Topic: Reparative Therapy is Dangerous to Christian Therapists

[ms.hoorah]

Today at The American Psychological Association, Exodus International is going to discuss their findings from their six-year-long study on reparative therapy for homosexuals.  Last Tuesday, the APA Council of Representatives decide to vote 125-4 against reparative therapy stating that it “was not a therapeutic response”  for therapists to suggest this to homosexual clients.  (read: We will assist any client, to which you have suggested reparative therapy, to take legal action against you. We will assist our finest and most famous psychologists to  testify against you in court.   We will permanently cancel your membership to the APA . We will not allow renewal of your malpractice liability insurance, purchased at a more reasonable price, through the APA. We will encourage your employer to fire/discipline you.  We will bring your dangerous behavior before your state licensing board in an effort to suspend or remove your license. We will make it difficult or impossible for you to complete your required CEUs needed for your state’s license renewal.)

For those readers not practicing in a medical field, this is the APA declaring that reparative therapy is now malpractice.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090805/ap_on_re_us/us_psychologists_gays

[ialmisry]

Today at The American Psychological Association, Exodus International is going to discuss their findings from their six-year-long study on reparative therapy for homosexuals.  Last Tuesday, the APA Council of Representatives decide to vote 125-4 against reparative therapy stating that it “was not a therapeutic response”  for therapists to suggest this to homosexual clients.  (read: We will assist any client, to which you have suggested reparative therapy, to take legal action against you. We will assist our finest and most famous psychologists to  testify against you in court.   We will permanently cancel your membership to the APA . We will not allow renewal of your malpractice liability insurance, purchased at a more reasonable price, through the APA. We will encourage your employer to fire/discipline you.  We will bring your dangerous behavior before your state licensing board in an effort to suspend or remove your license. We will make it difficult or impossible for you to complete your required CEUs needed for your state’s license renewal.)

For those readers not practicing in a medical field, this is the APA declaring that reparative therapy is now malpractice.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090805/ap_on_re_us/us_psychologists_gays

It would be interesting if they took the same stand against those who "solve" the problem with a sex change.

[ms.hoorah]

http://www.apa.org/topics/transgender.html

I have never read that surgeons assisting the transgendered are committing malpractice. 

[ialmisry]

I see that they have arrogated to themselves the ability to give spiritual advice:

Instead, the APA urged therapists to consider multiple options — that could range from celibacy to switching churches — for helping clients whose sexual orientation and religious faith conflict.

Judith Glassgold, a Highland Park, N.J., psychologist who chaired the task force, said she hoped the document could help calm the polarized debate between religious conservatives who believe in the possibility of changing sexual orientation and the many mental health professionals who reject that option.

"Both sides have to educate themselves better," Glassgold said in an interview. "The religious psychotherapists have to open up their eyes to the potential positive aspects of being gay or lesbian. Secular therapists have to recognize that some people will choose their faith over their sexuality."

In dealing with gay clients from conservative faiths, says the report, therapists should be "very cautious" about suggesting treatments aimed at altering their same-sex attractions.

Evidently, altering their church membership warrents no such caution.

She suggested that devout clients could focus on overarching aspects of religion such as hope and forgiveness in order to transcend negative beliefs about homosexuality, and either remain part of their original faith within its limits — for example, by embracing celibacy — or find a faith that welcomes gays.

"There's no evidence to say that change therapies work, but these vulnerable people are tempted to try them, and when they don't work, they feel doubly terrified," Glassgold said. "You should be honest with people and say, 'This is not likely to change your sexual orientation, but we can help explore what options you have.'"

The also prejudiced the conclusions from the start:

The APA task force took as a starting point the belief that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality, not a disorder, and that it nonetheless remains stigmatized in ways that can have negative consequences.

A different conclusion was reached by the ban on those egaged in homosexual activity in adopting etc, research that upheld the ban in the Supreme Court, but was not allowed in full in the legal action to uphold a similar ban in Arkansas.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ResearchReviewHomosexualParenting.pdf

one of the rare cases where the gay agenda lost in court, so they have to depend on extra legal means.  Like the APA.

[ms.hoorah]

Here is a very scary statement from Judith Glassgold, chairman of the task force.   “Therapist should be “very cautious” about suggesting treatments aimed at altering their (homosexual clients’) same-sex attractions."   Coming from a psychologist this statement will have*** deep hidden meanings. **** One of those hidden meanings is that the APA has declared reparative therapy as malpractice and “therapists that dare to implement such therapy will face the repercussions.” 

It appears  that in American, non-Christian psychology, the homosexual customer is always right (definitely not a pun).
 

[ms.hoorah]

Today at The American Psychological Association, Exodus International is going to discuss their findings from their six-year-long study on reparative therapy for homosexuals.  Last Tuesday, the APA Council of Representatives decide to vote 125-4 against reparative therapy stating that it “was not a therapeutic response”  for therapists to suggest this to homosexual clients.  (read: We will assist any client, to which you have suggested reparative therapy, to take legal action against you. We will assist our finest and most famous psychologists to  testify against you in court.   We will permanently cancel your membership to the APA . We will not allow renewal of your malpractice liability insurance, purchased at a more reasonable price, through the APA. We will encourage your employer to fire/discipline you.  We will bring your dangerous behavior before your state licensing board in an effort to suspend or remove your license. We will make it difficult or impossible for you to complete your required CEUs needed for your state’s license renewal.)

