Transsexual lifestyle ‘not in accord with the Faith’

Alex Salinas

Alex Salinas

From CNS: “A media firestorm arose in Spain after a transsexual woman, who considers herself a man, asked to be the godfather of her nephew – leading a diocese’s bishop to turn to the Vatican for an answer.

After writing to the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith about the issue earlier this month [August], Bishop Rafael Zornoza Boy of Cádiz and Ceuta was told that since transsexual persons are not consistently living Church teaching, its “impossible” for them to fulfill their duties as a godparent.”

On his blog, Joseph Shaw, LMS Chairman, says: Transsexual lifestyle ‘not in accord with the Faith’:

Holy Family by Juan Simon Gutierrez

Holy Family by Juan Simon Gutierrez

This is a tremendously important clarification from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, reported and translated by Rorate Caeli, where there is more background.

The CDF was asked by the Bishop of Cadiz about whether a transsexual could be a godparent. To be a godparent, according to Canon Law, one must, among other things, be someone who

‘leads a life of faith in keeping with the function to be taken on’. [Canon 874]

This might seem a subjective matter, but as far as refusing to allow a person to be a godparent it must be determined by objective, which is to say public, things, and so parallels the issue of being allowed to receive Holy Communion, to which it is often linked. Catholics in irregular marriages, for example, can’t be godparents. The CDF now tells us that the same is true of transsexuals: those who have adopted the lifestyle of the opposite sex.

The CDF, responding to the question ‘can it be allowed?’, replied as follows.

“Regarding this particular [issue], I inform you of the impossibility that it be admitted. The transsexual behaviour itself reveals, in a public manner, an attitude that is opposed to the moral demand of resolving one’s own problem of sexual identity according to the truth of one’s own sex. Therefore, it is evident that this person does not possess the requisite of leading a life according to the faith and to the position of godfather (CIC [Code of Canon Law] Can 874 §3), not being able, therefore, of being admitted to the position either of godmother or of godfather. Discrimination is not to be seen in this, but only a recognition of an objective lack of the requisites that by their own nature are necessary to take over the ecclesial responsibility of being a godparent.”

I’ve done a post about the arguments surrounding transsexuality on my philosophy blog here.

[L]iving as a transsexual has been categorised by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as incompatible with the Faith. This is about the argument in favour of tolerating or promoting this lifestyle.

The transsexual phenomenon is not entirely new, but it is taking on a new form and become a cause celebre with astonishing speed. From a common-sense point of view it seems sheer lunacy: people can now simply claim to be the sex opposite to that indicated by their biology, and have this assertion officially recognised, with or without any medical diagnosis or intervention (not that either would make any real difference).

The radicals who have promoted the social acceptance of transsexuality in this sense have followed the strategy used in a number of other successful campaigns to change attitudes. In the cases of contraception, abortion, IVF, euthanasia, and drug use the appeal is made to a victim group disadvantaged by a old law or attitude, and opponents of change are accused of lacking compassion. Drug users are perhaps the least sympathetic of the proposed victim groups, which is why the legalisation of drugs has been a harder struggle, but the efforts by the liberal media to portray them as charming and harmless are all the more evident.

The other obstacle to the success of the strategy is the existence of a rival group of victims. These are most obviously identifiable in the case of abortion, which is why liberals can’t stand depictions of the ‘clumps of cells’ removed in abortion as they really are: looking like babies. The narrative of people being victimised by an archaic law or attitude is thrown into doubt when it turns out that the proposed new practise simply victimises another set of people. The debate then has to focus on which set of victims has priority. Read on…

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

65 Responses to Transsexual lifestyle ‘not in accord with the Faith’

  1. ginnyfree says:

    No Brainer! It as simple as this: can a person show up “in drag” for an infant’s Baptism and be acceptable as a Godparent? Nope. So even if the “drag” outfit seems rather normalized and may even be enhanced by hormonal supplements etc., they are still in essence staging a farce. They are falsifying their identity. The Baptismal Certificate must bear the names of the witnesses and sponsors of the Sacrament and becomes a part of the permanent record of the Church. This cannot be falsified in any way, shape or form! These records, though seemingly benign to the average person, are essential to society. These records are kept secure for a reason. They cannot be corrupted. This would be a blatant attempt to force the hand of the Church to not only acknowledge, but approve these person’s identity deceptions. Deception and witness to a Sacrament cannot be upheld. These are diametrically opposed propositions. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  2. Almost every day many of us ask ourselves: When a society permits abortion, adulterous relationships, sodomite “marriage,” transsexuality, legal hallucinogenic drug (i.e., cannabis) use, economic exploitation of the poor and vulnerable, unlimited degradation of the natural environment, to mention only some of the worst of the current evils, how long, really, can such a society expect to survive?

    In Germany, where I live, people have an expression that I keep thinking accurately captures the contemporary situation in the West, and indeed in the entire world: “ein Tanz auf dem Vulkan” (“a dance on the volcano”).

  3. Michael says:

    Very true Robert John. I am in two minds as to whether our society will completely collapse and then have to be re-built, or whether the madness will reach some kind of ‘saturation point’ after which the re-building can occur within the current context. Surely it cannot go on for too much longer without either of these happening though – a quote from the end of the article sums one aspect of all this up rather nicely:

    We live in interesting times, as the saying is. I wouldn’t like to bet on it, but it may be that the liberals have bitten off more than they can chew with this one. Screaming ‘bigot’, at seventeen-year-old girls who don’t want to shower in front of a biological male, is only going to get you so far.

