I apologize for the double post and ask that the moderator would delete the other jumbled one. I ran across a few "spacing" problems.

Sorry

Once again this article is the follow-up to the previous article, both of which can be found at zenit.org. The article has not been altered in any way, and I promise not to do any more cut and paste jobs since I am not too fond of them at all.

Code: ZE02062820

Date: 2002-06-28

What to Do About Priests and Seminarians with Same-Sex Attraction

Catholic Psychiatrists' Recommendations in Wake of U.S. Scandals

NEW YORK, JUNE 28, 2002 (Zenit.org).- As a response to the clerical sex abuse scandals, a group of psychiatrists from the Pewaukee, Wisconsin-based Catholic Medical Association sent an open letter to the U.S. bishops. Here is the second part of the letter, slightly adapted. The first part appeared Thursday in ZENIT.

* * *

Psychiatrists Letter to the Catholic Bishops (Continued)

Your Excellencies:

...

Recommendations

Treatment for priests with same-sex attraction (SSA)

We observed many priests grow in holiness and in happiness in their ministry as a result of the healing of their childhood and adolescent male insecurity and loneliness and, subsequently, their same sex attractions. This healing process has been described in Father John Harvey's book, The Truth About Homosexuality and in the statement of the Catholic Medical Association, "Homosexuality and Hope," available at www.cathmed.org.

Bishops would also see this healing if they encourage priests with SSA to pursue appropriate therapy with those loyal to the Church's teaching. Most males with SSA had painful childhood and adolescent peer relationships. Under the stress of loneliness and insecurity in adult life, there can be an unconscious association to this adolescent and childhood pain.

Attractions to children, adolescents or adult males then develop in an unconscious attempt to gain acceptance and lessen the pain of sadness, loneliness and lack of male confidence. The treatment of this emotional pain is essential in order to protect the Church and her children from further sorrow and scandal.

Priests, with or without SSA, who have themselves been the victims of childhood sexual abuse should receive counseling. Only a small percentage of victims of childhood sexual abuse will go on to abuse children, but a significant percentage will suffer from various problems which affect their ministry.

Our experience over 25 years has convinced us of the direct link between rebellion and anger against the Church's teaching, and sexually promiscuous behaviors. This appears to be a two way street: those who are sexually active dissent from the Church's teaching on sexuality to justify their own actions, while those who adopt rebellious ideas on sexual morality are more vulnerable to become sexually active, because they have little to no defense against sexual temptations. Growth in forgiveness and growth in humility are essential in the treatment of such priests.

Finally, priests should be screened for homosexuality by their bishops or religious superiors prior to being considered for a position of responsibility in a diocese, religious community or in the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The previous attitude of "winking" at homosexuality in priests must end. Otherwise, all Church teaching on sexual morality is undermined. Also, complaints by priests of aggressive homosexual behavior in rectories and religious communities should be addressed and no longer ignored.

Screening of seminarians

Protocols should be developed which will allow those professionals who screen candidates for the priesthood to identify those individuals with serious problems, to recommend therapy for those with correctable problems, and to accept those who can live chaste celibacy and pose no threat to others. Simply asking a candidate if he is a heterosexual or a homosexual, or if he is sexually interested in adolescents or children is not sufficient. Proper history taking, a clinical interview, and psychological testing correctly interpreted will uncover most current and potential problems.

Two different studies have found that the answers to a small number of questions about childhood and adolescent experiences included within a larger questionnaire allowed the clinical interviewer to conclude, with 90% accuracy, whether the subject was a heterosexual or a homosexual.

When screening reveals probable SSA, the candidate is not automatically excluded from consideration. If he is willing to do the hard work required to come to freedom from his emotional pain, his same-sex attractions will be resolved and then he can reapply later. The Church should not take the moral risk of allowing someone with SSA to enter the seminary. Also, a period of sexual abstinence for five years should be required of those with SSA prior to entering the seminary.

It should be noted, that many men with SSA will have problems besides their SSA which could make admission to the seminary inadvisable. For example, men with SSA are more likely to have problems with compulsive masturbation, other sexual addictions, substance abuse problems, history of childhood sexual abuse, and depressive illness.

It is essential that mental health professionals involved in any way with screening candidates for seminary or with treating seminarians or priests, as well as the faculty at the seminaries support the teaching of the Church on sexuality, particularly on homosexuality. In our experience, there are some dioceses and religious communities relying upon the work of mental health professionals who actively disagree with the Church's sexual morality.

Seminary/Formation Faculty

Pope John Paul II at his meeting with the American cardinals on April 23, 2002, stated: "People must know that bishops and priests are totally committed to the fullness of Catholic truth on matters of sexual morality, a truth as essential to the renewal of the priesthood and the episcopate as it is to the renewal of marriage and family life."

Many faculty members of seminaries and religious houses do not adhere to the truth on matters of sexual morality and faith. For decades moral relativism, proportionalism and situational ethics have been taught in these centers of formation. These teachings have contributed to the present crisis in the Church. Seminarians who support Church teaching on sexual morality, Scripture, the liturgy, and fundamental moral theology have been labeled as rigid and often expelled from seminaries. Seminary faculty members and members of formation teams in religious communities who have a homosexual agenda are driven to remove from the seminary males who are loyal to the Church's teachings on matters of faith and morals.

We recommend that cardinals, bishops and religious superiors either personally interview or send visitation teams to interview all faculty members of seminaries and formation teams. They need to be certain that these individuals are loyal to the Holy Father and the Church's teaching on faith and morals and that they refrain from intimidating seminarians into questioning the value of orthodoxy. Those who are not loyal should be removed.