For those readers not practicing in a medical field, this is the APA declaring that reparative therapy is now malpractice.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090805/ap_on_re_us/us_psychologists_gays

It would be interesting if they took the same stand against those who "solve" the problem with a sex change.

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/transgender.pdf

THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT APA recognizes the efficacy, benefit and
medical necessity of gender transition treatments for appropriately evaluated individuals and
calls upon public and private insurers to cover these medically necessary treatments;

[Ionnis]

I am not surprised at all by what the APA has said.  I actually welcome it!  Reparative therapy can be quite harmful.  Same-sex attraction is rarely ever chosen and its etiology is largely unknown.  If we don't have an etiology, how can we cure it?  When I was a Protestant, I knew several people that were in reparative therapy.  None of them are in it anymore.  One married a woman and then divorced her and entered a relationship with another man, a few lost complete faith in God and are probably living a sinful lifestyle (I can't say for sure), and two of them are celibate.  The toll that reparative therapy took on the spiritual health and mental health of these individuals is incalculable.   Luckily the Orthodox Church doesn't require a homosexual to become a heterosexual in order to receive the Mysteries.  The Orthodox Church requires same-sex attracted persons to live a chaste life.  And according to Orthodoxy, sexual acts cannot occur outside of a union between a man and a woman in the Sacrament of Matrimony.  Same-sex attracted individuals are called to chastity like everyone else, which for them means celibacy.  And just like everyone else, when they have a lustful thought or engage in a sinful behavior, they go to Confession and seek forgiveness and healing.  Just my two cents...

[ialmisry]

I am not surprised at all by what the APA has said.  I actually welcome it!  Reparative therapy can be quite harmful.  Same-sex attraction is rarely ever chosen and its etiology is largely unknown.  If we don't have an etiology, how can we cure it? 

How can we comment on it being rarely ever chosen then?

The problem with the APA is that they have taken the position that there is nothing to cure.

When I was a Protestant, I knew several people that were in reparative therapy.  None of them are in it anymore.  One married a woman and then divorced her and entered a relationship with another man, a few lost complete faith in God and are probably living a sinful lifestyle (I can't say for sure), and two of them are celibate.  The toll that reparative therapy took on the spiritual health and mental health of these individuals is incalculable.

Can't comment here.

   Luckily the Orthodox Church doesn't require a homosexual to become a heterosexual in order to receive the Mysteries.  The Orthodox Church requires same-sex attracted persons to live a chaste life.  And according to Orthodoxy, sexual acts cannot occur outside of a union between a man and a woman in the Sacrament of Matrimony.  Same-sex attracted individuals are called to chastity like everyone else, which for them means celibacy.  And just like everyone else, when they have a lustful thought or engage in a sinful behavior, they go to Confession and seek forgiveness and healing.  Just my two cents...

No disagreement here, except to point out the difficulty that the cross of same-sex attraction doesn't come with the gift of celibacy.

[Ionnis]

Forgive me, Iaimisry, but I don't know how to use the quotations. 

There are studies that suggest that homosexuality is a mixture of 'nature' and 'nurture'.  'Nurture' doesn't necessarily mean 'choice' either.  While there is nothing definitive, it is strongly suggested that there is no one single etiology, which would make the curing of homosexual attraction very difficult.  Also, based upon my discussions with Christians who have a primarily emotional and sexual attraction to members of the same-sex, I do believe them when they say that have not chosen to have these attractions.  I mean why would someone choose to be homosexual and then rush to reparative therapy.  If homosexuality is indeed chosen, reparative therapy is unnecessary. 

The APA doesn't believe there is anything to cure.  This shouldn't surprise you since it is a secular organization.  But besides that, I'm not sure what there is anything to cure either.  What is there to cure?  I have agreed that homosexual acts are incompatible with the Faith.  I just don't see what secular psychology has to offer someone that is suffering from a spiritual ailment.  Isn't that what our spiritual fathers are for?  Should we expect secular institutions to cure spiritual ailments?  Even if they tried, they couldn't.  Only God provides healing. 

You make an interesting point about the difficulty of the cross of same-sex attraction and the gift of celibacy.  I firmly believe that the Lord does not give people more than they can handle.  I believe that those with homosexual orientations can bear that Cross, while not having the gift of celibacy.  I'd say the same thing to a heterosexual man or woman who spent their lives looking for a spouse and never finding one. 

I believe that those with same-sex attraction carry a large cross and that is why I am quick to come to their defense.  A lot of homosexuals, especially in the Protestant environment I grew up in were told, "Become straight or you're not welcome here."  We see homosexuals becoming resentful and abandoning the Church and going and living lives outside the will of God because many attempt to become heterosexual and they cannot.  We really must support those who suffer with this great burden.  We shouldn't look down on them or think of them any differently than anyone else.  Since they cannot have their own families, we need to welcome them into ours and help them have a sense of community.  C'mon, we all have been to Orthodox parishes where there is that effeminate guy in Church and everyone looks at him like he is an exhibit from the zoo.  How horrible that must feel for those people.  How alienating and lonesome such an experience must be.  No, we should support them in their struggles-it's the Christian thing to do, IMHO. 

 

[ms.hoorah]

Seth, please know that reparative therapy can be initiated by Christian therapists/psychologists.

If you are in a parish where there is discrimination of one group of sinners by another group of sinners, you should take loving action to stop it.  Perhaps a gentle and private conversation with those, who make others feel unwanted, would stop the nasty behavior. Immediately go stand, in the nave, beside those who are made to feel unwelcome.  Bring them a cup of coffee after Divine Liturgy and sit near them during coffee hour. Consider talking to the priest about this problem you witnessed. I have to wonder if the priests, in the parishes that you described, taught that everyone is “the first among sinners” and everyone needs to make continuous efforts to avoid sin.

If you are an individual that was made to feel unwelcome in a church, consider leaving the abusive one if you can locate a loving parish.  Please know that many of your Orthodox brothers and sisters do not think it is abusive to suggest/assist with methods and treatments to help others avoid sin. Here are two examples of helping others to avoid sin:  Offering to drive an admitted alcoholic to an AA meeting, to a physician appointment, or to a counseling session with a therapist.  If a sinner (that includes everyone) asks you for a ride to Vespers and confession and you comply. It is not unloving to try to help others avoid sin. 

The absence of any other replies to your post reminds me of the old rap song, “U Can’t Touch This”,  by MC Hammer.  If you do not receive other responses,  post your comment again at “a website dedicated to the study of Orthodox Christianity through its patristic, monastic and liturgical heritage with Revd Professor M.C. Steenberg, Webmaster.”

[Ionnis]

Hello Ms. Hoorah,

Thank you for your post and the concern you expressed.  However, I think you misunderstood part of what I was saying.  I wasn't speaking of my own parish or my priest.  As far as I can tell, everyone seems kind and welcoming towards everyone else. I was not speaking about myself.  I am a mental health therapist/social worker and I am somewhat of a 'bleeding heart'.  It is very important to me, as a Christian, to make sure that we as a Church don't alienate people, especially the ones that need our love and support the most.  I have worked with clients who have homosexual orientations and many of them have a deep hatred and distrust for the Church and when I hear their experiences in the Church, I can't really fault them for their deep mistrust and hurt.  Some have been treated terribly.  It is our job as Christians to share the Gospel with *all* people and that is done through our words and actions.  We shouldn't make crosses more difficult then they already are.  A homosexual can be a member in good standing in the Church, provide s/he remains celibate.  But adding the extra requirement to become heterosexual is ludicrous.  And promoting reparative therapy, which has been proven to be damaging and unhelpful, is not Christ-like, in my opinion.  There is a book out there by Fr. Thomas Hopko that deals with same-sex attraction and the Orthodox Church which I highly recommend.  I do believe that it provides a good Orthodox response to this hot button issue.  The Orthodox response is a truly liberating response.  So many homosexuals are living soul destroying lives.  I think most of them know this in their hearts.  They are not living God pleasing lives.  They need healing and that healing is only found in Christ's Holy Church.  The doors to the Divine Hospital must be open to all sinners!  Ah, God is good!  We Orthodox Christians are a blessed people - let's share that blessing with others!

[ms.hoorah]

Forgive me for misinterpreting your post and trying to provide you with therapeutic assistance.  Since you a therapist, you are aware that there are many forms of reparative therapy and have been since the research of Freud and “company”.  Individuals who consent to one form of this therapy practice interventions with the patient over years which assist them in avoiding or eliminating behaviors/activities that lead them into same sex behaviors.  Successful outcomes in such a therapy program are not always defined as conversion to opposite sexual preference.  The successful outcome can be that the individual learns to practice celibacy and learns how to meet his/her emotional needs with non-sinful activities and non-sexual friendships.  This program is clearly a long term goal and requires a massive lifestyle change from the patient.  I have personally witnessed this accomplished by two individuals by God’s assistance, the individual’s unwavering faith, the prayers of their supportive family and friends, and long- term therapy.

I agree that there are many who have mistrust and pain related to any form of religion. These suffering individuals have collected injuries from multiple issues not only the issue of sexual attraction.  We must realize that we are all sinners and encourage each other on the path of salvation.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

First of all, psychology is a pseudo science. Then when you add chemical drugs to the equation it can become a form of sorcery. No one should ever seek psychiatric help from secular sources.

The brain is a biological organ, and mental illnesses such as bipolar disorder need to be treated by medical professionals. Chemical inbalances need to be treated with pharmaceutical medications. But "psychology" should not have anything to do with this.

The problem I have with psychiatry is that it confuses emotional problems and chemical inbalances. We all have emotional difficulties, some more than others. But emotional difficulties are not automatically indicative of a biological problem in the brain. And emotional problems can never be treated with chemical drugs. They will only mask the problem. Only biolgical chemical inbalances in the organ of the brain need to be treated with chemical medication. 

Biological illnesses need to be treated with biological medical attention. But emotional problems can only be effectively dealt with from a proper spritual perspective.