  4. johnhenrycn says:

    If they haven’t already, you can bet the Piscies will soon amend their baptismal documents to record the names of Godparent 1 and Godparent 2. Sick.

    What should one do if a bearded ‘lady’ decides to occupy the same pew at Mass? Where I live, there used to be a law imposing a penalty not exceeding $50 on anyone “who wilfully disturbs, interrupts or disquiets an assemblage of persons met for religious worship”, and another law imposing a similar fine plus a possible six months of imprisonment for appearing in an indecent costume. Hello Caitlyn (“Don’t Call Me Bruce”) Jenner !! Let’s play Spot the Tranny:

    Isn’t it ironic that the Los Angeles District Attorney is still mulling, six months after the accident, whether to charge Bruce (Caitlyn, sorry) with manslaughter. The DA is obviously trying to find some wiggle room to let him off the hook. I think Jenner’s lawyer should object that no manslaughter conviction is likely until Jenner chops off his block and tackle, which he hasn’t done.

  5. johnhenrycn says:

    oops:

  6. kathleen says:

    Some great comments on the this article – thanks to all!
    Yes, the situation is becoming ludicrous, isn’t it! And nobody will gain from it. This gender-swopping farce is turning many people (especially youngsters) into insecure, mixed-up nuts… all this “searching for your true sexual identity” as I read on some stupid article recently. Boys wondering if perhaps they should really be girls… and girls dissatisfied that they were not born male! Mamma mia!

    Re JH’s mention of what to do if you find you are sitting next to ‘a bearded lady’ at Mass, reminds me of something that happened to me a while back. I had popped into a shop to take a look at the nightwear in the sales, when the (ahem) ‘man’ just beside me opened ‘his’ mouth to ask the girl serving if she had pyjamas in a bigger size for ‘himself’. The voice was unmistakably a female voice!! It was as plain as day that the shop girl was as flummoxed as I was wondering if the person was a man wanting men’s pyjamas, or a woman asking for women’s ones!! (I didn’t wait around to find out either.😉 ) But there are more and more of these supposed androgynes walking around among us these days.
    Whatever happened to that wonderful complimentary and mutually-attractive difference between the sexes, when men prided themselves in their God-given masculinity, and women delighted in their femininity as members of the fairer sex?

  7. johnhenrycn says:

    Oh, I see that Mr ‘Thumbs Down’ Kehoe has not left us after all. What a relief.

  8. Tony Maloney says:

    “Whatever happened to that wonderful complimentary and mutually-attractive difference between the sexes, when men prided themselves in their God-given masculinity, and women delighted in their femininity as members of the fairer sex?”
    What do you believe has caused the current situation to have come about, Kathleen? For instance, are gay men solely to blame for rebelling against “their God-given masculinity”?

  9. kathleen says:

    What do you believe has caused the current situation to have come about, Kathleen?

    Well, Tony, how about it having something to do with the sweep of Secularism and rejection of our Christian heritage in the West these days? When God’s Divine Law is rejected, all other sorts of travesties gets a ‘foot in the door’. Top of the list could be the ‘gender ideology’ madness, plus the evil promulgated by the powerful ‘gay lobby’ disclosed in the “Homosexual Manifesto”, which has brain-washed millions already. See this shocking and informative link:

    http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/gender-ideologys-completely-mad-attack-on-the-family-and-society

    For instance, are gay men solely to blame for rebelling against “their God-given masculinity”?

    You tell me. Mostly I would say, yes. Probably ‘gay’ women should also take some of the ‘blame’; and the militant feminists (who may or may not be ‘gay) should too, many of whom are more butch than real men. Plenty of good decent men feel cowered by these strident, male-hating feminists.

  10. johnhenrycn says:

    Homosexuality may not exist except as a mental disorder and/or learned behaviour. Not just a few straight men sentenced to lengthy prison terms engage in same-sex activities whilst inside and come out as queers when released. No, sorry, Mr Maloney, I don’t have any statistical data to back up that assertion at my fingertips,

  11. Tony Maloney says:

    Dear Kathleen and John,
    I am wondering whether you happen to have any male friends or family members who are gay. Are you aware of how young men struggle with coming to terms with this condition, or other hardships they suffer as a result of their sexuality? Not to mention how so many men go through life hiding or denying that they are homosexual, and those who are bullied, beaten and even executed for this ‘crime’ all around the world. Why would anyone choose to be gay?
    How many heterosexual men do you know who find the idea of a sexual encounter with another man as anything other than repellent? So why would anyone choose to be gay?

    How many ‘straight’ men, do you claim, engage in sexual activities with other men in prisons? And is this because the have a desire to become ‘gay’, or are they trying to simulate heterosexual sex?
    “Not just a few straight men sentenced to lengthy prison terms engage in same-sex activities whilst inside and come out as queers when released” a claim for which you have no supporting evidence.
    So why indulge in this blatantly flawed reasoning that men ‘choose’ to be homosexual?

  12. Tom Fisher says:

    Why would anyone choose to be gay?

    I have to say that “choosing to be gay” could mean two distinct things. — It might refer to an individuals choices with respect to taking partners etc. and that is obviously a matter of choice.