In order to protect the priesthood from further homosexual behavior with adolescent males by priests, we recommend ending the referral of seminarians to seminaries which are well known to be heterodox in regard to homosexuality. The purification of the seminaries is essential to the protection of the Church and her children. Finally, seminarians, including those in religious orders, with homosexual tendencies should not be ordained until they understand the emotional causes of their attractions, work to resolve them, and are emotionally healthy.

The availability of treatment and education in every diocese

Having seen the suffering caused by untreated SSA, the burden of sexual sin and the freedom that comes when the emotional problems are addressed and healed, we believe that nothing is more pastoral or more loving than the clear proclamation of the Church's teaching on sexual morality, accompanied by effective, accessible treatment.

Courage is the only recovery program for those with same-sex attractions which adheres to the Catholic moral teaching on homosexuality and has been endorsed by the Vatican. This program should be available in every diocese for both laity and priests. If priests and laity do not have access to therapy which can help them come to the freedom proper to the children of God and support groups like Courage, they may fall into despair and feel that the Church has placed upon them a burden that is impossible to bear. Unfortunately, in some dioceses groups, such as Dignity, which do not accept the Church's teaching on sexual morality, have a voice, while Courage is not welcome.

Priests need to understand the origins of SSA and the healing approaches which have been demonstrated to be effective. In addition, because of the tremendous confusion over homosexuality, it would be beneficial that conferences for priests and seminarians be given by experts such as Father John Harvey, O.S.F.S., the founder of Courage, and by other mental health professionals who accept the Church's teaching on homosexuality and are experienced in the successful treatment of SSA. Education for priests concerning the nature, origins and treatment of SSA should increase their compassion and help priests who regularly deal with these problems in the confessional.

Unfortunately, conferences have been offered to priests and seminarians in which homosexuality is presented as being genetically determined and no hope for healing is offered. The recognition of chastity as a healthy virtue is rejected. Chastity, in the experience of many mental health professionals, is, in fact, a positive quality in any individual's life.

At the present time, a number of treatment centers to which priests are sent for sexual disorders treat homosexuality as an identity to be embraced. Influenced by the politics within the American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association, the possibility of healing is censured. Patients are encouraged to participate in 12-step groups for compulsive sexual behaviors, but the emotional origins of their same-sex attractions are not explored nor is a plan offered for healing unresolved emotional pain. These vulnerable men are often returned to ministry with serious untreated problems. Father Harvey's program could be modified for incorporation into the present inpatient treatment programs in group and individual therapy, as well as in spiritual direction.

Since training in the treatment of SSA and gender identity disorder (GID) in conformity with the Catholic understanding of the human person is not being provided at most secular institutions, it is important that this training be available either in Catholic institutions or through separate programs.

On April 23, 2002, the Holy Father encouraged the American cardinals: "We must be confident that this time of trial will bring a purification of the entire Catholic community, a purification that is urgently needed if the Church is to preach more effectively the Gospel of Jesus Christ in all its liberating force. Now you must ensure that where sin increased, grace will all the more abound (Romans 5:20). So much pain, so much sorrow must lead to a holier priesthood, a holier episcopate, and a holier Church."

There are reasons for hope. The problems of homosexuality in the priesthood have been painfully uncovered and need to be addressed. There is no proven genetic basis for homosexuality. The emotional wounds which cause same-sex attractions can be identified and healed. Large numbers of people, including clergy, who had SSA are now cured, especially if they brought the power of faith into the healing process. These men and women no longer view themselves as being homosexual. The statement of the Catholic Medical Association on homosexuality, "Homosexuality and Hope," should be made available to all priests, educators and Catholic families. With the Lord's help, the Catholic priests who struggle with homosexuality can be healed.

For the Catholic Medical Association by Richard P. Fitzgibbons, M.D. Peter Rudegeair, MA Eugene F. Diamond, M.D.

-- (sacerdos@hotpop.com), June 28, 2002

Answers

-- (_@_._), June 29, 2002.

Please read original thread here.

-- (_@_._), June 29, 2002.

-- (@ .), July 01, 2002.

Thank you, "sacerdos," for this brilliantly presented and immensely important message.

I am in total agreement with everything stated above, and I have known about the healing of SSA disorder -- kept from the general public by the ultra-liberal media -- since the early 1990s.

I hope that this message will move all the U.S. bishops -- many of whom were probably completely unaware of the potential for healing -- to take the recommended action.

I would love for the bishops (and any Catholic lay "doubting Thomases") to have a chance to listen to an extended presentation by the brilliant and convincing Dr. Fitzgibbons, a co-signer of the above letter.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 02, 2002.

Dear John and Brian:
I have to disagree with you and with these specious psychiatric opinions. You may mean well; and like so many others, you take everything a ''therapist'' declares as a given. It never is, however.

The very idea that this association of secular exorcists, however Catholic they think they are, would meddle in Church business is an affront to the Holy Spirit. No one denies their good intentions. But I would take all their ''work'' on these subjects with a grain of salt, personally.

Whatever the diverse problems may be with persons of a homosexual leaning, I doubt whether statistical data would necessarily help a psychologist/psychiatrist better able to understand than a bishop. As John very well put it once, they have the benefit of knowing from personal confessions about as much as anybody, about deviant compulsions. A psychiatrist works for $200 an hour or more, not for God.

I suppose there'll be a howl of protest against my layman's opinions from others in this forum. It won't matter to me. I have no obligation to see all of these things from a conventional point of view. There is nothing conventional about the current scandals in the Church. I doubt that all the conventional answers will lead to reform. God has to bring about reform. And He will, in good time. He needs no help from the shrinks, IMHO.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 02, 2002.