The psychiatric community pretends to be able to address people's greatest needs while refusing to acknowledge the most important component of man- his soul. And this is ironic, because the word "psychiatry" is derived from the Greek word meaning "soul." In fact, secular psychiatry basically views religious devotion as a mental disorder. They'll tell you that a little religion is healthy, but don't allow it to dominate your life.

Now, I have respect for true Christian psychologists and psychiatrists who conduct their practice from an objective spiritual foundation. They are doing a lot of good and helping a lot of people. I myself have benefitted from their knowledge and assistance. But I strongly warn people not to ever deal with secular psychiatrists or psychologists. They will do you much more harm than good. And I speak from abundant experience. Believe me.

Selam

     

[ozgeorge]

reparative therapy is now malpractice.

And it is malpractice.

I strongly warn people not to ever deal with secular psychiatrists or psychologists.

Hmmmmmm......

[Myrrh23]

I disagree with avoiding secular psychologists. OzGeorge's secular counseling to me was very helpful. Secular does not automatically translate to "Devil's Children" or something.

[Entscheidungsproblem]

I'd have to disagree, but I suppose I have more faith in the "secular world".    I know a great deal of people who been able to turn their lives around (for the better) through secular psychiatrists and psychologists, some even with an increased love of their faith, whether it be Christian, Jewish, etc.  

Psychology is a soft science, therefore, due to its very nature, does not always follow the scientific method to a tee.  They are academics who look to better understand the human mind and its phenomenae, and in turn, often assist those who struggle with a variety of issues.  Now, medical doctors who focus on the mind and mental disorders are far from sorcerers.  Yet, mixing medical science with that of the mind can delve into realms those in other sciences don't deal with.

A qualified psychiatrist (whether secular or Christian) can differ between a mental illness and emotional problems, but sometimes there is a very fine line between them.  Many emotional problems can a sign of a much larger problem.  But if a such problem isn't an illness or imbalance, than it be dealt with in a variety of ways, whether it be secular or Christian counselling.

The origins of "psychiatric" mean "soul"/"mind", which makes sense, since in the past the conscious mind was often tied in with the soul.  Even the most God-doubting psychiatrist will understand the beliefs of his/her patient and will work within their framework, provided they are not bringing about severe psychosis.  Bad experiences with "secular" psychiatrists and good experiences with Christian ones are not overly fair outlooks.  I also believe discouraging people from attending psychiatric or psychological help based on the belief system of the helper is irresponsible.  On both side of the secular/religious fence you will find the qualified and the unqualified, the good and the bad, those who help and those who cause more problems.

[ozgeorge]

I have a lot to say on this issue of psychology as science, but I will not derail this thread which is about  "reparative therapy" (which I agree with the APA is malpractice).

[Entscheidungsproblem]

"reparative therapy" (which I agree with the APA is malpractice).

Ditto.  The US is just catching up on what several other professional organisations and governing bodies have said in other countries.  It hardly comes as a surprise, especially since some organisations have used APA studies to determine their own positions.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

I'd have to disagree, but I suppose I have more faith in the "secular world".    I know a great deal of people who been able to turn their lives around (for the better) through secular psychiatrists and psychologists, some even with an increased love of their faith, whether it be Christian, Jewish, etc.  

Psychology is a soft science, therefore, due to its very nature, does not always follow the scientific method to a tee.  They are academics who look to better understand the human mind and its phenomenae, and in turn, often assist those who struggle with a variety of issues.  Now, medical doctors who focus on the mind and mental disorders are far from sorcerers.  Yet, mixing medical science with that of the mind can delve into realms those in other sciences don't deal with.

A qualified psychiatrist (whether secular or Christian) can differ between a mental illness and emotional problems, but sometimes there is a very fine line between them.  Many emotional problems can a sign of a much larger problem.  But if a such problem isn't an illness or imbalance, than it be dealt with in a variety of ways, whether it be secular or Christian counselling.

The origins of "psychiatric" mean "soul"/"mind", which makes sense, since in the past the conscious mind was often tied in with the soul.  Even the most God-doubting psychiatrist will understand the beliefs of his/her patient and will work within their framework, provided they are not bringing about severe psychosis.  Bad experiences with "secular" psychiatrists and good experiences with Christian ones are not overly fair outlooks.  I also believe discouraging people from attending psychiatric or psychological help based on the belief system of the helper is irresponsible.  On both side of the secular/religious fence you will find the qualified and the unqualified, the good and the bad, those who help and those who cause more problems.

I agree with much of what you say. It certainly presents a lot of problems when an ostensible science operates outside of the standards of the scientific method. I refered to it as psuedo-science; you call it "soft" science. Either way we both see some problems with it.

I urged caution, warning against secular psychiatry. That does not mean that every secular psychiatrist is an agent of satan. But why should a Christian seek a secular psychiatrist when there are many good Christian psychiatrists out there. Remember, we are dealing with the soul, not merely biology. A secular cardiologist, for example, is a different matter. But issues of emotion and the mind are inextricably wed to the spirit and the soul. And secular psychiatry is ill equipped to adequately deal with such matters. 