    On the other hand there is the idea that a person can ‘choose’ to be primarily attracted to members of their own sex. This is a very puzzling notion. Presumably the “choice” of attraction would be based on the feelings of attraction which underlie the choice. — It’s rather circular. I’m a heterosexual man, I venture to suggest that men who sincerely feel that they could ‘choose to be gay’ already are

  13. Michael says:

    Tony @ 09:29, September 9th:

    Reading back the comments you were responding to, I don’t think anybody was suggesting people choose a particular sexual inclination*, but that regardless of what one’s preferences are, there still remains to each person a choice to act. Our society has not only become geared towards encouraging the indulgence of each and every desire that arises, but has also strongly pushed the message that once somebody chooses to act in a particular way, then this defines them, affirming (e.g.) homosexuality as part of their core identity.

    This very often binds people to a lifestyle that they, for many reasons, might well later choose to reject and walk away from, leading to a great deal of misery. Not satisfied with doing this for adults, Western governments seem to want to include ‘education’ on gender theory and same-sex identities/relationships at ever earlier ages, leading to children having this sort of constricting and distorting influence at precisely the ages they should be free from any thoughts about sexual behaviour apart from what emerges naturally in their own consciences.

    *I would also add that the concept of sexual ‘orientation’ is a distinctly modern idea, and not without problems. Prior to the mid 1800’s, sexuality was considered primarily in terms of acts, and whilst it was appreciated that different preferences in this regard may occasionally accompany a distinct personality type, there was no attempt to force people into categories or make their sexual preferences a defining aspect of their identity. I believe that such attempts in our age have been profoundly damaging.

  14. Michael says:

    By the way, does anyone have any idea (or is there any way of finding out) where all these down votes are coming from? There have been an extraordinary amount of late, particularly on this thread.

  15. kathleen says:

    Tony Maloney @ 9:29 on 9th September

    According to recent studies, it is estimated that around no more than 0.06% of people are actually born with an imbalance of the right hormones that should determine their biological sex, that later creates the problems after the age of puberty to a same-sex attraction. All the rest that make up the roughly 1.5 to 2.0% of those afflicted with SSA have either been conditioned towards it somehow, learnt it (as in JH’s example above @ 18:59 on 8/9) or have chosen this form of lifestyle for the ‘kicks’ it gives them, or as a type of rebellion against the natural order of things. To use a modern expression, “it is cool to be gay” nowadays!!😯

    Tony, I have no desire to offend you, but if you are a Catholic (as your lovely Irish name suggests) you will know that indulging in a homosexual lifestyle, and most especially in homosexual acts is wrong, a grievous mortal sin that could endanger the soul. It is called one of the four sins “that cries to God for vengeance”. The CCC no.2357 states that homosexual acts “… are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”
    Therefore homosexuality goes against the natural order of God’s very first command to Mankind: “God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth” (Gen 1:28). There is no ‘blessing’ from God for those that mock His commandments; no fruitfulness to the union of people of the same sex.
    “Sex is so great and precious a gift that only Holy Matrimony [between one man and one woman] may contain it”, quoted a saint of the Church – (sorry, can’t remember who that was.)
    Those who cannot marry, or choose not to, must remain celibate if they wish to live according to God’s Divine Law. And this includes heterosexuals too of course.

    We have been overwhelmed by a current reigning ‘gay propaganda’ so much so that many people, taken in by the ‘victim card’ that homosexuals have used to great success (and that you refer to as well), are unable to see clearly the truth about homosexuality. And we now don’t have only ‘gays’ and ‘lesbians’ flaunting their disordered sex lives in ‘pride’ marches, but a whole lot of other twisted, bizarre types of sexual groups to contend with – hence the title of the article above.

    Do a Google search for the film, “The Third Way” that we once posted on our blog. It is a film of how various men and women escaped their earlier gay lifestyle when they turned to Our Lord, finding happiness and peace thereafter.

  16. kathleen says:

    Michael @ 8:51

    It must be an invasion of ‘gay trolls’ giving us all those down votes. Or their ‘useful idiots’ who are everywhere these days (in politics, the media, the arts, etc.) who have fallen for the LGBT lobby’s powerful twisted brain-washing.
    No to worry – it is good to know we will have our say for God’s Truth and not let them bully us into silence.😉

  17. Tom Fisher says:

    The pattern of down-votes does seem weird. JH has got 4 for his last comment. He never gets more than two!

  18. Michael says:

    Kathleen @ 10:39, September 10th:

    Agreed. One thing you have to give to them – they’re certainly an industrious lot!🙂

  19. Tony Maloney says:

    Dear Kathleen,
    “According to recent studies”
    What studies are these?

    “..either been conditioned towards it somehow, learnt it (as in JH’s example above @ 18:59 on 8/9) or have chosen this form of lifestyle for the ‘kicks’ it gives them, or as a type of rebellion against the natural order of things”
    I have already demolished these notions above.

    I am in no way a protagonist for the ‘gay rights’ movement – I do not support ‘gay marriage’ – but by going against the overwhelming evidence to claim that men ‘choose to be gay’ (to be sexually attracted to other men) undermines your religious convictions, as it shows that you are prepared to relinquish the truth in order mould the world to your beliefs.
    Tony

  20. Tony Maloney says:

    Dear Michael,
    “Reading back the comments you were responding to, I don’t think anybody was suggesting people choose a particular sexual inclination”
    Then perhaps a more neutral and discerning eye is needed.

