Sunday, 30 March 2014

Crime is Not Sickness, Sickness is Not Crime

One ill-catechised Trad Catholic is criticising another ill-catechised Modernist.*

Did you get that? Homosexuality isn't perverted -- rather, to say it is perverted is what is perverted! That's how far we've come. Sixty years ago, everyone knew that sexual attraction to someone of the same sex is a mental disorder, and it was classified accordingly by mental health professionals. Then the Gaystapo came along and insisted that it was not a mental disorder but just as healthy as heterosexuality. Now they've gone one step further: To say that homosexuality is not normal, natural, or healthy is itself a mental disorder. (Though some homosexual perverts take issue even with that; they say to accuse "homophobes" of having a mental disorder is insulting to people with mental disorders -- you can't make this stuff up!)

Perverted and mental disorder in the pathological sense are two different things.

Perverted usually means so persistent in a sin that it voluntarily becomes like a mental disorder. But pathology is concerned with involuntary disorders, like asking thirteen times after each other in five minutes "what is your name please" is either a disorder of hearing, deafness (but then how come they do not ask "excuse me, I didn't hear you"?) or a disorder of the mental faculty of short term memory. It occurs during dementia, especially senile such. Or, it could be a joke, teasing someone, then it could be a perversion, but very much not a pathology.

Sixty years ago, everyone knew that sexual attraction to someone of the same sex is a mental disorder

Sixty years ago, everyone thought that vices were pathologies. That is why Pederastic Offending Priests were sent to Therapy instead of being promptly defrocked. That is why Catholic Diocese after Catholic Diocese in the United States is paying so much damages, in some cases they really did the wrong thing in sending someone to Therapy and then recycling him, and in other cases they are too ashamed to investigate or to dare investigations.

I wonder what an innocent priest should do if his Diocese is paying damages for him to an accuser who is not speaking the truth about him. But either case, the "sixty years ago" which a writer on Novus Ordo Watch consider ideal, was simply wrong in saying vices were pathologies and should be cured.

In a sense they are and should, but in a sense they are not and should not. To state that such and such is homosexual and needs a doctor before he can marry as a Christian may very well be to accuse or rather reproach someone who is not so at all, but on top of it, it is indulging in this equation between vice and pathology, which is superstitious. So is of course the Dominican who is calling indulgence in this superstition a mental disorder.

Stealing is unjust and contrary to the natural law.** Having a cleptomania is not the same thing as stealing. Saying someone has cleptomania is saying that he is the likeliest suspect when something is stolen, and also that he is not likely to stop stealing. That is superstitious. It is a form of Calvinism and a form of Fatalism.

So, no, I would not like the anonymous writer on Novus Ordo Watch to get in trouble for being against Sodomy, but I would not like his quasi equation between serious crime of sodomy and the mere propensity called homosexuality and his (or her) confusing both into a "serious mental disorder"*** to be the rule among Catholics either.

Nor, of course, the bishop to see and promote a kind of determinism about hormones and anatomy not conforming. I think that is an already refuted pseudoscientific theory. Or, if such cases occur, they are a smaller part of what may be called the homosexual community. He too is promoting a kind of determinism and a kind of pathologicalisation.

Not every lesbian is a butch. Not every butch can be considered as having very male hormones. Not every butch having very male hormones for a woman has hormones corresponding to a male, rather noone has, or very few who are hermaphrodites or close to it. And same goes for sodomites or for male homosexuals who have not yet committed this, but who even if unwillingly consider it likelier to happen than natural coitus with opposite sex.

Indeed, by proferring such a stupid excuse for homosexuals, he is promoting a kind of deterministic hysteria about them.

It is not hysteric to want to stay away from such, but it is so to think cures are needed before a normal life can occur.

I have said that homosexual persons can marry. I do not mean they can or have the right to make a perverted agreement called gay marriage. I do not mean they can be cured and then marry as hetersexuals. I mean a person with same sex attraction can decide not just negatively against same sex union, but positively for a normal one, for a marriage with a person of the opposite sex, and that he does not need a cure for that.

Sometimes he might need an exorcism, but not a medical cure. Often he would need a confession, but still not a medical cure.

In some states they've already begun to outlaw therapy that helps homosexuals overcome their disorder. You know it's only a matter of time before Catholics and all who say that homosexuality is a perversion will be forced to undergo psychiatric evaluation (a favorite tactic of fascists) and will themselves be objected to "therapy." Ironically, this is the ultimate "enforcement of tolerance" -- a contradiction in terms if there ever was one. (On the question of non-practicing homosexuals, please see our commentary here.)