Hi, Gene. Well, it has been a couple of months since you lit my fuse, but here it is! Man, how I hate this trash.

I believe that this is the third time in the past year that I have posted something similar to my above message. This time I did not initiate the matter, but was blessed to have a very wise and knowledgable person (Brian/sacerdos) presenting the same truths -- and in the form of convincing information "from the horse's mouth," the hard-working, effective, saintly doctors themselves. In the past, I have provided a link to at least one Internet site at which you could have done sufficient research to become aware of the fact that your thoughts on this topic -- (which you have just now stated for a third time, almost verbatim) -- are, for a third time, wrong.

You have a right to express error here another three times if you wish, but I will just continue to expose it as such, so that everyone else here will ignore it.

Gene, you simply trash what brilliant, orthodox Catholic doctors have written as "specious psychiatric opinions." You don't even realize how ridiculous it is to write those words, because the doctors (who are not in it for the cash, I assure you) have years and years of casework and scores of human examples of cures to point to -- while you have nothing to point to but your own prejudices. By contrast, you don't have a single hard fact to back up your foolish attacks -- just a silly idea to which you have clung for 50 years, with a mind closed to the possibility of cures.

Since you make sense on so many other things, Gene, it is really puzzling to me how you can go so far wrong on this one. It even seems as though you don't want any cures to take place, so much do you apparently hate the entire psychiatric/psychological profession, not realizing that there are effective Catholic doctors. What a sad prejudice! I hope that you will be cured of it soon.

By the way, you are twice wrong (and even ridiculous) in saying, "... like so many others, you [John] take everything a 'therapist' declares as a given. It never is, however."

First, you have no idea how much of what "therapist[s] declare" is believed by me. The truth is that I disbelieve or am quite skeptical of almost everything ... but not this thing, which has factual cures backing it up. I'm talking about men who were deeply immersed in the most degrading same-sex lifestyle, but who are now married and have children.
Second, by using the word "never," you reject everything all therapists declare. That makes you an utter fool, because the profession of psychotherapy would not have survived if therapists were "never" right.

Please get off my back on this subject until you have some evidence to back yourself up. Your opinion (probably supported only by "gay" activists and politically correct liberal nuts) is truly the pits.

God bless you, my mixed up friend.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 03, 2002.

John,

Although I hesitate to add to this thread and possibly fuel any fire starting, I have to say I totally agree with your and Brian's posts. I have read more than a few studies that back up the claim that homosexuality (or same sex attraction disorder) is NOT biological. Not only on this forum but other sources also (other web sites, magazines, etc.).

There may be some cases where the homosexual person is simply unable to overcome their same sex desires, but this does not stop them from living a chaste life as God demands. For these individuals I pray that they may live as God wants.

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), July 03, 2002.

I agree with John and Glenn.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), July 03, 2002.

John, and all others in agreement with John:

My post stated carefully, ''in my personal opinion''; as well as other concessions to your own rights.

Not once did I refer to you as fools. Nor as ignorant. I only said I disagreed.

You use these terms about me:''. What a sad prejudice! I hope that you will be cured of it soon.'' --Am I sick, because you don't convince me, fawning over saintly psychiatrists? I don't see them either as saintly or diaboical. If you think they have answers, I can't understand why. If they've been proven correct, and have a ''counselling'' remedy for all who repent of their evil proclivities, FINE. I would rather be wrong, for the sake of saving a few souls.

In future, have it your way. I'm completely backward. You are completely qualified to call me a fool. See if I care. I'm not trying to force you to understand what I think. I merely told you that I disagree. My words: ''I have to disagree with you and with these specious psychiatric opinions.''

Is this too rebellious? I think it's specious to presume a counsellor can convert a hardened sinner. It is mainly a MORAL fault, not clinical. I plainly stated God is able to do it; whereas, counsellors are over-rated. This is NOT a prejudice.

I don't see that a science (a dubious one) that has its origins in Freud (now discredited) and dependent on case studies-- with only a hundred years under way, is now capable of figuring out an anxiety that some men have suffered with since time began on account of a degree from some medical college. It's implausible on the face of it. Men have had this affliction throughout history. Now, for whatever reason, a college degree impresses you as useful for reversing it?

If so, I won't mistake you for fools, as you called me. --But you let me think what I please. Nobody's forcing you to believe me. I hope God may cure your particular blindness, not to vindicate me; but for your own good.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 04, 2002.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 04, 2002.

Dear John, I dont see the letters MD after your name, should we?. You certainly sound like the know all doctor type sometimes- what a bore. Gene was just expressing (very politely by the way)a different opinion than your own.

You and Chris B, are in my mind, the two sharpest tacks in the box around here, but an overbearing 'holier than thou' approach is the pits. We all know what Gene thinks of mind readers- why expect anything less, at least he's consistant.

As for "evidence" you scream about, surely you must realise that there is a wealth of evidence in the medical community opposing this view?

I tend to agree with your viewpoint but its not indisputible by any stretch of the imagination.

The best overall summary of most respected researchers is that homosexuality (like most other psychological conditions) is due to a combination of social, biological, and psychological factors.

If a genetic link is proven in the future you will look like the fool.

God Bless Courtenay

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), July 04, 2002.

