively disordered desires. Can you state with the same assuredness that anyone who lusts has a mental disorder? And if I were you I'd back off comparing me to people silenced by the Church. I have not stated ANYTHING that is contrary to Church teachings. You are way out of line. And you know that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 [quote name='hot stuff' post='986595' date='May 21 2006, 04:49 PM'] It is your opinion when you transfer objective disorder to that of a mental disorder. So answer this one for me Todd, If homosexual desires are a mental disorder because its intrinsically disordered? Then do people who lust have a mental disorder? Because the Church provides no distinction between objectively disordered desires. Can you state with the same assuredness that anyone who lusts has a mental disorder? And if I were you I'd back off comparing me to people silenced by the Church. I have not stated ANYTHING that is contrary to Church teachings. You are way out of line. And you know that [/quote] Lust is an addiction to sex, often sick unnatural perverted "sex". An addiction is a metal disorder a sickness of the mind. Homosexual sex is a sick unnatural and perverted act. There is no need to go in to detail but someone (men more than anyone) whom invisions or partakes in having homosexual "sex" has a disordered mind, as well as soul. Apotheoun has spoken truth, you have falled to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 [quote name='hot stuff' post='986149' date='May 20 2006, 08:02 PM'] The one thing you've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt is that you don't bother reading what I've posted prior to hitting the quote button. What did I say? ORIGINALLY (I'll type it big so you don't miss it this time ) psychology did not consider homosexuality as a disorder. That (the idea that it was not a disorder) was REJECTED in the 40s. The founding father of psychology, Freud, did not consider homosexuals to be mentally unstable. That perception CHANGED in the 40s. Then it REVERSED in 1973. Read Socrates. Breathe and read.[/quote] I have read your posts, and this part was not clearly stated. Read over what you've written. "That" appeared to refer to the idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder. My apologies for misunderstanding what specifically that sentence refered to, but I'm still not convinced. Hardly anyone considered homosexuality a healthy, sane condition prior to the '40s. In fact, that very notion would be regarded as shocking at that time. I may be wrong, but didn't Freud himself consider homosexuality to result from problems with one's childhood relations with one's father or mother? [quote] Were there protests? Yes. I haven't ever denied that. But as you can see by the STUDY I quoted, it was not lobby pressure that changed the ruling. It was statistical evidence. However the dozens of studies done will not sway one like you to believe that while the homosexual lobby had little power to change anything in the 70s, they were able to bully the APA. But just for giggles. Try coming up with a logical coherent answer for this. Why would the APA succumb to the homosexual lobby? What would they lose if they had kept the DSM listing of Same Sex Attraction Disorder? What would they gain from it? Kaufman never addressed that. Perhaps you can shed some light.[/quote] One word: politics. Psychologists/psychiatrists as a group tend to be politically liberal (this has been documented in surveys), and they probably decided that keeping homosexuality on the DSM list was probably not worth facing constant harrassment from the "gay" crowd. And the sexually libertine philosophy (including "tolerance" for homosexuality) was very much part of the socially "progressive" zeitgiest of the times. Assuming that a public organization like the APA is totally immune from politics is extremely naive, to say the least. [quote]And again. Mentally healthy people can sin. Homosexuals can be mentally unhealthy. But being homosexual doesn't make them mentally unhealthy. [/quote] This is where you are most seriously wrong. No one is arguing here that homosexuals are significantly more likely than "straight" folks to have other psychosis, such as believing they are Napoleon Bonaparte, or having regular conversations with little green men, if that is what you are getting at. The very condition of homosexual attraction [b]in iteslf[/b] is mentally disordered, falling under conditions defined by the the DSM: [quote]Section 302 said, in part: "This category is for individuals whose sexual interests are directed primarily towards objects other than people of the opposite sex, toward sexual acts...performed under bizarre circumstances...Even though many find their practices distasteful, they remain unable to substitue normal sexual behavior for them."