Selam

[ozgeorge]

I agree with much of what you say. It certainly presents a lot of problems when an ostensible science operates outside of the standards of the scientific method. I refered to it as psuedo-science; you call it "soft" science. Either way we both see some problems with it.

I urged caution, warning against secular psychiatry. That does not mean that every secular psychiatrist is an agent of satan. But why should a Christian seek a secular psychiatrist when there are many good Christian psychiatrists out there. Remember, we are dealing with the soul, not merely biology. A secular cardiologist, for example, is a different matter. But issues of emotion and the mind are inextricably wed to the spirit and the soul. And secular psychiatry is ill equipped to adequately deal with such matters. 

Selam

Firstly, you don't seem to know the difference between psychology and psychiatry, and secondly, you don't seem to understand that they both depend entirely on the scientific method which is precisely why reparative therapy (which does not use the scientific method) is malpractice and not evidence based. And thirdly you don't seem to know that "psyche" does not just mean "soul" it means "life" as well.
The sad case of the nun who was killed in Romania during an "exorcism" is an example of attempts by Orthodox Priests to treat what is actually mental illness: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4107524.stm
She would have been better off being treated by atheist psychologists and psychiatrists.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

I agree with much of what you say. It certainly presents a lot of problems when an ostensible science operates outside of the standards of the scientific method. I refered to it as psuedo-science; you call it "soft" science. Either way we both see some problems with it.

I urged caution, warning against secular psychiatry. That does not mean that every secular psychiatrist is an agent of satan. But why should a Christian seek a secular psychiatrist when there are many good Christian psychiatrists out there. Remember, we are dealing with the soul, not merely biology. A secular cardiologist, for example, is a different matter. But issues of emotion and the mind are inextricably wed to the spirit and the soul. And secular psychiatry is ill equipped to adequately deal with such matters. 

Selam

Firstly, you don't seem to know the difference between psychology and psychiatry, and secondly, you don't seem to understand that they both depend entirely on the scientific method which is precisely why reparative therapy (which does not use the scientific method) is malpractice and not evidence based. And thirdly you don't seem to know that "psyche" does not just mean "soul" it means "life" as well.
The sad case of the nun who was killed in Romania during an "exorcism" is an example of attempts by Orthodox Priests to treat what is actually mental illness: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4107524.stm
She would have been better off being treated by atheist psychologists and psychiatrists.

A. I do know the difference between psychology and psychiatry.

B. The psychiatric community claims the scientific method when it's convenient, and ignores it when it's not convenient. Your case about homosexuality actually proves what I am arguing here. Strict adherence to the scientific method does not prove the theory that some people are born "gay."

C. I do recognize the various meanings of the word "psyche," and the primary historical meaning is "soul."

I don't mean to hurt your feelings if you are a psychologist. You may be a very good one, and I hope that you help a lot of people.

I always wonder how these secular psychologists would have psycho analyzed the prophets. John the Baptist was probably just bipolar. If only they had Ritilin back in those days! He probably wouldn't have "lost his head." 

Selm

[SDMPNS]

I am a clinical psychologist who is Orthodox and I was at the APA Convention.There is nothing in that decision by the APA which would endanger any qualified professional therapist.
I have made it my decision to never discuss professional issues on these forums particularly with lay people who have little if any scientific training. "Lay people" in this regard also includes clergy. The discussion usually becomes ugly and very unchristian and is not beneficial to my immortal soul. Prejudice and fear are not scientific.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

I am a clinical psychologist who is Orthodox and I was at the APA Convention.There is nothing in that decision by the APA which would endanger any qualified professional therapist.
I have made it my decision to never discuss professional issues on these forums particularly with lay people who have little if any scientific training. "Lay people" in this regard also includes clergy. The discussion usually becomes ugly and very unchristian and is not beneficial to my immortal soul. Prejudice and fear are not scientific.

I agree with you 100%; prejudice and fear are not scientific. So I find your prejudice towards lay people and your fear of the clergy very intriguing. Not that I'm trying to psychoanalyze you.

Selam

[SDMPNS]

Selam...It has nothing to do with fear or prejudice..it has to do with training and education...would you want a botanist to design a super collider or a dam?

[ozgeorge]

A. I do know the difference between psychology and psychiatry.

Which is.....?

B. The psychiatric community claims the scientific method when it's convenient, and ignores it when it's not convenient.

And Orthodox Deacons have preached heresy, doesn't make Orthodoxy heresy.

Your case about homosexuality actually proves what I am arguing here.

What case about homosexuality?

Strict adherence to the scientific method does not prove the theory that some people are born "gay."

Isn't the study of whether people are born gay be the realm of geneticists?
 

C. I do recognize the various meanings of the word "psyche," and the primary historical meaning is "soul."

Well thats a strange thing for a Deacon to say considering the biblical use of the word psyche to mean "life"- but I'm sure you know all about that.

I don't mean to hurt your feelings if you are a psychologist. You may be a very good one, and I hope that you help a lot of people.

You haven't hurt my feelings, and this is not about me, it's about your misunderstanding and ignorance about the Behavioural Sciences.

I always wonder how these secular psychologists would have psycho analyzed the prophets. John the Baptist was probably just bipolar. If only they had Ritilin back in those days! He probably wouldn't have "lost his head." 

