Modern science treating perverse habits
Posted on 12/08/2015 5:57:24 AM PST by wagglebee
December 7, 2015 (CrisisMagazine) -- Homosexuality is an issue that has been shaped by Western values, and is now front-and-center in almost every country and culture around the world, especially those societies influenced by secular humanism. But even more traditional societies, such as those in Africa, have not gone unaffected by it, given how social media shrinks our globe.
In polemics over homosexuality, Catholicism is often falsely accused of being both “homophobic” and “anti-science.” But the Catholic Church is far from being against science, a fact that can be seen by the large number of priests who have been top scientists, such as Georges Lemaître, who proposed the Big Bang theory, and Gregor Mendel, the father of modern genetics. In fact, the Church encourages the upright work of scientists in all fields. Simply reading what the Church officially teaches about science—today and historically—would easily confirm this positive view (e.g., see parts 1 and 2 of the Introduction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 1987 “Instruction,” Donum vitae).
Moreover, the Church shows respect for science in affirming that scientific inquiry proceeds according to its own particular laws and principles. Vatican Council II’s Gaudium et spes proclaimed that science has a legitimate autonomy (see 36 and 59). The recognition that science has a legitimate autonomy does not mean, however, that there are no moral principles it must respect. Indeed, the Church reminds scientists—many of whom are Catholic Christians and other persons of religious faith—that the integrity of their vocation and work depends on its conformity to moral truth and respect for the dignity of the human person.
The Church also warns of a reductionist account of the human person, e.g., reducing our understanding of the person to what can be known by means of the positivist scientific method alone. As much as we need the investigations carried out by modern science, we need reminding that science alone cannot answer every question. This is why it is so important for everyone to listen to the testimonies of those who consider themselves as having same-sex attraction (SSA). Of course, scientists too from relevant fields (e.g., genetics) should listen to that lived experience, as they have done. But other disciplines, such as philosophy, theology, and psychology—more humanistic in their approach and aims—should also be part of this listening and learning process.
This work is needed now more than ever. Our culture is greatly confused about the person, sex, marriage, and the family. Again, not exactly the newest of news! This confusion has only grown over the past several decades, especially in the West, as witnessed by the legalization of same-sex “marriage” in America and other countries. Yet the secular culture bullies the Church and others who might offer hope to persons with SSA seeking to live chastely and/or to change their sexual orientation in order to cease these efforts, even going so far as to legally ban “reparative therapy” for children and teenagers—”junk science,” they disparagingly call it.
At the same time, in utter contradiction, when individuals struggle with gender dysphoria, i.e., transgenderism or transsexualism, the culture often condemns those who merely raise questions about the advisability of the radical transformation of a man to a “woman” or a woman to a “man.” This “transitioning” can only be affirmed, never criticized, say the Thought Police, in this ideological atmosphere of selective non-judgmentalism.
This is why I believe that clinical psychology—at least one with a sound philosophical anthropology—is most advantageous. These clinicians actually work directly with individuals who suffer with SSA. Of all scientific professionals, the clinical psychologist is probably best situated to treat, as well as gain insights into, the homosexual/lesbian orientation. These therapists are the best suited for the task, because they are the most familiar with the struggles of these clients. They see the psychic wounds, and hear the often-tragic life stories of people who have been troubled by their same-gender sexual orientation. (Of course, family and close friends, priests and ministers, etc., are also often aware of these struggles, but are not usually involved in a professional therapeutic relationship with the person with SSA.)
They are also most attuned to, and willing to maintain, the “normal–abnormal” distinction when it comes to mental health. In some way, they have to uphold the distinction in order to help their patients: for they come face-to-face with it every day and see the negative effects of this abnormality. (I purposely avoid using the older terms employed in psychology and moral theology, “perversion” and “deviancy,” which, to me, imply a certain element of choice which the term “abnormal” can, of course, allow for, but does not explicitly indicate.)
This explains why I find the comment by the respected French priest-psychotherapist Tony Anatrella, who specializes in clinical and social psychology, so telling. In his 2006 essay in the Pontifical Council for the Family’s Lexicon titled “Homosexuality and Homophobia,” Anatrella observes that the view which denies there is a psychological problem at the root of homosexuality “does not correspond to the opinion of the majority of practitioners, who are forced to keep quiet so as not to be punished in the name of the politically correct orthodoxy in fashion” (p. 427; the first emphasis is mine).
This forced silence of those most familiar with SSA is not only deafening, it is destructive for those who suffer with the inclination. If homosexuality “corresponds to a sexual inclination that occurs during the affective development of the person but which is based on an unresolved psychological conflict,” as Anatrella argues, then we do an injustice to SSA persons who do not receive the best treatment they deserve.
