Dr. Judith Reisman, Advises Catholic Church to Sue the Sex Experts for Medical Malpractice

Catholic C itizens of Illinois ^

[saradippity]

There is much propaganda in our society to counter,and both branches of Christianity should turn their attention to it.

Thanks and amen!! Can you ping any of your cohorts,it is a very informative read.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Wish i could, being new here, i am ignorant of the method. Unfortunately, i have no idea just who my cohorts are at this time.

In respect to the article, in a manner of speaking, you Catholics can consider youselves blessed...You didn't have to deal with the Satanic Ritual Abuse nonsense of about a decade ago. Although that was primarily a Charismatic Hoax, we Protestants have for years been forced to deal with the fact that 98% of Protestant religious programming comes from a branch of Protestantism that is only 23% of the whole. You have no idea of how hard it is to deal with the excesses of the Trinity Broadcasting Network, the 700 Club (always thought that was Ruth and Aaron :-}), and PTL among others. i could almost sarcastically say that now you guys are getting a taste of what we have been getting for the past 15 or so years, but it isn't funny, and it wasn't funny for us either. Still, this is an article that most Protestants will find interesting. BTW, didn't the authur once work for the Kinsey Institute? i seem to remember a name close to that in the amusements sections of the Sunday papers back in the 70's. It was called the Kinsey Report. i may be mistaken, but i seem to remember the woman who was the collumnist left Kinsey bitterly, and there was some sort of litigation. Please advise.

[tiki]

I think I'll send it to my bishop too.

[RobbyS]

I would like to hear that " secular medical professionals" have views about homosexuality other than those described above. But they don't.

[Jael]

What if the sex experts were determined to be quack doctors who knew full well that their treatments were ineffective?

What if they were? The Bishops and Pope, supposedly speaking for Christ on Earth, should of figured it out much earlier, instead of facilitating the homosexuals.

This argument while true in theory regarding "sex experts" in no way, shape, or form, lets the men who condoned these homosexuals and their attacks, off the hook.

[Jael]

Who could of possibly been mislead about this? You have serial molesting homosexuals seducing teen age boys for years and years in the Catholic Church and someone NOW wants to say that it's not their fault????

The men who facilitated it and kept it happening want to blame someone else?

A Doctor made them do it?

Not hardly.

[Jael]

I believe she is Jewish.

[Jael]

http://www.drjudithreisman.org/

About Dr. Reisman. :-)

I believe she also wrote "Soft Porn Plays Hardball".

[MarMema]

..and both branches of Christianity should turn their attention to it.

I don't know. Whaddya think? Should both branches get busy attending to society?

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Thanks for the link. This obviously was not the same woman, my bad. The names are similar however, hence my confusion. As i now recall, the woman i remembered had a first name of June. cannot quite remember the last name well enough to attempt to spell in, but it is similar to Dr. Reisman. The other woman is also critical of Kinsey.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

As i, and an increasing number of my Reformed brethern and sistern :0) have come to realise, there are only two legitimate purposes of the church. 1)The cooperate gathering of believers to worship God in Spirit and in truth. 2)To equip it's members to carry out the mandates of the Great Commission.

All other functions are Secondary to and in support of those two mandates. I see no instances in the Scriptural record where the church that the Apostles Shepherded ever got involved in national politics, except were it conflicted with what God had specifically commanded the members of the church to do.

In my own Protestant circles, i am sick to death of the politicisation of the Church. Certainly we have a mandate to redeem society ONE SOUL AT A TIME AS THE GOSPEL IS PRESENTED, AND GOD GIVES GRACE TO THE HEARER TO ACCEPT THAT GOSPEL. The Church is responsible to present an accurate clear Word of God to the world. It is the job of the Holy Spirit to move in the individual and persuade. We have the promise of God in Isaiah 55:10-11 that His will is accomplished. None the less, we still have the responsibility to present that message.

The answer to you question then is IMHO, We need to present truth, and allow God to move hearts. This article presents truth, and should be publicised.

[Desdemona]

The Bishops and Pope, supposedly speaking for Christ on Earth, should of figured it out much earlier, instead of facilitating the homosexuals.

Actually, some of them did. The clean-up started long before it hit the news. At least 10 years. The problem was more in the "expert" culture of the 70's, which has now been pretty much debunked. But if "science" says it's right....

[heyheyhey]

There are only two legitimate purposes of the church...

There is at least one more -- the works of Christian charity. The Biblical support for it is quite clear.

I see no instances in the Scriptural record where the church that the Apostles Shepherded ever got involved in national politics.

The problem is that "national politics" exceed far and wide what could be reasonably considered "political." One of the big worldwide moral issues that suddenly became "political" is abortion. In many countries it is human rights (or basic human dignity issues). And from the recent history... some non-Christians blame Pope Pius XII for not being Christian enough in his pronouncements.

[heyheyhey]

Actually, some of them did.

Of course they did, and the record of the past 10 years isn't too bad.

I had a friend who went to a seminary 6 years ago. Before having been admitted he went for a 2-day(!) psychological examination. In his own account, the insults and the questions he was asked were suitable for a sexual criminal rather than for a candidate for the priesthood.

When it was over he was furious at those who screwed up in the past and trashed the dignity of God's call to the priesthood.

[Desdemona]

And the sick thing is, it hasn't just been the priesthood that's been trahsed, but many other worthy vocations (like motherhood).

I have my own horror story of being a victim of psychology. Not in the seminary though. There's no reason for the seminaries to be so out of whack.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Grouping: i would lump that purpose in with #2 on my list, but if you want to separate it, fine with me.

i do not consider abortion a political issue, it was a moral issue that was politicised, a subtle difference.