Why would they need to assess a prophet? Why would Ritalin be used to treat Bipolar Affective Disorder?

[SDMPNS]

Ritalin is contraindicated in Bipolar Disorder..it could trigger a Manic episode...statements like that are the exact reason why laypeople which includes clergy with no scientific training should not discuss psychology or psychiatry.
I am not addressing this subject anymore as it is,as usual when one discusses this subject deteriorating.

[ozgeorge]

Ritalin is contraindicated in Bipolar Disorder..it could trigger a Manic episode...statements like that are the exact reason why laypeople should not discuss psychology or psychiatry.
I am not addressing this subject anymore as it is,as ussual when one discusses this subject deteriorating.

I agree. I think I've said my piece too.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

A. I do know the difference between psychology and psychiatry.

Which is.....?

B. The psychiatric community claims the scientific method when it's convenient, and ignores it when it's not convenient.

And Orthodox Deacons have preached heresy, doesn't make Orthodoxy heresy.

Your case about homosexuality actually proves what I am arguing here.

What case about homosexuality?

Strict adherence to the scientific method does not prove the theory that some people are born "gay."

Isn't the study of whether people are born gay be the realm of geneticists?
 

C. I do recognize the various meanings of the word "psyche," and the primary historical meaning is "soul."

Well thats a strange thing for a Deacon to say considering the biblical use of the word psyche to mean "life"- but I'm sure you know all about that.

I don't mean to hurt your feelings if you are a psychologist. You may be a very good one, and I hope that you help a lot of people.

You haven't hurt my feelings, and this is not about me, it's about your misunderstanding and ignorance about the Behavioural Sciences.

I always wonder how these secular psychologists would have psycho analyzed the prophets. John the Baptist was probably just bipolar. If only they had Ritilin back in those days! He probably wouldn't have "lost his head." 

Why would they need to assess a prophet? Why would Ritalin be used to treat Bipolar Affective Disorder?

First, I am not a Deacon. I am not nearly worthy of that ordination.

Psychologists cannot prescribe medicine, and are not required to have a Phd in medicine. Am I correct?

Psychologists and Psychiatrists assess prophets all the time, but these prophets are considered mentally ill. I know that Psychologists and Psychiatrists are always worried about anyone who seems "fanatical" in their eyes. Religious devotion seems to raise a red flag in their minds.

As I said earlier, life and soul are inextricably linked. You cannot adequatley deal with matters of life if you ignore matters of the soul.

I guess John the Baptist would have needed Serequel, and maybe some Paxil. But since Psychiatrists are so quick to prescribe Ritalin, I just figured they'd put St. John the Baptist on it just to try to calm him down.

BTW, hasn't the consensus on the effects and uses of Ritalin been steadily changing over the years? Is that correct? I'm interested to know. Thanks.

Selam

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Ritalin is contraindicated in Bipolar Disorder..it could trigger a Manic episode...statements like that are the exact reason why laypeople which includes clergy with no scientific training should not discuss psychology or psychiatry.
I am not addressing this subject anymore as it is,as usual when one discusses this subject deteriorating.

It's ironic, because you guys are the ones prescribing the drugs, not me! And as I indicated above I was being sarcastic, not attempting to make a serious medical diagnosis. With repsect, Get over yourselves.

Selam

[SDMPNS]

Paxil is also contraindicated for Bipolar Disorder..Ritalin is rarely used anymore...my case is exibited again..as I have said..I am done here and in some States psychologists can prescribe medications if supervised by a psychiatrist..I ,however, am done here.This discussion is not profitable. I am very proud to be a member of the American Psychological Association and a member of the Orthodox Church.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Paxil is also contraindicated for Bipolar Disorder..Ritalin is rarely used anymore...my case is exibited again..as I have said..I am done here and in some States psychologists can prescribe medications if supervised by a psychiatrist..I ,however, am done here.This discussion is not profitable. I am very proud to be a member of the American Psychological Association and a member of the Orthodox Church.

Is there a psychological term for narrow-mindedness? Is it called "myopia?"

What about fear of opposing points of view? Is that a form of "paranoia?"

What about concern only for that which is profitable to one's self? Would that fall under "narcissism?"

I mean, this discussion has been very profitable to me. I am learning a lot and would enjoy learning more. But hey, if the session is over then the session is over. I'm just glad I didn't fork out 150$ an hour for it!

By the way, if a patient disagrees with you do you terminate his "therapy," prescribe more drugs, or lock him up in the psyche ward? Just curious.

Selam

[ozgeorge]

Is there a psychological term for narrow-mindedness? Is it called "myopia?"

No such diagnosis.

What about fear of opposing points of view? Is that a form of "paranoia?"

Wrong again.

What about concern only for that which is profitable to one's self? Would that fall under "narcissism?"

Nope again.

I mean, this discussion has been very profitable to me. I am learning a lot and would enjoy learning more. But hey, if the session is over then the session is over. I'm just glad I didn't fork out 150$ an hour for it!

No one is stopping you from discussing this topic. But if you want a session you need to book an appointment.

By the way, if a patient disagrees with you do you terminate his "therapy," prescribe more drugs, or lock him up in the psyche ward? Just curious.