Dear Courtenay,
I want to reinforce your accurate statement:

''The best overall summary of most respected researchers is that homosexuality (like most other psychological conditions) --'' is a very hit-and-miss human condition. Not because I say so. Saint Paul, 2,000 ago said the SIN (not disorder) was abominable and caused a further slide into what is called reprobate. Let a psychiatrist interpret that. In the Confessions of Saint Augustine 17 centuries old now, we already gained some insights into the enormous mystery that is the human soul. It isn't a mystery that easily resolved.

John says I'm trashing a medical profession out of prejudice, but he's only partly correct. I suggest rather the psychiatric profession isn't interested in SIN. If you follow the psychiatric method, much about our behavior is blameless, or a ''caused'' effect.

I grant the Wisconsin-based medical association is trying to help, writing open letters to our Catholic bishops. I made a rash remark about it being an affront to the Holy Spirit. Naturally, my own remarks are more often an affront than this. I certainly have to agree the candidate for priesthood must be screened. Or advising bishops of some other peripheral safeguards not taken in the past (come to think about it, Cardinal Law trusted way too much in ''professional'' opinions; and now must pay for it).

It should never occur to a Catholic that men who commit sacrileges and heinous crimes have any medical excuse. They are sinners, plain and simple. A psychiatrist has no call to advise the Catholic clergy in matters of morality. It helps shift the focus away from the true human crisis, which priests are well aware of. That sin offends God, first. That sexual license of any sort, but particularly pedophilia result from turpitude, not SSA. SSA isn't a sin. I think it's nature, giving one man the cross it spares another man. Just like Our Lord encountered outside of Jerusalem, when he met ten lepers crying for help.

The only course for men of the homosexual disposition is chaste thoughts, words and deeds. Anything less, and he'll die in sin.

Yes, they're going to call me a Taliban, saying such a thing. But I have more compassion for the poor gay activist than anyone who pretends a shrink can help him. Repentence is the only thing will help him.

To me one of the saddest spectacles is the ''Gay Pride'' parades nowadays --In so many ways, are the results of modern psychological tampering into the secrets of the human soul. We've been sold an illusion by these doctors. The idea that for happiness in life what we need most of all is ''self- esteem''. That's just another word for pride.

Tell a homosexual (or even a pedophile) he is a sinner. His PRIDE is immediately offended. Pardon me-- but I'll trust the Catholic faith and our bishops much sooner than I'll worry what a ''therapist'' thinks.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 04, 2002.

Jmj

How sad, Gene, that, in responding to me, you twice defended yourself as presenting an "opinion" -- and then Kiwi jumped in and also spoke of your "opinion."

Are you guys blind or just incredibly obstinate? Don't you read carefully what I post? I intentionally and carefully constructed my response, PROVING that this is no longer a matter of OPINION, but of FACT! And Glenn concurred that it has so been proved. [Thanks, Glenn.] Some people with SSAD have been cured though the instrumentality of psychotherapy. This is a fact, not an opinion. To say the opposite is not "to state an opinion," but "to state a falsehood." That's why part of what you have stated is not worthy of respect. Falsehood never is.

Now if you want to continue to make fools of yourself by arguing about "opinions" -- having nothing but your age-old prejudices to fall back on, rather than empirical evidence (proof that no one can be cured) -- then be my guest. But next time, please leave out any criticism of the doctors who wrote the above letter to the bishops. Don't generalize about therapists. They are mostly not Freudians, and some of them are devout Catholics who do not practice according to the comic-book, stereotypical caricature you have for therapists in your mind. I know what these guys are like and what they have done, but you don't. I have been following their careers and have seem their writings/interviews. Some of the things you accused them of ignoring (sin, repentance, spiritual healing, etc.) are things that they deeply believe in and concentrate on. By attacking these devout guys (who are geniuses to your relative kindergarten mentalities), you only bury yourself deeper in the muck. You have made jackasses out of yourselves.

But I must say that I do regret responding to your first message, Gene. The trouble is that I had not yet seen the other thread on which you had been carrying on a day-long battle royale with Fred. Had I known about your then current mental condition [brain flooded with testosterone], I would not have given you another opportunity to lash out wildly on this thread too.

And, Kiwi, I couldn't care less if I bore you or if you misjudge my posts as "holier-than-thou." I talk about virtue without saying that I am a paragon thereof [I am not], so it is not accurate for you to use the term "holier-than-thou." I need to straighten out my life, just like the next guy. Your problem is not that I am "overbearing/holier-than-thou," but rather that you suffer pangs of guilt in reading my posts, because you want to cling to your vices without being reminded that that is what they are.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 04, 2002.

OK, John Gecik--
I'm willing to let you have the last word. Your ''fact'' is unassailable. I'm not entitled to post a response unless it is to give you more credence, so have it your way.

Next time I'll know that no matter what I think, I have no knowledge or substance to add or take away from your magisterium. You could have saved your own testosterone and just said, ''Shut up, Gene.''

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 04, 2002.

Bollocks is all have to say to that load of pride and arrogance.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), July 04, 2002.

John posts the following, concluding there's no other perspective:

''Don't you read carefully what I post? I intentionally and carefully constructed my response, PROVING that this is no longer a matter of OPINION, but of FACT! And Glenn concurred that it has so been proved.''

If Glenn has for whatever reason agreed with John, I am neither in agreement nor concerned about their judgments. Two wrongs don't make a right.

John-- I have no doubt that in some instances a homosexual turned things around. The isolated fact these individuals married and begot offspring shows nothing concretely definitive. Everyone knows the male seed is carried in potential by all practicing homosexuals. It always was so.

If an unknown percentage of men made successful marriages under a program of psychological therapy despite their effeminacy, all it proves is the cases in point. It is cause for hope. Remember, I never claimed to know better than you-- or the psychiatric community -- everything that was, is, or is to come. But I still see it absurd --saying you've ''proven'' something in this matter.

Once more I must say to you, don't be so quick to call me a fool. I know what fools are; and I'm never a fool. I say things that disturb you on ocassion. But if you were yourself unassailable, I wouldn't dare say them, I'm not so foolish.

You are foolish to call me a fool. Maybe not because I am so unassailable. Let's say, because I can defend myself.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 04, 2002.

Oh, shucks!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 04, 2002.

"OK, John Gecik -- I'm willing to let you have the last word." [E. Chavez, in his second post back]

Tee-hee! You couldn't do that if your life depended on it, Gene.

Kiwi, almost all folks visiting here are from the U.S.. We don't use that term ("bollocks"), so most people won't even know what it means. It's not even in the American Heritage Dictionary. Although you used it as a way of saying, "Damned nonsense," it is actually a vulgar Britishism for "testicles" and ought not to be used at this site.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 05, 2002.

John I know you dont care what I think, indeed you have told me that before here but I must apologise. Surprise, surprise I feel guilty, not however with your post, I still think its prideful and arrogant but with calling you a "bore" and a "know all", "holier than thou", not fair or accurate . Sorry Courtenay

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), July 05, 2002.

Kiwi,
In fact, ''know-it-all'' can't be literal in meaning, since nobody can know all there is. It's accurate as used to describe this person. It means John is in possession of facts-- no matter what we may say. Once he's called them facts, he can't look at another point of view without calling it a mistake.

You and I can say we have some different grasp of reality. But to John, who already knows the ''facts'', you have a relative kindergarten mentality; and we bury ourselves deeper in the muck. ''You have made jackasses out of yourselves'', is now a ''fact'' to his way of thinking.

It doesn't make him boring, necessarily. But a know-it-all??? That's accurate. Not always, I realise. But in this SSA and psycholgy debate-- for sure.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 05, 2002.

Thanks, Kiwi!
No, thanks, Gene! [Now make sure you come back to get in the last word. {;-p)]
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 05, 2002.

I'm writing to Kiwi, John. You had the last word in our part of this argument. I'm not interested in replying to you; so if you continue posting, you'll get the final word. I didn't say I would get out of the thread. I only said you would be given a pass.

Kiwi thinks he was inaccurate; but he wasn't. You know it all.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 05, 2002.

Ok, at the risk of fanning the few dying embers that used to be a large flame, I just wanted to point out a few things.

First, I entitled the original thread and it's follow-up (this thread is the follow-up) "Something To Think About." Personally, I felt that it might be helpful to look at another perspective on everything the Church is and has gone through. Second, I cannot definitively say whether I agree or disagree with this information due to the simple fact that I have not done ample research on this topic, which is why I offered it as more of something to think about, rather than as a definitive belief I hold. I am not trying to "cop out" with regards to this issue, rather, I am trying to get all the facts before making a decision one way or the other. I have found, however, the points of both John and Eugene very helpful and insightful in this respect. Finally, had I known that this issue would incite such contraversy I probably would have refrained from posting the above articles since there seems to be enough contravery as it is. However, what's done is done and all I can do is apologize for posting something without doing the proper research beforehand.

God Bless

-- (sacerdos@hotpop.com), July 06, 2002.

Jmj

Please don't apologize, "sacerdos." You didn't do anything wrong.
Some of us sometimes express ourselves rather "emphatically" here ... but please don't let that make you "gun-shy" about posting controversial items. I have liked all your contributions to the forum, and I hope they won't taper off or disappear.

I know that you are uncomfortable about us getting hot under the collar, "sacerdos." But I hope that I am right in saying that those of us who argued strongly, above, do not like each other less just because of the argument.
God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 06, 2002.

I agree with John, Brian; you haven't said anything wrong. You gave the forum an opportunity to discuss a subject from both sides.

Just because I expressed a difference of opinion is no motive for regretting your post. In fact, I took the opportunity to speak to you directly. You may never before have questioned the validity of modern science's authority.

In most of John Gecik's rebuttal my serious contribution is judged as not much more than impertinant. Why?

Not for controversy's sake. He has set opinions; and I've challenged them. He would have challenged a college professor; which I am not. He's honest about his convictions. They rest mainly on a perceived truth; the word of a scientific community which is highly respected today.

He respects it so much that he asked me if I hadn't read his posts thoroughly. I had. But I just haven't accepted the premise that our medical community has arrived at the whole truth about sexual deviance. It's much too soon to absolve all psychological studies of killing some truths.

We need to face some alarming details. Cardinal Law of Boston, for instance, took the same word-- the opinons of counsellors and shrinks; that vouched for the stability of his errant priests. He believed they were on a rehabilitating course, and placed them where they could betray his trust. Now, Law is the evil pariah. No one holds those counsellors responsible.

What's more, I merely stated that Catholic prelates ought not be micromanaged by those who aren't ordained for that work. Psychologists are NOT our Church's pastors. The person who might have MOST realised such an ideal; John Gecik-- never even acknowledged I called upon the Holy Spirit as our first recourse.

I was just relegated to the rank of ''the pits''. Because I maintain psychiatrists have little or no true understanding of HOW homosexuals are made. They have theory; some of it sound and some of it wobbly. They are not above reproach.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 07, 2002.

Jmj

"Sacerdos," I trust that you will have the good sense to ignore the irrelevant personal attacks and other ruses used to deflect your attention from the facts.
I know that you will keep in mind that the FACTS are all that matter. They speak for themselves. The genuine CURES (after therapy, but never without therapy) are right there. The cures cannot be denied, except by self-deceivers.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 07, 2002.