[/quote] Homosexuality clearly falls into this category. (As do condtitions such as pedophilia, necrophilia, zoophilia, and various other fetishes - you have still [b]failed to give any explanation[/b] for why homosexuality is mentally healthy, while these other conditions are not!) Homosexual acts are disordered in themselves (as the Church plainly teaches, and as reason asserts) - and thus a mental inclination toward these acts must be considered mentally disordered. It is a disordering of one's sexuality and of properly relating to others as male and female. Todd (Apotheoun) has explained this quite clearly. You have given absolutely no explanation whatsoever as to why you consider a desire to perform same-sex sodomistic acts a mentally healthy and well-ordered condition (other than appealing to the authority of the APA). The only people who claim it as such are those who see no problem with homosexual acts themselves. (The APA takes its stance in order to bar psychologists from helping people overcome their homosexual "orientation.) That a "Catholic" should be arguing this way is profoundly disturbing and wrong. It is placing a secular-liberal "anything goes" view of human sexuality over the Catholic view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 [quote name='hot stuff' post='986595' date='May 21 2006, 04:49 PM'] It is your opinion when you transfer objective disorder to that of a mental disorder. So answer this one for me Todd, If homosexual desires are a mental disorder because its intrinsically disordered? Then do people who lust have a mental disorder? Because the Church provides no distinction between objectively disordered desires. Can you state with the same assuredness that anyone who lusts has a mental disorder? And if I were you I'd back off comparing me to people silenced by the Church. I have not stated ANYTHING that is contrary to Church teachings. You are way out of line. And you know that [/quote] The Church has traditionally made a distinction between sins of "natural" lust (between a man and woman) and "unnatural lust" (sins of homosexuality, etc.) Both were considered sinful, but unnatural vice was considered more seriously disordered. St. Thomas Aquinas writes in the [i]Summa Theologica[/i], Question 154, Article 12, "Whether the unnatural vice is the greatest sin among the species of lust?": [quote]On the contrary, Augustine says (De adult. conjug. [*The quotation is from Cap. Adulterii xxxii, qu. 7. Cf. Augustine, De Bono Conjugali, viii.]) that "of all these," namely the sins belonging to lust, "that which is against nature is the worst." I answer that, In every genus, worst of all is the corruption of the principle on which the rest depend. Now the principles of reason are those things that are according to nature, because reason presupposes things as determined by nature, before disposing of other things according as it is fitting. This may be observed both in speculative and in practical matters. Wherefore just as in speculative matters the most grievous and shameful error is that which is about things the knowledge of which is naturally bestowed on man, so in matters of action it is most grave and shameful to act against things as determined by nature. Therefore, since by the unnatural vices man transgresses that which has been determined by nature with regard to the use of venereal actions, it follows that in this matter this sin is gravest of all. After it comes incest, which, as stated above (Article [9]), is contrary to the natural respect which we owe persons related to us.[/quote] [url="http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/SS/SS154.html#SSQ154A12THEP1"](Full text here)[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 "Behavior Science" is not a science. So many factors influence behavior it is impossilble to be "behavior science". For something to be a science there must be strict control of variables that affect the subject, and it must be repeatable. Fact: Homosexuality is a behavior disorder that is developed. Fact: There are many factors that develop an individual's attraction The article Homosexuality and Hope is the most sane and informative document on the issue of same sex attracion. [quote]"Statistics" --- anyone can say anything with statistics. People will get what they measure. Torture numbers, and they'll confess to anything. ~Gregg Easterbrook 98% of all statistics are made up. ~Author Unknown Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. ~Aaron Levenstein Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable. ~Author Unknown There are three kinds of lies - lies, damned lies and statistics. ~Benjamin Disraeli He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts - for support rather than for illumination. ~Andrew Lang Do not put your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say. ~William W. Watt Satan delights equally in statistics and in quoting scripture.... ~H.G. Wells The average human has one breast and one testicle. ~Des McHale[/quote] Putting social justice before human life and family life is against Catholic teachings. According to the Church. ([url="http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html#7"]ref[/url]) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benedict_x Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Yay! We're still taking abt homos after all this time! Good to know things never change here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 [quote]The Church has traditionally made a distinction between sins of "natural" lust (between a man and woman) and "unnatural lust" (sins of homosexuality, etc.) Both were considered sinful, but unnatural vice was considered more seriously disordered. [/quote] Feel free to demonstrate where the Church distinguishes between different "levels" of intrinsically disorder. But that isn't the really the point. You Ap and others argue that because its intrinsically disordered, it has to be a mental disorder. Yet you give a pass for lust. And you've said [quote]Homosexual acts are disordered in themselves (as the Church plainly teaches, and as reason asserts) - and thus a mental inclination toward these acts must be considered mentally disordered.[/quote] Lust is objectively disordered. Acting out on lust is objectively disordered. So you have to argue that anyone who lusts has a mental disorder. That logic doesn't work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts