is psychology heretical?
#41
(11-03-2010, 07:57 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(11-03-2010, 06:23 PM)Jacafamala Wrote: The bulk of modern psychology with regard to homosexuality is heretical, because it treats homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle rather than treating it as a disorder.

Heresy means it specifically contradicts doctrine.  Calling it a lifestyle rather than a disorder doesn't contradict doctrine, so that's not heretical.

The homosexual act violates divine and natural law. To say that homosexuality's okay contradicts Church teaching. If a Catholic willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith, they're a heretic.
"Not only are we all in the same boat, but we are all seasick.” --G.K. Chesterton
Reply
#42
(11-06-2010, 04:06 PM)Jacafamala Wrote:
(11-03-2010, 07:57 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(11-03-2010, 06:23 PM)Jacafamala Wrote: The bulk of modern psychology with regard to homosexuality is heretical, because it treats homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle rather than treating it as a disorder.

Heresy means it specifically contradicts doctrine.  Calling it a lifestyle rather than a disorder doesn't contradict doctrine, so that's not heretical.

The homosexual act violates divine and natural law. To say that homosexuality's okay contradicts Church teaching. If a Catholic willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith, they're a heretic.

Right.  I'm being hyper-critical, though, based on what you literally wrote.   ;D

What you said is it treats it as "an alternative lifestyle rather than a disorder".    That does not contract dogma any more than saying prostitution is a lifestyle choice rather than a (psychological) disorder.  The Church hasn't declared homosexuality to be a matter of choice or a matter of psychological issue - it just says that homosexual acts are not OK.

The theological problem is psychology saying it's OK, not whether it picks choice vs. mental illness.

Another example:  if someone steals, and they aren't pathological, it is still wrong but not mental illness, so psychologists won't treat stealing (within bounds) as psychological illness.  So, exclusion from the DSM in itself isn't a blessing of OKness.   It may have been the right thing to do to remove it from the DSM - I dunno.  But it's certainly not the right thing to do to say it's OK, which is what modern psychology has done, based on politics and agenda rather than science.


Reply
#43
(11-06-2010, 04:20 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(11-06-2010, 04:06 PM)Jacafamala Wrote:
(11-03-2010, 07:57 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(11-03-2010, 06:23 PM)Jacafamala Wrote: The bulk of modern psychology with regard to homosexuality is heretical, because it treats homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle rather than treating it as a disorder.

Heresy means it specifically contradicts doctrine.  Calling it a lifestyle rather than a disorder doesn't contradict doctrine, so that's not heretical.

The homosexual act violates divine and natural law. To say that homosexuality's okay contradicts Church teaching. If a Catholic willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith, they're a heretic.

Right.  I'm being hyper-critical, though, based on what you literally wrote.   ;D

What you said is it treats it as "an alternative lifestyle rather than a disorder".    That does not contract dogma any more than saying prostitution is a lifestyle choice rather than a (psychological) disorder.  The Church hasn't declared homosexuality to be a matter of choice or a matter of psychological issue - it just says that homosexual acts are not OK.

The theological problem is psychology saying it's OK, not whether it picks choice vs. mental illness.

Another example:  if someone steals, and they aren't pathological, it is still wrong but not mental illness, so psychologists won't treat stealing (within bounds) as psychological illness.  So, exclusion from the DSM in itself isn't a blessing of OKness.   It may have been the right thing to do to remove it from the DSM - I dunno.  But it's certainly not the right thing to do to say it's OK, which is what modern psychology has done, based on politics and agenda rather than science.
Right.
"Not only are we all in the same boat, but we are all seasick.” --G.K. Chesterton
Reply
#44
(11-03-2010, 05:08 PM)miss_fluffy Wrote: I think psychiatry has improved upon dealing with things like schizophrenia and psychotic bipolarism.  I also think psychology has improved upon dealing with things like unresolved grief.  But things like narcissism, sociopathy, ADD, OCD, and addictions are more spiritual problems.

What you say about schizophrenia and psychotic bp is true. But the person with schizophrenia or serious bipolar disorder (bp2), needs a psychiatrist who'll see them once a month or once every three months and write out the prescriptions for their medications. And to get to the point of maintenance where the patient is doing well and is on the right medications and treatments (like light therapy), it's really very difficult to bypass all the (crap) psychology. The psychiatrist is going to probably require that the patient have weekly therapy sessions with a psychologist--at least for the first few years of treatment. Because the psychiatrist counts on the therapist to keep tabs on the patient.... It's like the two-psychiatry and psychology--are sot of married.
"Not only are we all in the same boat, but we are all seasick.” --G.K. Chesterton
Reply
#45
jacafdala, fluffy and quis have ideas about psychology and they presenting their opinions well. good jobs folks! lets keep up the good work!!!!!!


how many psychoanaylsts and psycholioguist s(i hate seplling those words) lose their license every year for improprieties with patients?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)