My Dear John:
Let me see the ''irrelevant personal attack'' I made against you or your post.-- I never called you a fool. You called me one. I never called you self-deceived, i said you had certain convictions. I never attacked you at the personal level; but you call me somebody who ''doesn't want to see cures''. Which is false.

I never even claimed there may not be real cures. I did not resort to falsehood. I clearly stated these were my personal views; not just about the sin of depravity, but of the proper role of a psychiatrist. You believe, I guess, that the psychiatrist can ''educate'' a Church prelate. I have real doubts. For one thing, the shrink believes in therapy; the Church teaches repentance and absolution. Most psychiatrists let the moral issue rest, as a rule.

You are active in trying to thwart my effort to persuade. I never challenged your right to say something, I only disagreed with you. You are allowing yourself to be judgmental, not me. I stayed on subject.

Nor did I use a ruse to deflect from the ''facts''. I consider some of the facts irrelevant.

I said for the record there is always a potential for homosexuals to marry, beget children, and be straight. There is also the opposite case; a many examples of the married and respectable, with grown children, even. Who enter into homosexual affairs. The ones pronounced cured by therapy are only a minute percentage of the many practicing homosexuals. I also once suggested that any vast number of effeminately oriented men are nevertheless chaste individuals; at least in the overt activity.

You never pay attention to my positions. You dismiss them as unworthy of you, beneath you. But THESE also are facts. Why are you reluctant to face them? I suggested as well that great saints (Augustine, Paul, and others) have written extensively of the temptations of the flesh; and we should presume thousands of holy priests must have learned vastly more than a college professor could hope to learn in four years, about depravity and the reprobate soul.

You refuse to counter my argument. You simpley warned others not to believe me. When did I warn the forum you were expounding falsely??? NEVER.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 07, 2002.

John, --I realise I've unwittingly failed to give you the last word. If you had not made the unflattering comments about me, I would have passed. But you imply falsely that I've made personal attacks. If you desist from this practice, you won't be addressed again.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 07, 2002.

Gene, I'm not interested.

I'll simply stand by my last post, "sacerdos," which encapsulates the only relevant facts, as far as I am concerned.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 07, 2002.

Eugene,

Just because I expressed a difference of opinion is no motive for regretting your post.

I don't necessarily regret it, I just wish it didn't stir the waters as much as it did.

In fact, I took the opportunity to speak to you directly. Which I realized and was partly the reason I did not immediately respond. For example, your response, "You may mean well; and like so many others, you take everything a ''therapist'' declares as a given. It never is, however." is merely an assumption on your part since I never stated one way or the other whether or not I take everything a psychiatrist says as a given. In fact, I am one who takes most everything a psychiatrist says with a grain of salt. I have seen my share of therapists not for dealing with homosexuality or pedophilia but, rather, to deal with the violent loss of my father a few days after having my 2nd major surgery and 3rd minor one. So again, your statement "You may never before have questioned the validity of modern science's authority. is also an assumption that is not valid since I too hold therapists suspect to the highest degree. However, like I stated before, I thought this was an interesting study that more people might think about since it has seemed to have been successfully banished as a possible "solution" in dealing with homosexuality.

In your own defense your argument is not new by any stretch since Bishop Fulton J. Sheen dealt with this exact issue in his book, Peace of Soul in the chapter properly titled, "Psychoanalysis and Confession." He poses the same exact argument that therapists don't deal with the sin, but rather, some deep ingrained "problem" which usually results in a boosted self-esteem and little to no cleansing of the sin itself. However, and this might be what John thinks you are missing, John stated that these psychiatrists DO deal with the sin, the actual root problem, instead of dancing around some ingrained problem never recognizing where the actual problem originally stems from. Granted, I realize that these therapists are not priests, however, in John's defense, what if speaking to these therapists actually leads them to a priest, back to the sacraments, in particular, confession? What if these persons are not ready to talk immediately to a priest and need someone else to whom they can turn to in dealing with their problems. Besides, what if the problem actually is a psychological one as well? 9 times out of 10, at least in my experience, the priest would usually tell them to consult a psychiatrist perhaps even after going to confession.

I understand your concern here, and your mistrust in psychotherapists, but the reality is that even the holiest priests will sometimes recommend the consultation of a therapist when necessary.

I thank you both for your insights into this issue

God Bless

-- (sacerdos@hotpop.com), July 07, 2002.

God bless you, "sacerdos."
You are a role model for me to follow more often than I do, because you always keep a level head.
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 08, 2002.

Dear Brian,
I was glad to find that you're flexible enough to see both sides; and whatever your reservations might be about all I say, you don't feel it's a personal attack. The message is all you address. Plus, you didn't counter my opinion with ''That makes you an utter fool, because the profession of psychotherapy would not have survived'', or-- ''--Your opinion (probably supported only by "gay" activists and politically correct liberal nuts) is truly the pits.'' --and, ''God bless you, my mixed up friend.''

You could have, since you're the author of this title; but you did not. It was I, who ''stirred up the waters''; much to John's dismay. I'm the one who should be sorry. I am.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 08, 2002.

Jmj

I accept your apology, Gene. I'm glad you realize you should be sorry. Please keep the lesson learned in mind in the future. (;-p)

Oh, one other thing. Recall how you have often castigated Fred for repeating himself on various threads? Next time he does it, please let him "slide," since you did the same thing on this thread, in two ways. First it was your invalid "opinion," again and again. Then it has been your repeated whining about being insulted. Time to get over it and move on. "Broken records" can be mighty tiresome, and "control people" can be mighty obnoxious.

