More things I don't get ...

Freudian pastoral care.

Homo-nuts.

I watched a bit of Fr. Pacwa interviewing the author Robert Reilly whose new book 'draws from from his extensive knowledge of classic political philosophy to outline the full scope of dangers in modern homosexual culture.'

Robert Reilly was Senior Advisor for Information Strategy (2002-2006) for the US Secretary of Defense, after which he taught at National Defense University. He was the director of the Voice of America (2001-2002) and served in the White House as a Special Assistant to the President (1983-1985). A graduate of Georgetown University and the Claremont Graduate University, he writes widely on "war of ideas" issues, foreign policy, and classical music.

Reilly wrote a very informative book titled: Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything.   I didn't read it when it first came out, just excerpts, but I found nothing wrong with the content.  His appearance on EWTN Live was an interview focused upon the newer, revised edition from Ignatius, sporting a new cover.  (Meant to contrast the incredible change in lgbtq politics from the Reagan White House to the Obama White House.)

When I tuned in Reilly was discussing the American Psychiatric Association removing homosexuality from the DSM, saying it was no longer a mental illness.  Most of my readers know all about that and most also understand it remains a controversial topic.  I turned TV off since I was busy in the garden, and I'm not all that interested in gay stuff anymore.  Nevertheless, I was distracted by what I heard.  Fr. Pacwa was very interested in what Reilly had to say and seemed to be delving into the psychiatric issues.

I understand that priests and spiritual directors are interested in the psychological issues involving homosexuality, yet as the Catechism states, "Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity" - thus homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and contrary to natural law and immoral.   Yet the Church acknowledges its 'psychological genesis remains largely unexplained' and addresses it as a moral disorder.  Therefore, on some level it seems to me the psychological diagnosis is not all that important in pastoral care - nor is pastoral an exercise in conversion therapy - making gay people straight.  The Church never says that.  Likewise, the sacrament of penance - confession - is not to be confused with therapy or psychological analysis.

Of course there is nothing wrong about studying its psychological genesis, especially to understand the homosexual person - but to base pastoral care upon its psychological genesis seems to create a huge obstacle for persons who experience homosexual tendencies.  In other words, does that mean they are nuts?

See, that's what gay people think we mean by using that diagnosis.  I know many successful gay people who have stable relationships - though immoral as regards Church teaching.  Yet they have careers, live quiet lives, in some cases, raise families; many are active in the community, some are in politics, others in ministry - yep - priests.  Are they nuts?  Do they need to be segregated, labeled or diagnosed and stigmatized?  If you examine the lives of homosexual individuals perhaps some have problems - depression, bi-polar, emotional issues similar to straight people.  But are they meant to be in a psychological category all by themselves?  Is there a special medication for it?  If you say you have SSA - same sex attraction, but don't act out, does that mean you're totally sane?

I know a guy who tells gay guys he has SSA all of the time?  Is it empathy?  Disinterestedness to talk like that?  Does it mean he's no longer nuts but wants to help the crazy gay guys he meets?

Which makes me wonder about the ex-gays.  Are they no longer nuts?  Because they renounce homosexual acts and behavior, because they get married, are they suddenly no longer nuts?  I know some ex-gays who are pretty nuts and inordinately focused upon all things homosexual - but they are no longer gay and therefore no longer nuts and everything they say is to be believed because they are no longer nuts.

Get it?

I don't.

Early treatment for hysteria in women.

One more for the road ...

Then there is the case of the transgender woman teaching in Catholic school in San Francisco - approved by Archbishop Cordileone.  (Never forget that Cardinal Burke - as Bishop - gave permission for a transgender woman to be a diocesan religious sister.)

So.  Talk about nuts.  There have been people condemned for coming out as gay - even losing their jobs in Catholic schools and institutions - but transgender is okay under special circumstances?

I'm against it.

Designating homos and trans - the entire spectrum of LGBTQ as mentally ill helps anti-gay people - but does nothing to dissuade persons with these inclinations to 'change' their orientation or their behavior.  Dropping statistical facts on how unhealthy and screwed up the lifestyle can be does nothing to dissuade persons from being 'gay'.

Pope Francis not only speaks about the need to 'discern' but also to 'accompany' and help to 'integrate' those who fall short of Christian wholeness-holiness.  I'm not sure how that works, but I don't think pushing the mental illness diagnosis, or death threats from natural causes work all that well.