    Tony

  21. GC says:

    Is that you, Adrian Meades?

    “Top of the morning to you.”

  22. kathleen says:

    Tony Maloney @ 13:53

    “According to recent studies”
    What studies are these?

    For someone who boasts on knowing all about the ‘gay movement’, you should know! Do a Google search and you might find them for yourself. They are not made up; they can be found on the www, though it is possible that you may find that some studies vary by a 0.01 to 0.02% in your favour if you are lucky.

    “..either been conditioned towards it somehow, learnt it (as in JH’s example above @ 18:59 on 8/9) or have chosen this form of lifestyle for the ‘kicks’ it gives them, or as a type of rebellion against the natural order of things”
    I have already demolished these notions above.

    You have done no such thing. Where is your proof?

    I am in no way a protagonist for the ‘gay rights’ movement – I do not support ‘gay marriage’

    Really? Well, you most certainly could have fooled us!!

    by going against the overwhelming evidence to claim that men ‘choose to be gay’ (to be sexually attracted to other men) undermines your religious convictions, as it shows that you are prepared to relinquish the truth in order mould the world to your beliefs.

    What “overwhelming evidence”? You’ve provided absolutely none.
    My “religious convictions” are not “undermined” by anything I have quoted above (“convictions” that are no more than Catholic Teaching FYI, in case you hadn’t noticed) so if anyone is relinquishing the truth in order to mould the world to their beliefs – and worldly, liberal beliefs at that – it is you, Tony Maloney.

    Goodbye.

  23. johnhenrycn says:

    Here’s a good piece about the people that Tony wishes to consign to Satan:

    http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/184147/sec_id/184147

  24. kathleen says:

    JH @ 21:13 yesterday

    What a really fantastic article, JH, putting the whole loopy business of ‘transsexuality’ into the absurd box where it belongs. This shrewd author (with an unpronounceable name) notes that:

    In fact, never in the history of medical science as any man ever “transitioned” and been provided with a working womb, Fallopian tubes, ovaries, experienced a monthly flow, gotten pregnant, given birth, etc. Surgeons have never transplanted a working mammary gland from a real female into a male. Jenner and others like him hire plastic surgeons to implant sacks of gel or saline solution in their chests that create the illusion of being real breasts, but they are not. […]

    “Feeling like a woman underneath” is nothing but a form of closed circuit, sexual arousal. A diagnosis more accurate than “transgender” might be “delusional hermaphrodite” and thus a subcategory in the larger psychiatric list of disorders known as “pathological narcissism.” The so-called transgender lives in the fantasy that he is both sexes at the same time and, as such, is locked 24/7 in conjugal embrace with himself.

    “Pathological narcissism” – that’s the underlying disorder!

  25. johnhenrycn says:

    Hello, Kathleen. It was a very hard-hitting article, wasn’t it? What makes this mental (not to mention moral) disorder doubly hard to deal with is that the medical and psychological establishments are such cowards – for the most part – and won’t call a spade a spade so as to offer these people the beginning of a chance at normal life. As for Bruce Jenner specifically, we can never know for sure what impels him to do what he does, but like you and ben-Tekoa I’m inclined to think of his problem as deep seated narcissism and therefore more of a character flaw than a medical problem. I could be wrong, but I’m an expert on character flaws (not that one). How awful is it when celebrity rags like Vanity Fair fawn and gush and go on about his “courage” whilst Christians, including some of our beloved priests, are being martyred. Satan has a subscription to VF, I’m sure.

  26. Tony Maloney says:

    “The Royal College of Psychiatrists considers that sexual orientation is
    determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental
    factors.1–3 There is no evidence to go beyond this and impute any kind of
    choice into the origins of sexual orientation.”
    “There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.”

    https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/PS02_2014.pdf

  27. Michael says:

    Tony @ 13:59, September 11th:

    I chose the word ‘inclination’ carefully, and if you re-read my asterisked point above hopefully you will see what I do and do not mean by the term. All the arguments above have assumed that there are some forms of factors leading people to have particular inclinations or preferences. What is being vigorously denied is that such factors are in any way determinative, in that they lead to a fixed ‘orientation’ which is a* significant and controlling part of one’s personal identity, or that the will of the individual is thereby rendered unable to choose to act otherwise.

    *Going by much of the rhetoric employed by homosexual lobby groups etc, it is sometimes easy to get the impression that it is the only significant part.

  28. Michael says:

    JH @ 21:13, September 12th:

    Cracking article! And I very much agree with your point about the media’s role in this too – in any other age (i.e.; one not so possessed by the collective insanity which besets our own), it would be assumed that the good and charitable thing to do would be to disabuse people like Jenner of the underlying problems that have led to him to take the actions he has. But instead we are encouraged to encourage such acts, and to ‘shame’ anyone who disagrees into silence.

  29. johnhenrycn says:

    Tony: Most thinking people of a conservative bent (the issue of “sexual orientation” is a political one in the intellectual world you inhabit, not in mine, but I will engage you in yours) look askance at your Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Statement on Sexual Orientation. I remember once cross-examining a psychiatrist and asking why it was that the peer reviewed journal Science had published an article that found medical typists as accurate as psychiatrists at diagnoses. This was back in the 1980s. Has psychiatry become more respected as a predictive tool since then?