This is indicative of what happened in Protestant Churches in the late 19th Century. A majority of Protestant Clergy actively promoted abortion, because they chose to listen to bad science, and not the Word of God. Hence the neccessity to publish and proclaim what is true. In the issue of sexuality, the Roman Catholic Church has made historical, authoritative statements, the Bishops chose not to listen, trusting in "science falsly called". Same thing, both wrong, both factions(Catholic Bishops who bought this nonsense, and Protestant Clergy who devalued human life) need to repent.

It is also obvious that we both need to start by proclaiming the truth IN OUR OWN RESPECTIVE CONGREGATIONS.
A simple rule that Protestants should have learned with prohibition: WHAT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED WILL EITHER NOT COME INTO BEING OR CEASE TO EXIST IF IT DOES.
In our respective traditions, we need to restore the didactic -authoritative teaching-, and stop dialoging to consensus. It seems funny to me that -in spite of the claims of ecumenism- the churches spoke in a more unified voice when they were emphaic about their distinctions from one another. RC's and PC's (Roman Christians, Protestant Christians), spoke as a unified voice on social issues (for the most part) all the while spitting and hissing at each other. Now we're divided on those issues, but nice to each other (again, for the most part, i don't want to get into differences, there is another thread for that!).

[Jael]

The problem was more in the "expert" culture of the 70's

I totally disagree with you on this. The RCC has never recognized that any experts had any knowledge she didn't.
Also, the seventies was not a time of recognizing authority.

The problem with this is not pedophilia. It is the men in the church being active in sodomy, condoning it, and the felony cover up of their crimes.

[Desdemona]

I totally disagree with you on this. The RCC has never recognized that any experts had any knowledge she didn't.

Disagree all you want. I'm going by what the bishops themselves had to say. Ther are the administrators. They relied on "science" and it came back to haunt them. About 10-12 years ago they realized their mistake and began cleaning it up.

As to the rest, it will be a while before we know the whole story, if ever. At this point, all we can do is clean it up and learn from the mistakes.

[Jael]

I will say this, I believe that psychoheresy is one of the worst evils in the world today. It has many victims.

The Psychoanalytic Stream of Psychology
Freud’s Legacy to "Christian Psychology"
(Warning: This Stream is Polluted)

---

In contrast to the pure, cleansing, healing, and life-giving waters of the Word of God, the world offers the polluted streams of psychotherapy. One of those streams, in which many Christians continue to dip, is psychoanalysis.

Psychoanalysis was invented by Sigmund Freud (1856-1939). Though he has been dead for many years, the deadly poison of his bizarre theories has infected nearly every system of psychological counseling. Moreover, Freudian concepts and terms have so permeated our society that they are generally treated as facts about human nature.

For instance, numerous people refer to the id, ego, and superego as if these entities truly exist, as if they are well-defined compartments of the personality. They do not realize that Freudian concepts and terms were concocted in Freud’s own mind. But, that’s the way most psychological systems are formed. They are an attempt to define and explain the inner workings of all persons, but the psychological theorist ends up defining and explaining himself according to his own subjectivity.

That such a system for understanding mankind is flawed should be evident from the ever-increasing number of psychological theories that often contradict each other. Moreover, for the Christian, any such system should be seen as flawed because of the deceitfulness of the heart ("The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9). Because of the noetic effects of the fall, man’s view of himself will be flawed. Thus each person who creates a psychological theory to explain the human condition will have at best a flawed view of himself. But, when people attempt to explain human nature in a universal manner, they fail even more miserably unless they are guided by the Holy Spirit and find their understanding in Scripture.

Freud did not do that. In fact, Freud was adamantly opposed to Christianity. Freud taught that religious doctrines are all illusions and that religion is "the universal obsessional neurosis of humanity."

He viewed religion as the source of mental problems and thus formed all of his notions from a godless position. Nevertheless, Freud’s views influenced our culture to the degree that many Christians began to doubt the effectiveness of the Bible and the church in dealing with life’s problems. All the while, Freud argued that belief in God was delusionary and therefore evil.

Psychotherapy, from its very beginning, created doubt about Christianity. Freud effectively eroded confidence in Christianity and established negative ideas concerning Christianity that prevail today. He negatively influenced the faith and affected the attitudes of many people concerning the role of the church in healing troubled souls.

Numerous psychoanalytic myths devised by Freud are imbedded in our culture. Many people believe them as if they are facts. The following statements are Freudian myths:

1. The id, ego, and superego are actual parts of the human psyche.

2. A person’s unconscious drives behavior more than his conscious mind chooses behavior.

3. Dreams are keys to understanding the unconscious and thus the person.

More myths:

4. Present behavior is determined by unresolved conflicts from childhood.

5. Many people are in denial because they have repressed unpleasant memories into the unconscious.

6. Parents are to blame for most people’s problems.

7. People need insight into their past to make significant changes in thoughts, attitudes and actions.

8. Children must successfully pass through their "psychosexual stages" of development or they will suffer from neurosis later on.

9. If I am to experience significant change, I must remember and re-experience painful incidents in my past.

10. The first five years of life determine what a person will be like when he grows up.

11. Everything that has ever happened to me is located in my unconscious mind.

12. People use unconscious defense mechanisms to cope with life.

Many of these Freudian myths permeate the thinking of numerous Christians and "Christian psychologists."

(From PALV3N6)

---

PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries, 4137 Primavera Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93110
www.psychoheresy-aware.org

Return to: Article Topics | Titles | Top

[Desdemona]

Whoa. Yes, psycho-stuff is dangerous, BUT, none of it changes the premise of the story, that the bishops DID rely on this stuff for a time. Now they know it doesn't work.