Are you a patient? You see, real therapy cannot be done online- only Orthodoxy and politics can apparently.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Is there a psychological term for narrow-mindedness? Is it called "myopia?"

No such diagnosis.

What about fear of opposing points of view? Is that a form of "paranoia?"

Wrong again.

What about concern only for that which is profitable to one's self? Would that fall under "narcissism?"

Nope again.

I mean, this discussion has been very profitable to me. I am learning a lot and would enjoy learning more. But hey, if the session is over then the session is over. I'm just glad I didn't fork out 150$ an hour for it!

No one is stopping you from discussing this topic. But if you want a session you need to book an appointment.

By the way, if a patient disagrees with you do you terminate his "therapy," prescribe more drugs, or lock him up in the psyche ward? Just curious.

Are you a patient? You see, real therapy cannot be done online- only Orthodoxy and politics can apparently.

So you are continuing the discussion?

Selam

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

  C'mon, we all have been to Orthodox parishes where there is that effeminate guy in Church and everyone looks at him like he is an exhibit from the zoo.  How horrible that must feel for those people.  How alienating and lonesome such an experience must be.  No, we should support them in their struggles-it's the Christian thing to do, IMHO. 

I have a serious question, and I hope others can offer their sincere opinions.

First, I absolutely agree that we should support all of our brothers and sisters in their struggles, whatever those struggles may be. But my question is in regard to the word "effeminate." Should a chaste homosexual man who is outwardly effeminate be allowed to receive the Sacraments? I ask this, because St. Paul writes  that the effeminate shall not enter heaven. [I Corinthians 6:9] And the "effminate" are differentiated from "homosexuals" in this passage.

So I guess what I am asking is this. Just for the sake of argument, let's concede that a homosexual individual is born gay and is striving to live a chaste Christian life. Of course we should love and encourage him, just as we desire to be loved and encouraged by others as we struggle against sin in our own lives. But shouldn't we encourage that individual to not act in an effeminate manner? Shouldn't he dress, speak, and carry himself like a man? Even if it is an act for him to do so, should he not at least act? By at least acting in a non-effeminate manner, he is perhaps keeping others homosexual men from lusting after him. And of course, my same question applies to both genders. I am sure that there are many homosexuals who are striving to live a Christian life and work hard to control their effeminate body language. I think this is not to much to ask for those homosexuals who want to receive the sacraments.

I'm not being judgmental, just sincerely asking what I believe is a legitimate question.

Thank you.

Selam   

[ms.hoorah]

I am a clinical psychologist who is Orthodox and I was at the APA Convention.There is nothing in that decision by the APA which would endanger any qualified professional therapist.
I have made it my decision to never discuss professional issues on these forums particularly with lay people who have little if any scientific training. "Lay people" in this regard also includes clergy. The discussion usually becomes ugly and very unchristian and is not beneficial to my immortal soul. Prejudice and fear are not scientific.

Here is the danger:

The APA declared reparative therapy non-therapeutic to alter the behavior of medical/mental health clinicians.  In health care, the word non-therapeutic can mean harmful.  Therefore,  any counseling approaching reparative therapy or supporting changes in homosexuals’ behaviors may also be seen as harmful to a medical malpractice attorney. The APA’s declaration placed many aspects of counseling for homosexuals on the long list of “things you can sue health care providers for”.  It will take years of malpractice suits to determine exactly how close counseling sessions can get to “the declared non-therapeutic treatment” without risk of legal action.

[Schultz]

I have a serious question, and I hope others can offer their sincere opinions.

First, I absolutely agree that we should support all of our brothers and sisters in their struggles, whatever those struggles may be. But my question is in regard to the word "effeminate." Should a chaste homosexual man who is outwardly effeminate be allowed to receive the Sacraments? I ask this, because St. Paul writes  that the effeminate shall not enter heaven. [I Corinthians 6:9] And the "effminate" are differentiated from "homosexuals" in this passage.

This is between the so-called "effeminate" man and his spiritual father, period.  No one else, most especially laity, has any say in the matter.

I also imagine that things in St. Paul's time that were considered "effeminate" might not be so today and vice versa. 

[ialmisry]

I am a clinical psychologist who is Orthodox and I was at the APA Convention.There is nothing in that decision by the APA which would endanger any qualified professional therapist.
I have made it my decision to never discuss professional issues on these forums particularly with lay people who have little if any scientific training. "Lay people" in this regard also includes clergy. The discussion usually becomes ugly and very unchristian and is not beneficial to my immortal soul. Prejudice and fear are not scientific.

Here is the danger:

The APA declared reparative therapy non-therapeutic to alter the behavior of medical/mental health clinicians.  In health care, the word non-therapeutic can mean harmful.  Therefore,  any counseling approaching reparative therapy or supporting changes in homosexuals’ behaviors may also be seen as harmful to a medical malpractice attorney. The APA’s declaration placed many aspects of counseling for homosexuals on the long list of “things you can sue health care providers for”.  It will take years of malpractice suits to determine exactly how close counseling sessions can get to “the declared non-therapeutic treatment” without risk of legal action.

Yes, lay people doesn't include lawyers. Why does it include clergy?