  30. johnhenrycn says:

    Yes, here’s an abstract of the Science article from July 1, 1988 that I mention above:

    “The involvement of psychologists and psychiatrists within the legal arena continues to grow rapidly but remains highly controversial. Extensive research on clinical judgement provides a scientific basis for clarifying the growing disputes about the values of such professional activities. Studies show that professionals often fail to reach reliable or valid conclusions and that the accuracy of their judgements does not necessarily surpass that of laypersons, thus raising substantial doubt that psychologists or psychiatrists meet legal standards for expertise. Factors that underlie the research findings and implications for courtroom testimony are discussed.”

    http://www.sciencemag.org/search?title=psychiatry&journal_search_keyword_go.y=6&submit=yes&andorexacttitleabs=and&hopnum=1&andorexactfulltext=and&where=title&journal_search_keyword_go.x=9&FIRSTINDEX=10

    I remember the psychiatrist I was questioning left the courtroom a broken man. Well, not broken exactly, but humbled. And the victim he was testifying for was denied generous general damages by the jury, although I got killed on special damages, but that’s another story. Nothing to do with gays.

  31. Michael says:

    JH and ‘Tony’ might be interested in the following posts (albeit for opposing reasons):

    https://yardsaleofthemind.wordpress.com/2015/08/27/science-are-social-sciences-fraud/

    https://yardsaleofthemind.wordpress.com/2015/08/28/science-nyt-revisions-of-many-psychology-findings-not-as-strong-as-claimed-study-says/

    I would also add that when the American Psychological Association declassified homosexuality as a disorder in 1973 (not sure about comparable changes in the UK – but wouldn’t surprise me if something similar happened there), it was done for purely political reasons, with no change in actual evidence to support such an alteration of their position.

  32. johnhenrycn says:

    It’s worth your career as a psychiatrist or psychologist to question the biological roots of same sex attraction or to suggest it might be changed by conversion therapy. In fact, some jurisdictions have delisted, or are in the process of delisting conversion therapy for health insurance purposes, and I think there are some places where conversion therapy is on the verge of being classified as professional malpractice. On the other hand, gender reassignment therapy is all the rage. It’s political pressure, not science that’s behind these developments.

  33. johnhenrycn says:

    It’s crazy…if a person with same-sex attractions wants to be free of them, he’s told that he’s in denial. A male homosexual is told that he can never hope to regain his masculinity and for his health practitioner to even attempt such a thing is verboten. But if a man wants to become a woman, he’s told that is an entirely reasonable, and medical science approves of therapy and surgery to bring that change about.

  34. Tom Fisher says:

    It’s worth your career as a psychiatrist or psychologist to question the biological roots of same sex attraction or to suggest it might be changed by conversion therapy

    Well if ‘political correctness’ has shut down debate in those professions, then that’s obviously a very bad thing. I don’t know enough to comment on that. My understanding is that conversion therapy has an extremely low rate of success, and the majority of clients eventually fall off the wagon, as it were. — Correct me if I’m wrong, I’m no expert on this stuff — I have seen some testimony from men who have undergone supposedly successful conversion therapy, and even got married etc. I wish them well, but they often seem to have a fixed smile, and a suspiciously sunny cheerfulness which rather makes me wonder if the therapy is largely about learning to put up a facade. I might be wrong, it’s just a suspicion.

  35. Michael says:

    Tom @ 02:26, September 16th:

    My understanding is that conversion therapy has an extremely low rate of success, and the majority of clients eventually fall off the wagon, as it were. — Correct me if I’m wrong, I’m no expert on this stuff

    Is this understanding based on having looked at relevant statistics or on the ‘suspiciously sunny cheerfulness’ you’ve noticed in those who have undergone conversion therapy? I’m not trying to be argumentative for the sake of it btw – I just don’t think it’s helpful to try and undermine conversion therapy if it’s simply based on a personal suspicion; particularly as what JH has been drawing attention to above is that psychological studies of homosexuality do seem to have been shaped a great deal by personal/political prejudices (and that this may well have shaped our attitudes to things like conversion therapy).

  36. Michael says:

    JH @ 19:55 and 20:06, September 15th:

    You might also be interested in this piece:

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jul/14/illusions-of-psychiatry/

    And yes, that someone who wants to be free of homosexual attractions is told they’re in denial but that a man who believes he is ‘really’ a woman is actively encouraged in this is utterly bonkers. It is also strange that the very same people who talk about sexuality being ‘fluid’ and not wanting society to pin them down in any way, are the same who scream blue murder if anyone suggests that that fluidity might extend to someone giving up the homosexual/bisexual/pansexual/insert capital letter here lifestyle and starting a faithful, monogamous relationship with someone of the opposite sex.

  37. Michael says:

    The following (I may have linked to this one before…but it is certainly relevant to the discussion above) may also be of interest:

    http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/09/a-theory-for-tattoos-2

  38. Tom Fisher says:

    Michael,

    I really don’t have dog in this hunt, and my suspicion that conversion therapy is about as effective as homeopathy may well prove to be utterly unfounded. If you have a link to a peer reviewed paper which provides statistically significant evidence of the efficacy of conversion therapy; I will certainly read it. But I have to admit to a certain scepticism.