In my observation, most physicians who treat bodily illnesses do not have a worked-out theory of human nature. They simply recognize from medical training and experience the difference between healthy and unhealthy functioning. In the area of psychotherapy, many therapists and counselors are in the same boat: they do not always have a theoretically detailed knowledge of human nature and mental illness, but rather an experiential understanding (a “working model”) gathered from their education and practice. Nonetheless, they know well a neurotic mind from a healthy mind.
Psychotropic drugs have worked miracles in restoring normal mental functioning in all sorts of troubled patients, e.g., those with schizophrenia, among others. The “pharmacological revolution,” as Francis Fukuyama has called it, coupled with the discovery of the biological basis of much mental disturbance, has enabled psychiatrists to work wonders treating patients with various debilitating afflictions of the mind having a biochemical basis. If cancer and schizophrenia are clear-cut cases of physical illness and mental illness, respectively, certain bodily ailments, however, remain mysterious in their origins and/or treatment. Such is true as well in the mental health field, where the interplay between nature and nurture or environment and choice is involved. I think of the issue in focus, i.e., homosexuality: its causes, cures, and cultural aspects. There are still many things we simply do not know, or do not know well enough.
Presupposing the historic truth of Christian teaching on homosexuality, there is, unfortunately, no drug available (as of yet!) that one could take in order to restore or create normal heterosexual functioning. Today, of course, the majority of psychologists and mental health care professionals deny that there is anything abnormal about homosexuality. Famously, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in the early 1970s. This was due primarily to political pressure more than anything having to do with the objective findings of an impartial psychiatric science (cf. Anatrella, p. 431).
My point here is that with sexual appetites or inclinations—whether heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual—we are faced with a complex phenomenon that exists on a wide spectrum. It has refused to be mastered by the methods of empirical science alone. Unlike many physical diseases, one cannot, as said, just give a person a drug: either to make him gay/make her lesbian, or to make this “gay” person heterosexual. (That is not to deny the possibility of a genetic component.)
Many of the clinical psychologists who treat patients seeking relief from their SSA have, in fact, a true assessment of this condition. They understand that the inability to establish a true marital relationship with a person of the opposite sex is harmful to the person with SSA. Without a one-flesh union, the possibility of a family—the very biological purpose of sex—is also obviously impeded. (Unless of course artificial reproductive techniques are used; but even then the natural family is still seriously compromised.) This is nothing less than a disability. To be precise, it is a psychological disorder before it is anything else. This disorder can impede the exercise of one’s freedom. To what degree we are not always certain. But we do know that it can lead to forms of behavior that are both physically and morally harmful, regardless of the matter of one’s responsibility for those behaviors. There’s nothing “homophobic” about saying that. The unwillingness of much of our culture, for whatever reasons, to admit this will, in fact, doom many SSA-afflicted men and women to lives of misery. You cannot help someone—and we all need help in dealing with our various moral and non-moral afflictions—you do not consider to be in need of help in the first place. True happiness is based on a realistic assessment of one’s own condition—the physical, mental, moral, spiritual, and intellectual aspects—and another’s.
But man-woman sexual complementarity is so fundamental and so obvious—literally rooted in our bodily and psychological make-up—that only sin-induced blindness could prevent us (and our culture) from acknowledging it. The loss of (human) nature has, in fact, blocked many persons from seeing this anthropological fact as a fact. Our postmodern culture likes to think of itself as having moved beyond such “outdated” ideas as truth, reality, objectivity, identity, absolutes, and so on. Everything now is, as the saying goes, “socially constructed.” And that includes such givens as nature, sex, and gender.
But without the acceptance of such created-by-God givens as these, we really have no stable and universal standard for determining if we have attained authentic progress, or pseudo-progress (cf. St. John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 53). Everything, then, exists in flux without a fixed point of reference for evaluating changes and developments in politics, culture, science, medicine, ethics, and so on. In healthcare, including mental healthcare, notions such as normal and abnormal, sick and healthy, are basic and essential to the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of pathology. Part of the effectiveness of the care—not only psychological, but also pastoral, and so on—offered to homosexually-inclined persons depends on (re)affirming (often in the face of opposition!) these fundamental givens of our human nature.
Reprinted with permission from Crisis Magazine.
That sums it up perfectly.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Already a violation of law in California and several other states.
Homosexuality will always be with us. What worked in the past was rigorous social repression of the worst aspects of male homosexuality. It is the celebration of it in today’s modern world that has led to a variety of problems.
People are too proud though.