St. James, pray for us.
God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 08, 2002.

You could apologise yourself; if honesty were your best policy. I asked you to produce the ''irrelevant personal attacks'' against you (the ones Brian should ignore). Whereas, I showed you your own; not whining, just proving them.

The facts I repeated were to Glenn and Brian, not to you. Among these, the fact Cardinal Law made the mistake of relying on the ''work'' of professional therapists and psychologists. You evaded this. When something true is evaded in debate, we repeat it.

You claimed to have ''proven'' your point, and that Glenn corroborated it. I said two wongs don't make a right. You can't prove anything. You can produce other peoples' studies, which are not conclusive at all.

I have apologised for ''stirring the waters'', not for disputing you, John. Your anger at being disputed is written all over your posts. For myself, I'm not angry. I've taken an opposite point of view, and I haven't sunk to insulting anyone. You can learn from me, if you wish; to leave your ego out of it when you take the floor on important matters. You haven't yet countered my arguments. You just advised others to ignore them. I'm not making this up.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 08, 2002.

Gene, thanks for demonstrating again what I stated in the final sentence of my last post. I will have nothing more to say on this subject, because I see that any effort made by reasonable people is wasted on you.

John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 09, 2002.

Thank you too, John;
For your abrupt retreat. In a few days I hope to expose very obvious faults in the simplistic work of this Wisconsin psychiatrists' association's advice to the bishops of the Catholic Church.

Because I'm not loyal to any alma mater I stand a good chance of failure. I'm as you say, a GEEZER-- But nevertheless one who was conscious during easily a half-century; and capable of looking at the world.

Could be the academic worries are an obstacle to others; OK, then I'm good for a less popular view than what's expected. Don't worry, John. I may yet fall flat on my face. You said I was mixed up. If you don't want to participate, I understand. You may observe anyway. God be with you, John.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 10, 2002.

Jmj

Hello, Gene.
In future, kindly read my actual words and appreciate them for what they say. Don't put new words in my mouth. Don't mischaracterize my statements. Don't play mind games. Don't try to bully me, because you can't get away with it -- as you ought to know by now. You bully others here, and then, with a glib tongue or feigned penitence, you weasel out of trouble after they criticize you for that bullying. But I know your modus operandi too well for it to work against me, my clever friend.

I am not in "retreat" from this thread -- to quote a word you meanly chose from your oft-used vocabulary of belittlement. What I am doing is merely leaving this thread, in recognition of your inability to communicate rationally on this subject. Nothing more, nothing less. I yield no points to you here, because right should never yield to wrong. With still more belittlement of me and the doctors whom I admire, you said that I may "observe" as you "expose very obvious faults in [their] simplistic work". No thank you, sir. There is no point in my "observ[ing]" you embarrassing yourself, as you try to take on men who are far more brilliant and well-informed on these subjects than you are.

Rather than waste time reading what you will be posting here, I will instead be watching other threads, where I know that you have an abundant capacity to make a good contribution. I recommend that you drop this thread and work on something that you are capable of doing.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 10, 2002.

I repeat for your benefit, John:

For myself, I'm not angry. I've taken an opposite point of view, and I haven't sunk to insulting anyone. You can learn from me, if you wish; to leave your ego out of it when you take the floor on important matters. You haven't yet countered my arguments. You just advised others to ignore them.

This is why I said you've retreated. You have no way to counter what I've said. If you did, heaven and earth wouldn't have been able to stop you from pontificating. But you say it isn't any use --''because I see that any effort made by reasonable people is wasted on you.'' --Why, if you're so reasonable, can't you say I'm mistaken in the few points I made about the ''help'' Cardinal Law received from your ''brilliant, well-informed'' experts? Better, don't SAY it; prove it. You've never really proven anything in the thread, have you? You simply asserted the proof. So, a ''bully'' doesn't accept it?

Well, just be a little more mean-spirited, John. You've been escalating to the point of hatred. Go for the whole enchilada.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 11, 2002.

Jmj

"Hatred," you say, Gene?

I suppose that it was "hatred" when I told "sacerdos" these words about you and me, above?: "I hope that I am right in saying that those of us who argued strongly ... do not like each other less just because of the argument."

I suppose that it was "hatred" when, in my last post, I told you these words?: "I will ... be watching other threads, where I know that you have an abundant capacity to make a good contribution."

You are acting like a naughty and embarrassed little boy that has just been spanked in public. He temporarily acts and speaks as though his spanking parent "hates" him.

Gene, you apparently have yet to be introduced to a concept known as "fraternal correction." Well, maybe you have heard of it, but you definitely don't know how to take it. I rather doubt that there is a person on the planet from whom you would take correction. No, it is for you to correct others, not the other way 'round.

How foolish you were to write to me: "You haven't yet countered my arguments. ... You have no way to counter what I've said."
You are so blinded by emotion (first against the therapists, then against me) that you don't even realized tha (1) you have nothing worthy to be called "arguments" and (2) what you do have has already been shown to be baseless throughout this thread (and others on this subject). Since #2 is true, it would be improper for me to repeat it. I am not going to join you on the redundancy bandwagon. I had to tell you earlier to stop criticizing Fred for repeating himself, since you have begun to do the same. You are not going to succeed in forcing me to waste time repeating myself as you now do. You can just go back and re-read this and the other threads instead.

God bless you.
John
PS: I suggest you drop it. You will not get what you want by continuing to drone on. (And besides, this kind of thing upsets Frank Someone.)