  39. Michael says:

    Tom,

    I don’t have any links to peer reviewed papers either! What I am getting at is why mention a scepticism of conversion therapy if it is based on nothing more than a personal ‘hunch’ (whatever that is grounded in)? The point JH was raising above was that the reason CT is discounted is precisely because of political prejudice against it, not because of any robust attempts to disprove its efficacy – so to say you are suspicious of CT for reasons also not based on assessment of evidence pro or con isn’t (it seems to me) that helpful*.

    *Apart from perhaps showing how such prejudices against CT in the psychological community may affect public opinion of course – this is a complete guess on my part, as I don’t know why it is you are sceptical of the process, but it is possible that endlessly being told via the media that something is unscientific has an effect on how we see it.

  40. Robert says:

    The starting point for Faith is belief in things unseen.
    I remind of the reading of consciences. St Padre Pio is perhaps the most known in 20th century but is not the only saint who could read consciences.
    Think what this means, if consciousness is material as humanist and scientist claim how could St Pio read consciences?
    If Consciousness is spiritual then material science and scientists are wasting their time in looking at the material.
    Temptation is this material or immaterial? Is Sin excusable because of genes and evolution? Think what Our Lord said about the woman taken in Adultery. SIN NO MORE!

  41. Tom Fisher says:

    What I am getting at is why mention a scepticism of conversion therapy if it is based on nothing more than a personal ‘hunch’ (whatever that is grounded in)? The point JH was raising above was that the reason CT is discounted is precisely because of political prejudice against it, not because of any robust attempts to disprove its efficacy

    Ok; I see where you’re coming from. JohnHenry, yourself, and even me, all agree on at least one important point. The debate about homosexuality is thoroughly politicised, and grossly distorted by fashionable left wing wing views.

    I accept that my suspicion of ‘CT’ might be a result of my susceptibility to PC nonsense. But I really am not aware of any evidence that ‘CT’ has been successful, and I know that it has proved to be a lucrative form of therapy for some practitioners.

  42. Tony Maloney says:

    Michael,
    Is there any robust supporting evidence for the efficacy of CT, or is this just yet another case of positive outcome bias?

  43. Michael says:

    But I really am not aware of any evidence that ‘CT’ has been successful

    I think the same points as above apply to this statement🙂

    and I know that it has proved to be a lucrative form of therapy for some practitioners.

    I’ll take your word for it on this point – it certainly seems likely, especially given that most forms of therapy (barring the few state-provided counsellors, etc, who even then can only provide a limited number of sessions before having to turn people over to the private sector) tend to be lucrative for the practitioners involved.

  44. Tom Fisher says:

    I think the same points as above apply to this statement

    Very droll🙂

    Conversion Therapy may well be better than its reputation suggests. And it may well be that it is held in low regard by mental health practitioners because they have a political bias against it. Although that conclusion does invite some questions. After his conviction Alan Turing was offered the choice of chemical castration or prison. Surely it is a startling failure of the psychiatric community that the idea of CT hardly occurred to them until the horse had well and truly bolted.

  45. Michael says:

    After his conviction Alan Turing was offered the choice of chemical castration or prison. Surely it is a startling failure of the psychiatric community that the idea of CT hardly occurred to them until the horse had well and truly bolted.

    Hmm, I’m not sure. That treatments such as that offered to Turing occurred is tragic, but I’m not sure that this, and the advent of CT as we now know it only later on, suggests that CT is wrong per se. Firstly, psychiatry and psychology are relatively young disciplines, and there were lots of dodgy treatments offered to patients in the first half of the 20th Century. So, the idea of CT occurring later on in the game could well be a reflection of the changing approach to treatment overall.

    Secondly, it is hardly surprising that CT would become more prominent in an age where not only the acceptance, but the celebration, of homosexual behaviour lock, stock and barrel has become increasingly the case. Prior to this, one could say, there was not really a ‘market’ for CT, as society at large still saw homosexual behaviour as something abnormal, and there were nowhere near as many branches of the homosexual lifestyle affirmed and made available to people who might be inclined to go down that path.

    Nowadays, the number of people who have tried that lifestyle and found it made them unhappy will have increased, and awareness for the need to provide alternative therapy to that which simply affirms homosexual behaviour without question will have increased also.

  46. johnhenrycn says:

    Well that does it. Pitcairn Island, population 48, is the latest jurisdiction to legalise same-sex marriage.
    http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-advocates-fury-as-australia-sits-on-its-hands-while-tiny-pitcairn-island-legalises-gay-marriage/story-fneszs56-1227411308650

  47. Mimi says:

    Heh! A whole 48 people, eh? They must want to keep their numbers low!

  48. Tony Maloney says:

    Perhaps we could all learn something useful from

    [The moderator – this is a better link “Tony”: “Quest” in context]

  49. GC says:

    Pitcairn Island, JH. British territory where the British High Commissioner to New Zealand is el supremo and the inhabitants are descendants of the 18th century Bounty mutineers and their Tahitian girlfriends. Fletcher Christian, Marlon Brando and all that. Most of them were moved off to Norfolk Island, now an Australian external territory (who always have their own mini-team in the Commonwealth Games), when it got a bit crowded on Pitcairn.