[ialmisry]

I have a serious question, and I hope others can offer their sincere opinions.

First, I absolutely agree that we should support all of our brothers and sisters in their struggles, whatever those struggles may be. But my question is in regard to the word "effeminate." Should a chaste homosexual man who is outwardly effeminate be allowed to receive the Sacraments? I ask this, because St. Paul writes  that the effeminate shall not enter heaven. [I Corinthians 6:9] And the "effminate" are differentiated from "homosexuals" in this passage.

This is between the so-called "effeminate" man and his spiritual father, period.  No one else, most especially laity, has any say in the matter.

I also imagine that things in St. Paul's time that were considered "effeminate" might not be so today and vice versa. 

The term means "catamaite," i.e. the passive partner in sodomy, the term following designates the active partner.

Eunuchs are effeminate, but we know that they are not barred from the Kingdom of Heaven.

[Schultz]

I have a serious question, and I hope others can offer their sincere opinions.

First, I absolutely agree that we should support all of our brothers and sisters in their struggles, whatever those struggles may be. But my question is in regard to the word "effeminate." Should a chaste homosexual man who is outwardly effeminate be allowed to receive the Sacraments? I ask this, because St. Paul writes  that the effeminate shall not enter heaven. [I Corinthians 6:9] And the "effminate" are differentiated from "homosexuals" in this passage.

This is between the so-called "effeminate" man and his spiritual father, period.  No one else, most especially laity, has any say in the matter.

I also imagine that things in St. Paul's time that were considered "effeminate" might not be so today and vice versa. 

The term means "catamaite," i.e. the passive partner in sodomy, the term following designates the active partner.

Eunuchs are effeminate, but we know that they are not barred from the Kingdom of Heaven.

Excellent point and thank you for the linguistic demarcation   I did not know that before.

[ms.hoorah]

My parish has been very blessed to have never had any need to know the following information. Would someone please explain “clergy malpractice”.  Our clergy may also be in danger of committing malpractice with the APA’s announcement.

[ozgeorge]

My parish has been very blessed to have never had any need to know the following information. Would someone please explain “clergy malpractice”.  Our clergy may also be in danger of committing malpractice with the APA’s announcement.

What clergy do in different churches is up to them and their churches. But they cannot pretend to be psychotherapists or claim to be using evidence based psychotherapeutic techniques when they are not.

[ialmisry]

My parish has been very blessed to have never had any need to know the following information. Would someone please explain “clergy malpractice”.  Our clergy may also be in danger of committing malpractice with the APA’s announcement.

What clergy do in different churches is up to them and their churches. But they cannot pretend to be psychotherapists or claim to be using evidence based psychotherapeutic techniques when they are not.

....because only lawyers and judges can do that.

[pensateomnia]

The term means "catamaite," i.e. the passive partner in sodomy, the term following designates the active partner.

That's certainly a theory advanced by some recently (e.g. NAB), but what's the evidence, do you know?

μαλακοὶ, often translated as "effeminate", usually just means "soft, mild, gentle, etc", and is sometimes used in a metaphorical sense to mean a softy, i.e. one with a soft/pliable/weak will. That's how Plato and Aristotle used it once or twice. That said, it really doesn't appear in the corpus of Greek literature often, so it's kind of hard to know exactly what St. Paul meant.

The other word, ἀρσενοκοῖται, is basically a hapax legomenon (seems to happen more often in St. Paul than in many other writers). Of course, it looks pretty much like a simple, made-up compound: "Male-bedifier."

[ms.hoorah]

My parish has been very blessed to have never had any need to know the following information. Would someone please explain “clergy malpractice”.  Our clergy may also be in danger of committing malpractice with the APA’s announcement.

Found that clergy malpractice appears to far more complex that medical malpractice due to constitutional
rights.  You can read more about how the APA’s statement might legally affect your priest here:

http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1291&context=lawrev

Regardless of how the term is applied, clergy malpractice implies
that there is a standard of care within the ministry to which a
clergyperson must adhere. A standard for clergy counselors infers that anyone within a
particular religion or denomination could counsel under that
standard.

 Constitutional Considerations
1. The First Amendment
The first amendment to the United States Constitution pro-
vides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establish-
ment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . .."53
The fourteenth amendment makes the first amendment guaran-
tees applicable to the states.6

[ozgeorge]

My parish has been very blessed to have never had any need to know the following information. Would someone please explain “clergy malpractice”.  Our clergy may also be in danger of committing malpractice with the APA’s announcement.

Found that clergy malpractice appears to far more complex that medical malpractice due to constitutional
rights.  You can read more about how the APA’s statement might legally affect your priest here:

http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1291&context=lawrev

Regardless of how the term is applied, clergy malpractice implies
that there is a standard of care within the ministry to which a
clergyperson must adhere. A standard for clergy counselors infers that anyone within a
particular religion or denomination could counsel under that
standard.

 Constitutional Considerations
1. The First Amendment
The first amendment to the United States Constitution pro-
vides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establish-
ment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . .."53
The fourteenth amendment makes the first amendment guaran-
tees applicable to the states.6

Does the first amendment mean that clergy can sexually abuse their parishioners in Confession without fear of legal ramifications in the US?