Modern science treating perverse habits
I have tried to argue, with my Lib friends and family members, that ‘if homosexuality is, in fact, normal, then without scientific intervention, our species would die out’. No one ever has a comeback against that. I do find that arguing the religious aspects of homosexuality falls on deaf ears with them (they really don’t care what Christianity dictates)......but Libs pride themselves on respecting the ‘Laws of Nature’.
When cultures celebrate the perversions—the perversions will explode—because you warp all children inside toxic cultures-—like Nero’s days where he put on plays where he literally castrated boys and married his homosexual orgy buddies.
The Afghanis/Saudis (Shoebat) “think” sodomizing harems of boys is “good” and so it is a homosexual culture like the brutal Samurai/Spartan cultures-—since all boys grow up learning to lust and desire boys, men, goats, etc., and hate and mutilate women.
Virtue is learned and habituated in childhood-—if NOT learned and habit—then the culture will dissolve. Homosexuality is the result of a non-rational, evil culture. The irrational, vile acts on others remove dignity from human beings—which is just domination and never “love” or “rational” or “good”. Elimination of sexual morality is the Marxist/Freudian plan to destroy Christianity-—erase the worldview which creates Freedom. Vice is Slavery only-—always was and always will be. You can never be free if vice is promoted in the culture. That is why we have a Justice System-—not a Vice System (until abortion was “legal”—lol)
All behavior is learned and habituated-—and child abuse/sexualization causes warped perversions. Children who have these unnatural desires are warped/abused in childhood.
Worldview is created by formative years——the desires/attitudes will determine what they “desire”——by their early REAL life experiences-—but most are ARTIFICIAL and formed by perverts (the satanic Hollywood sodomites).
Yes-—the APA was taken over by sodomites in the 70s—to normalize their evil vile use of others. Homosexual “desires” have been successfully treated by good psychologists. It is possible to change the soul/desires/thoughts——it is called Christianity but that is why it is the only faith banned in the public square/schools.
The elites are forcing Evil to be Good in the minds of children-—to make slaves of the masses-—dumb ignorant drones-—Christianity created the Age of Reason and Modern Science and Classical Education (so people could “think”) so it HAS to go-—it is why the elites are flooding ignorant evil people into this nation-—to destroy the remnants of Christian culture.
Can’t argue with the article’s premise that homosexuality is a mental illness.
Pre politically correct <1970 APA believed that was so in their DSM manual.
The Catholic Church could take a leadership role and treat the many thousands of homosexuality priests within its ranks to reverse homosexual appetite.
It would be a win-win for both parishioners and church alike!
The article went off the rails at this point. Clinical psychology has helped NO ONE, because its premise on humanity is fatally flawed.
No-—Marxist and irrational atheists actually throw out the Laws of Nature because if they don’t-—they have to include the Lawmaker—God.
The Design in Naturel proves a Designer and is why Newton and all Modern Scientists were Christian—because they could actually apply mathematics to the Laws of Nature (because of Design).
Steven Meyer states it much better than I can-—but Right Reason and the “Justice ‘ (virtue) System of the USA is ONLY based on Reason/God’s Laws which St. Thomas Aquinas proved were the same (God’s Works/God’s Word) where there was no contradiction.
All irrational people/cultures/religions don’t have the Law of Non-Constradiction. Think about it-—Marxist want utopia-—it is irrational with human beings——they want radical egalitarianism where mother and father is eliminated-—is pure dehumanization—destroying the mother-nurture which is what makes us capable of being “human”. Homosexuals want to validate warped desires-—for degrading acts which eliminate meaning and dignity in human beings.-—all promote Vice—evil, vile uses of human beings which defy Reason, Natural Law and God’s Laws.
All Marxists/atheists/islamists—etc. are irrational and throw out Right Reason and the Laws of Nature——they all want to be god and determine good and evil.
Not so much my Lib relatives/friends. They believe in Gaia.....and that there isn’t evil, just misunderstandings. They are good soldiers of Obama, et al. They cannot though figure out how to dispute the ‘Laws of Nature’ in regards to homosexuality.
Dr. Mark S. Latkovic is a very brave man. When the next-generation concentration camps are open for business he will be one of the first ones marched through the gates.
Agreed.
Inputs and outputs.
Homosexuality CAN be a moral issue, in that an otherwise heterosexual person decides to become a tri-sexual, in they will ‘try anything once’.
However, there is a mountain of science that indicates some homosexuality occurring ‘organically’. Kid grows up, good home, normal upbringing, not attracted to females, fights it their whole lives, ends up realizing they are homosexual and DESPERATELY WANTS TO CHANGE.