    A bit of a moral dilemma here, JH. Is the promotion and legalisation of gay sex and same sex marriage perhaps better than the apparent alternative?

  50. Michael says:

    I just came across a quote from Saint Augustine’s Confessions (Book X, Chapter XXIII) which, whilst nothing to do with Pitcairn Island and its inauguration into the the loopier aspects of contemporary Western liberalism, sums up rather well I think the issues underlying the main theme of this post:

    Why, then, does truth generate hatred, and why does thy servant who preaches the truth come to be an enemy to them who also love the happy life, which is nothing else than joy in the truth–unless it be that truth is loved in such a way that those who love something else besides her wish that to be the truth which they do love. Since they are unwilling to be deceived, they are unwilling to be convinced that they have been deceived. Therefore, they hate the truth for the sake of whatever it is that they love in place of the truth. They love truth when she shines on them; and hate her when she rebukes them. And since they are not willing to be deceived, but do wish to deceive, they love truth when she reveals herself and hate her when she reveals them. On this account, she will so repay them that those who are unwilling to be exposed by her she will indeed expose against their will, and yet will not disclose herself to them.

    Thus, thus, truly thus: the human mind so blind and sick, so base and ill-mannered, desires to lie hidden, but does not wish that anything should be hidden from it. And yet the opposite is what happens—the mind itself is not hidden from the truth, but the truth is hidden from it. Yet even so, for all its wretchedness, it still prefers to rejoice in truth rather than in known falsehoods. It will, then, be happy only when without other distractions it comes to rejoice in that single Truth through which all things else are true.

    I found the quote in a post which contains a couple more noteworthy pieces (it is also a blog I very much enjoy and highly recommend):

    https://jeffwalker.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/friday-five-volume-96/

  51. Michael says:

    One slight correction – when I mentioned the ‘loopier’ aspects of contemporary Western liberalism, I have to say that this is, in my opinion, an unnecessary qualification. The current* state of Western liberalism seems to be characterised by loopiness as a whole – ideas like the suggestion that men can ‘become’ women or that two people of the same sex can contract a marriage as properly understood are merely the inevitable consequences of a view of the human person and human society that has been reduced to bizarre abstractions – from a mad tree, mad fruit will grow.

    *I emphasise currentness, or contemporaneity, as I know some will question whether liberalism per se can be subject to the same criticisms, or that the madness we see now is a natural consequence of its fundamental principles.

  52. Adrian Meades says:

    Did someone call, GC?

  53. GC says:

    Greetings, Adrian. Keeping well, we trust.

  54. johnhenrycn says:

    Is Tony Baloney a smelly sock of Adrian Meades or vice versa? How I loathe pestiferous puppets.

  55. geoffkiernan says:

    Tony at 926 on the 14th Sept 2015. Regarding the link you give to the Royal College of Psychiatrists…. It this the best you have to offer???? ….. They ( psychiatrist) do not consider that mankind has a moral/spiritual dimension and consequently they no authority whatsoever to comment on the full, authentic and complete human condition…What I am saying is that man also possesses ,of necessity, a Moral/spiritual dimension. The human condition has a divine/spiritual component. To ignore one dimension at the expense of the other is pure folly

  56. Toad S. Pittle says:

    “They ( psychiatrists) do not consider that mankind has a moral/spiritual dimension…”
    I can’t stand by and let this utter, arrant, nonsense go unchallenged. There may be a handful of psychiatrists who don’t consider such an extraordinary thing, but I highly doubt it. Find me a psychiatrist who has no moral/spiritual sense – or virtually any human being who doesn’t, including the loonies from Isis. Their moral sense might be totally different from Geoff’s, (or mine) but they have got one. That is the problem. Clash of moral senses, including those of psychiatrists.
    Geoff is stating that it is impossible to be both a psychiatrist and a Catholic.
    I doubt that.
    Is he suggesting no psychiatrist has any idea of music, or art, or even decency? Yes, he surely is.
    Dolt.

  57. johnhenrycn says:

    Heaven’s, I gave you a month before expecting you’d weaken and come back bothering us again. How long has it actually been – 2 weeks? 2 week and 2 days?

  58. johnhenrycn says:

    …but no, but yes, but no… we (or I anyway) do like you as a somewhat intelligent and good natured sparring partner, and wish you all the best.

  59. Adrian Meades says:

    Yes I’m quite well thanks, GC. And it’s great to find you all carrying on as you were when I last checked in, except Toad appears to have undergone some sort of transformation?

  60. geoffkiernan says:

    To the Toad at 1419… That’s what one can expect when trying to match it with intellectual giants like yourself. It is truly devastating to be called a dolt and a spruiker of arrant nonsense by the likes of you….( put one of those half smiling but half quizzical faces in here). But I take the point. My comments were sloppy… Would it help by way of explanation that I was trying to say, no Catholic Psychiatrist worth his salt would have sullied his name and reputation by putting his signature to those comments professed by the Royal Collage of Psychiatrists?
    Unlike you Toad, I know when I have reached my use by date. ( age being what it is) To all who contribute to these pages, I wish you well. Although I will continue to read CPS, this will be my last contribution. That Toad will leave you unchallenged as top dolt. ( insert here one of those smiling faces) God Bless everyone….
    PS. That 2nd ‘thumbs up’ to Toads comment is mine ( another smiling face if you please…)