I am in agreement with most of what is said on that other page° and would take clear exception only on this one:

Identifying oneself as a "homosexual" on account of experiencing such attraction typically constitutes a sin because it presupposes, at least in most cases, that one has already accepted, entertained, or acted upon the attraction

When Josh Weed identified himself as homosexual that did not constitute a sin, but rather admit a possible such already committed. He meant that every time he had fallen in love it was with a boy. Now, falling in love is a thing which during a short time is under some kind of choice with some kind of voluntarity (I have for instance been avoiding falling in love with Muslim girls in order not to get in trouble with Muslim inlaws, despite the fact some are rather pretty).

So, in his case, it was not a sinful act, but rather the confession of previous sins staying on the level of emotions - supposing he had my kind of selfcontrol ("during one quarter of an hour of decision"). It was instead his way of formulating a problem that might ruin his chances of a Christian marriage, but did not (ok, if both are Mormons neither is baptised and there is no sacramental marriage, but there is a marriage corresponding in its basic constitution to the Christian ideal for non-baptised people).

In some cases it could be a question of such attraction being as involuntary as predominant and of a person needing to get out of diabolic connexions (Oscar Wilde should not have become a freemason, for instance) and seeing an exorcist.

In some cases it could be a hysterical overreaction to one's very momentary same sex attraction or ... persistent same sex affection. Which is not necessarily sexual but can be overanalysed as such.

But to return to the case of cures. I think compulsory cures are a perversion in the medical corps. The psychiatric way of looking at neighbours and of seeking ways - contrary to their expressed wills that would normally be regarded as expressed wills or expressed convictions that would normally be regarded as expressed convictions - to cure them of things they do not consider ill is a very perverted and vicious way of looking at fellow human creatures of God.

Curing a homosexual who does not wish to be cured should be outlawed, but so should curing an alcoholic that does not wish to be cured. Amy Winehouse indeed died because she drank too great a dose of alcohol, but she committed suicide because she had been locked up to be cured from alcoholism.

There are other reasons why homosexuality should not be a medical consideration. A physician is not a judge trained to "hear the other party", and his own principle of precaution when treating possible illnesses ("let it suffice for the greater possible disease or severity of known such, so long as it is not destroying the body with the lesser possible disease or severity of known such") is not the same as that of a judge ("better free a guilty than condemn an innocent"). Plus "homophobia" as in seeing homosexuality where it does not exist°° is a thing they reckon too little with.

When so many psychiatrists are willing to take estimates about people as evidence about them, a man hating homosexuality and Roman Catholicism may get a medical megaphone about a Roman Catholic by the doctor hearing his estimate the Catholic is homosexual. A man hating Franco and homosexuality may get a medical megaphone against a Franco admirer by a doctor hearing his estimate that man is a homosexual. A man hating lazy people and homosexuals may get a medical megaphone against a lazy man ... the presence of so many psychiatrists is a very clear open invitation to sufficiently unscrupulous detractors, precisely as leaving a house for a week with windows open on ground floor and valuable art visible from outside without asking neighbours to take care of the house is a pretty nice invitation to thieves. They need not be cleptomaniac in the sense I have called superstitious to presume in order to find that temptation irresistible. So also for the psychiatrist, especially if the one unbalanced man who would use him (or her!) as a megaphone for slander and social oppression is the psychiatrist himself (or herself!). Gay activists would very probably abuse the possibility too against people they consider as homophobes (the usual abusive sense this time).

It seems the Serbski Institute of Criminal Psychiatry was opened in Moscow before the Revolution. God will not be mocked, the Revolution came as a punishment. Not meaning it was not perpetrated as a sin itself. But suffering the sins of some others is sometimes the punishment of one's own sins.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Sunday in Lent

* Exposing the Modernist Vatican II Church : Novus Ordo Watch : Mexican Novus Ordo Bishop says Catholics are Mentally Ill

** At least it is mortal if the sums are important. Stealing things of small value and out of necessity is venial, and if the necessity is great sometimes no sin at all. Small value = less than a day's wage was the limit my catechist gave me.

*** A theoretical fault committed by one Portuguese Doctor of Medicine, who very much raised this to a level of hysteria in which he thought he did anyone a favour by lobotomising sodomite offenders. But who above all, freely choose to destroy the handiwork of God in other men's brains, as if he were by the fact of being a physician called to be judge and executioner of sodomite or any other criminals. When I considered Salazar a good statesman, I was not aware that he had allowed this physician to practise for so long after he acceeded to the rule of Portugal. If sodomy is indeed a very horrible crime, especially when there is a victim involved beyond public decency and replenishment of population, someone who is not freely choosing to commit this crime, nevertheless, so is lobotomy. It deprives a person of the exercise of free will and thereby impedes the voluntary act of repentance.

° Francis on Homosexuals who seek God: "Who Am I to Judge that Person?"

°° A sense parallel to bacteriophobia, and yes I know it is not the usual sense these days of "homophobia", but I wish it were. Bacteriophobia does not mean disliking Yersinia and HIV, it means fearing their presence where it is their absence which can reasonably be presumed.

No comments:

Post a Comment