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 13, 2002.

You are now the Spanking Parent of the forum, then? That's what I have been saying all along. If you don't think these remarks are an escalation, , you apparently have yet to be introduced to a concept known as ''flashing''. Have it your way.

-- eugenec. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 13, 2002.

Eugene,

Did you, by any chance, send me an email with an exe as an attachment? Somebody, under many different aliases, one being yours, has sent me a myriad of exe and bat files with content types as follows: Content-Type: audio/x-midi; name=newsmisc;dcopt=ist;sz=468x60;ord=14700178181.exe Content-ID:

Also, the originating IP is from pacbell.net. If you did send it, that is no problem, I just wanted to check since I am highly suspicious of any exe files I get in my email. Granted, I realize the above are audio files, but, again, I just wanted to check before opening anything like that.

Thank You and God Bless

-- (sacerdos@hotpop.com), July 14, 2002.

Brian be careful, I recieved something similar from Genes address but he didnt send it, I think it damaged my computer. I should have warned others I guess.

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), July 14, 2002.

kiwi,

Yeah, I realize the majority of exe files sent through email are usually malicious virii, trojans, or worms. Not to worry, I don't usually open them anyway. Besides, if you open them up (not clicking on them) you can see they are actually written in C++ and not at all what they say they are.

Thanks for your concern

God Bless

-- (sacerdos@hotpop.com), July 14, 2002.

Kiwi,

I received an e-mail with a pacbell address too, it was from someone named Joan - JH...don't know if it was "The Joan."

I deleted it...

That is exactly why I will not put my real e-mail addres on a public forum...too dangerous...wiped out my entire hard-drive one time opening an 'ugly' e-mail..

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), July 14, 2002.

Kiwi contacted me to say he would answer my ''questionnaire'' as soon a s he had time. I immediately responded to inform him I've e-mailed nobody in several weeks, much less with questionnaires. I warned him not to open stuff like that.

The last e-mail I sent to a forum member was about 2-3 months ago; Jeffrey Zimmerman.

-- eugenec. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 14, 2002.

Friends,
The person who has used my name and e-mail address is one of our recent contributers. He is attacking innocent members of our forum to get even with me for the may times I've confronted him here.

I've received an e-mail this last weekend with an attachment enclosed. It had a greeting which read, ''How are you, --JeanB''. I deleted this message without opening it. Not because I suspected a trick, but only because I never open attachments on any e-mail, even from relatives in my own family.

I'm not saying Jean Bouchard is the guilty party, though it is possible. I think it might be another person, doing exactly what he's done to you other members; using a stolen name. The same way he stole mine to use against others, he may have stolen Jean's to infest my computer. He failed, or she-- if it was Joan Storey. I suspect two others who may be mad enough at me to do it. They are, however, true practicing Catholics. I can't imagine they'd stoop so low. But each one is highly computer-literate. I won't say their names, they know who I mean.

I want to say emphatically, I've sent NO e-mails for months; only one REPLY, to Courtenay last week. Neither message had any attached file. The last attachment I sent from my computer was at Christmastime, an e- card to a relative in San Diego.

I advise all of you to delete any e-mail you may receive that carries an attached file; assuming you do not have some form of software to detect virus infections. The person who has done this to us is actively doing evil. I wish I were positive which one it is; and I could denounce him/her by name. He is a coward.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 15, 2002.

Gene, MaryLu,

Yes, I did too recieve a suspect letter last night too. From whom I do not recall now. It was dumped ASAP. Thanks for the warning folks.

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), July 15, 2002.

Dear sacerdos et al.,
I have not received anything purporting to be from any of you. Nor have I sent anything to any of you. Nor would I ever intentionally do anything so malicious. (If anyone thought I was capable of such a thing, his would be a textbook case of paranoia!)
Sorry to read about your past bad luck, Mary Lu.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 18, 2002.

Dear John
I think I know who it was. It could have been you- - because you have the skill. But, as I said already, you are a real Catholic. Whatever your displeasure with me, I think you follow your conscience as well as anybody here.

We should give that guilty person no undue importance; he/she did it for spite; did it to me. That's the first mistake he/she made. I trust in God.

Why lose a moment's sleep over the spiteful actions of pseudo-intellectual lightweights? They are good with computers, maybe. Let them rule over Nerdistan, for all I care. Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 18, 2002.

Eugene,

It doesn't really bother me either. I have learned from past experiences how to recognize, view, and destroy virii, worms, and trojans. Just for fun I tracked the headers, it seems the "culprit" was using a prodigy acct with a male name as an alias. Of course, the headers could have been forged, but it didn't seem too likely.

God Bless

-- (sacerdos@hotpop.com), July 18, 2002.

To Whom it may concern

I have read the psychiatrists letter to the Bishops with great interest.This is the first peice of literature I have read which offers any real insight into the causes of compulsive attraction of men to adolescent boys.I have no involvement with the Catholic church but would like to offer some advice. It is obvious that there is much debate over whether or not such conditions can be effectively "cured",or whether such topics should even be studied.My belief is that the effective treatment of underlying psycological causes of pedophilia and ephebophilia should be pursued at all cost,for unless cure is found for the unfortunate sufferers of these conditions there is not the slightest hope that the incidence of child abuse will even be reduced let alone eliminated.Even if the pedo/ephebophile is able to abstain from these "sinful" acts, they are condemned to a lifetime of suffering through no fault of their own.Either people are born as pedophiles or it is a condition aquired through life experiences and therefore can be prevented or cured.

-- daniel (Jmarks1@bigpond.net.au), January 15, 2003.