The eyes see things and the nose smells things, and the body responds inappropriately. That’s a medical condition, and not a moral one. It is specifically an electrochemical neural disorder that is worth scientific research and medical intervention.
Familiar with synesthesia? You see a color and it involuntarily causes your body to perceive it is smelling something. Red could cause you to smell pine oil. Blue like licorice.
I can’t think of a better institution with the resource available to study this issue. What if Catholic research could cure both homosexuality and pedophilia, or classes of these two conditions?
My opinion is that if they can figure out why otherwise normal people are attracted to either children or the same sex, and that research leads to an effective mitigation for it, why wouldn’t you approve of that effort.
I’m sure you’ve heard the joke about the guy on the roof in the flood, right? Guy comes by in a big truck to take him off the roof, but he waves the man off saying, “The Good Lord will take care of me. I’ll be OK.”
As the water rises past the top of the windows, another man comes by in a boat and asks the man to climb down into it. The guy on the roof waves him off and shouts over the din of the wind, “I’ll be fine, the Good Lord will take care of me.”
He started getting nervous, however, as the water was only two feet from the crest of his roof. Just then a USCG helicopter appears out of the rain and lowers a harness to pull him up. He hesitates, but waves off the chopper shouting, “I’LL BE FINE, THE GOOD LORD WILL TAKE CARE OF ME!!”
Not long after the flummoxed crew disappeared from site did the dam give way and sweep our faithful hero off his roof. He was carried down the valley that was already flooded, smack into a set of transmission lines that were still powered and it electrocuted him so violently he split open like an overboiled hot dog.
Fortunately, he didn’t feel much, and he floated away from his singed, bloated, burned and split open body still steaming in the torrential rain up toward the white light of salvation.
He found himself in a vast, open space. There was a single man there to greet him, and welcome him to Heaven. But the man was shaken, hurt, and angry at having been forsaken by God in his time of need.
The man, sensing his question, abandoned his kind demeanor and admonished this poor confused soul.
“Child, we sent you a truck, a boat, and a helicopter. It’s a good thing for you all that’s required is you accept the perfect gift of the salvation of the risen Christ, or you’d have had a far different experience than the one you are having now.”
Maybe the Catholics are building a boat. If so, more power too them. They are the only institution that could sithstand the onslaught of grief they will generate in even attempting such a thing.
“This is nothing less than a disability. To be precise, it is a psychological disorder before it is anything else. This disorder can impede the exercise of one’s freedom. To what degree we are not always certain.”
Someone finally had to say and we need to accept that homosexuality is a disability. Until we are to accept that fact, treatment and policy development towards homosexuality under the Americans with Disabilities Act will never be enacted.
I prefer repression. Not cruelty but making it socially unacceptable to be a open homosexual as it certainly was in the 19th century. Even if there was a cure, many of today’s homosexuals would refuse to be treated. They like being gay and being a poke in the eye to society.
You prefer repression to exploring any other possibly more effective means of allowing those that WANT TO CHANGE to do so?
Ever seen homosexuals go through that, ones that desperately want to change? Not only is it extremely difficult, it is in most cases very much less than effective. There was a day when people believed lepers lived outside the grace of God.
Your point, that there will always be some that CHOOSE to be homosexual is, of course, correct. Does that fact somehow impose some sort of moral barrier to finding a cure for other people afflicted by this who WANT to change?
In cases where NATURE is the issue, and not NURTURE, and not DEPRAVITY, I believe all people have the right to pursue a cure for what afflicts them. Legally, I actually think this freedom to pursue a cure is tied back into our inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. Currently, the right of two homosexuals to be ‘happy’ trumps the right of a child to the love of either a mother or a father in their upbringing.
I am stupefied by the arrogance of same-sex couples in just waving off anyone that tries to ask them about whether they are OK with deciding for the child that they don’t get to have a mother. “They’re adopted! They are lucky to have anyone caring for them at all!!”
I admit being particularly pleased to watch lesbians grapple with the question. “Are you implying you as women can provide what a man can as a father? If so, you are also implying that a man can provide what a female can as a mother, right?” You want to talk about depravity - being forced to grow up around that as normal.
For all the grief Catholics take, it cannot be denied that they learned from the Reformation, and they learned from the Galileo debacle. Not many institutions, or individuals, learn from their mistakes.
Again, if the Catholics pursued something like this and prevailed (or didn’t?), why wouldn’t every Bible-believing Christian, or ignorant/arrogant atheist/agnostic for that matter, not support something like that?
Look, if some scientific cure is found for homosexuality, I would have no objection. Why would I? But I think that repression of one aberrant behavior can actually bring about the repression of other aberrant behaviors. And God knows there are more problems out there besides homosexuality!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.