  61. Tom Fisher says:

    With apologies to Kenneth Grahame🙂

    ‘Sit down there, Toad,’ said Kathleen kindly, pointing to a chair. ‘My friends,’ she went on, ‘I am pleased to inform you that Toad has at last seen the error of his ways. He is truly sorry for his misguided conduct in the past, and he has undertaken to give up acerbic agnosticism entirely and for ever. I have his solemn promise to that effect.’
    ‘That is very good news,’ said Jabba gravely.
    ‘Very good news indeed,’ observed JohnHenry dubiously, ‘if only—IF only——’
    He was looking very hard at Toad as he said this, and could not help thinking he perceived something vaguely resembling a twinkle in that animal’s still sorrowful eye.
    ‘There’s only one thing more to be done,’ continued the gratified Kathleen. ‘Toad, I want you solemnly to repeat, before your friends here, what you fully admitted to me in blog moderation just now. First, you are sorry for what you’ve done, and you see the folly of it all?’
    There was a long, long pause. Toad looked desperately this way and that, while the other animals waited in grave silence. At last he spoke.
    ‘No!’ he said, a little sullenly, but stoutly; ‘I’m NOT sorry. And it wasn’t folly at all! It was simply glorious!’
    ‘What?’ cried Kathleen, greatly scandalised. ‘You backsliding animal, didn’t you tell me just now, in there——’
    ‘Oh, yes, yes, in THERE,’ said Toad impatiently. ‘I’d have said anything in THERE. You’re so eloquent, dear Kathleen, and so moving, and so convincing, and put all your points so frightfully well—you can do what you like with me in THERE, and you know it. But I’ve been searching my mind since, and going over things in it, and I find that I’m not a bit sorry or repentant really, so it’s no earthly good saying I am; now, is it?’
    ‘Then you don’t promise,’ said Kathleen, ‘never to touch acerbic agnosticism again?’
    ‘Certainly not!’ replied Toad emphatically. ‘On the contrary, I faithfully promise that the very first pious post I see, poop-poop! off I go in it!’

  62. Tony Maloney says:

    Dear Geoff,
    I would not consider the root of our sexual desires to have much to do with any moral or spiritual dimensions, would you? However, I also posted a link to a Catholic organisation’s website, which gave some very interesting answers to many of the points made above. Bizarrely this link was deleted and replaced with another by the moderator, as you can see above.

    Tony

  63. Mister Toad S. Pittle, Esq. B.A. (failed) says:

    JH is right, of course, as usual. And, also of course – Toad is, also as usual, steeped in Catholic Guilt for cracking and responding to a comment that was not particularly more idiotic than most of them. Why? God knows. Toad works in mysterious ways, especially to himself.
    But it is hard for a crittur of little brain to just sit there and simply enjoy and savour the paranoid ramblings of incontestably The World’s Funniest and Wackiest Blog – bar none – without wanting to get involved.
    I failed. Well I would, wouldn’t I?
    As Beckett* says so sagely: “Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.” OK.

    * No, not him from Canterbury – the playwright.

  64. GC says:

    Adrian Meades @September 20 2015, 22:12

    Adrian, glad to hear of it.

    I don’t think we intended to give Toad his final comeuppance, but that seems to be the way Toad took it. Still, we must suppose it’s difficult for a toad to remain several weeks confined in the Toadbin without an eventual serious attempt at rebellion and mayhem.

  65. kathleen says:

    Tony Maloney (sock puppet of Adrian Meades) @ 11:26 on 21st September, asks Geoff:

    “I would not consider the root of our sexual desires to have much to do with any moral or spiritual dimensions, would you?”

    Well, if “sexual desires” have nothing to do with either “moral or spiritual dimensions”, this would make them nothing more than pure lust, one of the seven deadly sins!!

    People are not beasts, whose “sexual desire” is driven solely by the need to procreate and nothing more. True human love and attraction is set apart from the animal kingdom with a very definite moral and spiritual dimension. It is part of God’s plan for Mankind, “Man and Woman He created them”; two sexes of equal value, but different in their make up and roles, who value each other as persons created in God’s Image and Likeness. Therefore, a man and a woman in love are attracted to each other spiritually, seeing in the other their unique personhood in the light of their Creator, as well as the natural physical attraction for their complimentary differences in body. They should preserve the fulfillment of their mutual love for the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and then for life, in both good times and bad, “till death do us part”.

    “Such love, merging the human and the divine, leads the spouses to a free and mutual gift of themselves, a gift providing itself by gentle affection, and by deed; such love pervades the whole of their lives, growing better and growing greater by its generosity.” (Gaudium et Spes)

    In most cases the fruit of their love will be the procreation of children, endowed with their own immortal souls. They will learn from their parents “to know, love and serve God” in the family, reflection of the Holy Trinity. Therefore disordered sexual desires go in direct opposition to God’s commandments and the Image of the Christian Family.

    One more thing: temptations to impurity that come unwillingly of course, and if rejected and not indulged in, are not sinful. But any type of entertained “sexual desires” (thoughts), or sexual activity outside of marriage (however tough this may seem to you) are wrong and sinful.

    Little Blessed Jacinta of Fatima, who had been given a vision of Hell, revealed that more people lose their souls through “sins of the flesh” than any other kind of sin!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s