Posted on 05/05/2002 2:44:56 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
|
||
|
Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown |
|
|
Diocese Supports Paid Pro-Homosexual Psychologist
Dr Brown: They are the local Catholic Taliban..."
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Diocese Spokesman Supports Dr. Brown
Diocese spokeswoman Sister Mary Parks defends Brown. When he asks candidates questions, hes trying to see where theyre coming from. He may ask them from any ideological standpoint, to see what their reaction would be. A pastor must be flexible and open to all people who come to him, she said.
|
|
|
||
|
Dr. David Brown In His Own Words
Would you want your son or grandson screened for the priesthood by this man?
|
|
"In a telephone interview form his State College office, Brown said he did testify in favor of non-discrimination and non-harassment of homosexuals. I drew from the Bishops Pastoral Letter on the topic, and I expressed the opinion that Jesus would be appalled at such bigotry."
Rose is trying to reconfigure the current sex scandal into an anti-homosexual crusade. Its like anti-Semitism, he said. Part of Roses central thesis is that ultra-liberals and gays have taken over the process of becoming a priest, and that I only give liberals or gays a recommendation. Thats false and paranoid, Brown said. These people are pathologically homophobic, and the goal of local conservative Catholics is to have the bishop terminate my work. They are the local Catholic Taliban. They insist on their point of view. They are relentless, mean-spirited and punitive, he said.
"I am a Roman Catholic Christian, a psychologist, and so forth..."
"I know some people genuinely and honestly believe that the Bible and Christianity says that homosexuality is a sin, but I think that there are also many, many responsible Christian scholars and theologians, good Bible scholars, from all dimensions of Christianity who don't agree with that position, and, I think, would be appalled that this sort of justification is being offered in the name of Christianity.
It's not even, if you ever read St. Thomas Aquinas, and you read book two of the Summa Theologica, it's not even going to be surprising to say that the so-called natural law argument is more and more, I think, being challenged.St. Thomas himself, in the second book of the Summa Theologica, says that homosexuality is natural, not unnatural. And he also says homosexuality among animals is natural, not unnatural. So I think we need to be careful when we invoke such things, especially where we don't understand the original meaning in Greek, in Aramaic, in Hebrew, or Latin or whatever you want to call it, of what some of these people, the fathers of the church, or authors of the Bible said. I think we're on very dangerous ground."
Dr. David J. Brown, a psychologist in State College, cites several problems with the ex-gay movement. Brown says proponents of "conversion" therapy do not produce any scientific evidence to support their claims. In fact, there is a wealth of research that shows it does NOT work. Another problem is that conversion therapists are misleading in their use of the word "change." At best, "change" means abstinence, not true re-orientation. Even if it were possible to change one's sexual identity, Brown explains, there is no reason to do it. Often the desire to change stems from someone or something other than the patient, thereby making the therapy unethical. In these cases, the therapy is not in the best interests of the patient.
Both Brown and McClanahan agree that such people see the world in only black and white. They typically have no tolerance for diversity, because diversity introduces unfamiliarity into their lives. Through unfamiliarity, they experience uncertainty and discomfort. "There will always be a group of people who seek to soothe their own anxiety with dogma and certitude," Brown explains.
The paid advertisement in a recent CDT, "The Catholic Response," is disturbing. It is pretentious to call itself the Catholic response. Most of the statements in the ad are actually those of Joseph Ratzinger -- albeit a prominent administrator of a Vatican bureaucracy (the same that once condemned Galileo), but hardly the univocal articulator of Catholi-cism. The Catholic Church is more comprehensive than Ratzinger (and his local devotees). In its theology, Catholi-cism embraces diversity and is better defined in the majestic language of the Vatican II Council: "The Church is the People of God," not just the so-called magisterium that too often is identified with an individual like Cardinal Ratzinger, as if they are the same.
But most disturbing is the ad's insidious implication that it is good moral theology to justly discriminate against homosexuals -- "Their rights can be legitimately limited ... and if they assert their homosexuality .... neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when ... irrational and violent acts increase." This "theology" of homophobic negativity evokes a frightening reminiscence of another era in this century when it became legitimate to marginalize and sub-human another group of people as a threat to "normal" values.
|
||
|
BTW, in regard to women priestesses, I've noticed a preponderence of lesbian advocates and gay male advocates for this. Makes me wonder.
I have the Summa, but it would take me forever to find the passage referred to. I did specialize in medieval English in graduate school, however, and I know that the medieval view of "natural" was not the modern "natural = good."
I do remember one graduate seminar in which we explored the various meanings of "natural" by answering the question "What is the opposite of 'natural'?" Many of you may be able to suggest more, but those I recall are "unnatural," "artificial" and "supernatural."
Love sinner--hate the sin, why do the pro-perversion supporters get this part wrong?
Jesus would be appalled at such bigotry.
Bigotry cant be against behavior, why dont they get this one right either?
tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered
The practice of perversion is a disordered practice, David Brown and the self-serving perversionists at the APA know it should still be a pathology registered in the DSM.
Why are they treating seminary like a frat party?
A whole 25 years, eh?
I'll defer to the democracy of the dead and the teaching of the Oldest Institution on the planet, I guess, on this one.
Hmmmmmm. You know, quite aside from seminary screening, there are valid uses of psychological and psychiatric categories. HOWEVER, these are very hypothetical and contested disciplines with a great deal of quackery and psychobabble. To get some idea of the changes of paradigm and controversies, just check out Out of Its Mind: Psychiatry in Crisis, A Call for Reform by Harvard's J. Allan Hobson and Jonathan A. Leonard. The degree of subjective distortion and imprecision are recognized at the professional level. You could have ten of these guys and each one would come up with a different diagnosis or personality profile. The notion that a psychological test or interview would be sufficient for approving a vocation is a little ridiculous. Where are the checks and balances in DIOCESAN PSYCHOLOGY??? Who guards the guardians? (to quote the old adage).
If it were not for the regular stop at Holy Trinity Seminary in Irving, Texas in the early 70s, when we were the only seminary in the country still requiring students to wear cassock and collar while on the University of Dallas campus, the Ben E. Keith distributorship for Budweiser would have gone out of business.
The ability to hook up a keg to a tap was a requirement for ordination there.
By the way, I initiated this article by contacting the paper and obtaining their pledge to protect the identity of the seminarians (and priests, if we could find anyone who would talk.) I then put the author in contact with the two "conservative Catholics" quoted, George Foster and Brian Barcaro (who runs The Diocese Report). They are close friends and at one time we all attended the same rosary cenacle together. We've been fighting the homosexual rot in State College PA (as well as the rest of this diocese) for years, and I have had a guest editorial published in the State College paper dealing with this issue, as well as several letters to the ed there. But this is the first real break we've had in the mainstream media within our diocese.
A whole 25 years, eh?
I'll defer to the democracy of the dead and the teaching of the Oldest Institution on the planet, I guess, on this one.
If only Chesterton were alive today to comment on such nonsense. Modernism - - what a joke.
If there are still any lingering doubts as to just how extensive this problem is in the (American) church, you may want to turn your browser here. The www.rcf.org (Roman Catholic Faithful) have been monitoring chat rooms where gay priests meet. The following is from their web site:
"In light of recent ongoing scandals being brought to light, many visitors to our site have asked that we make this information about an internet-based homosexual priest ring available once again. It is graphic and offensive. Prayerful discretion is advised."
We need a Welcome to the "FRee" Republic Catholic Ghetto. Please leave your rights of FRee Speech at the Log In button" logo.
Anybody good with graphics?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.