Psychiatry and Orthodoxy: Nope Homosexuality is not normal

[Gregorios]

I am yes, homosexuality is indeed not normal, but neither is dying. It's all symptomatic of our fallen state and it can all be fixed with uniting oneself to Christ.

 

[Dorothea]

I am yes, homosexuality is indeed not normal, but neither is dying. It's all symptomatic of our fallen state and it can all be fixed with uniting oneself to Christ.

I agree.

 

[Philothei]

I am yes, homosexuality is indeed not normal, but neither is dying. It's all symptomatic of our fallen state and it can all be fixed with uniting oneself to Christ.

I will second that! Abnormality is anything that goes against God's intent for us humans. Our true nature is expressed only in God as he intented us to be as we were created in His image and likeness. Anything else is indeed "outside" or our true nature. The more we alienate ourselves from Him the more we cut ourselves from true living and life. So when we act upon that or this passion we lose our true calling and we live in an "apostasy" from Him.

 

[Thekla]

I am yes, homosexuality is indeed not normal, but neither is dying. It's all symptomatic of our fallen state and it can all be fixed with uniting oneself to Christ.

 

[Gregorios]

I appreciate the agreeing lol but the Church has always taught this to be true so nothing I'm saying is especially profound, I'm not really capable of profound thought but I do know the Church possesses the fullness of the Truth so I can lean on It for answers

 

[rusmeister]

That's right, I have to have it and make use of it since I'm getting my MA in Counseling. Homosexuality isn't in there but in one of the previous editions, it was.

That it was previously included is telling. However, I would certainly agree that it is not nearly so much of a mental illness as a spiritual one. And if psychiatry and psychology truly dealt with the correct understanding of the soul, which I believe most work in those fields does not, especially psychology, then such things would be correctly identified as spiritual rather than physiological, and referrals to priests would be far more frequent.

When you say, "MA in Counseling", you mean Counseling Psychology? Or something else?

I hope you'll forgive, or at least tolerate my skepticism about modern psychology if so. I see the field as one of recent development, not because of recent learning or enlightenment, but as mostly a result of turning away from God and abandoning the traditional therapy of priests and friends. Having been socially isolated as individuals, and spiritually isolated by the general fall away from faith, those fields arose to fill in the gap - or at least make it feel filled. At any rate, I feel the name of the discipline to be very important, and it should encapsulate the essence of the discipline. Thus, psychology - and psychiatry - should definitely and openly deal with the soul. Counseling should definitely be about giving advice. And so on.

(it's getting OT, so I'd be happy discussing it in another thread if desired)

 

[Gregorios]

It would be considered Counseling Psychology yes, with a concentration on Marriage and Family Counseling.

 

[kiwimac]

I will simply point out that the great majority of her fellows disagree with her.

 

[rusmeister]

And I in turn would point out that her field decidedly and necessarily touches on the soul as well as the body. If her colleagues' knowledge begins with a philosophically wrong understanding of what the soul is, then it doesn't matter if they ALL disagree. If their knowledge is wrongly founded - and I believe that it is, then they can only be right coincidentally - when their understandings happily coincide with what happens to be the truth about the human soul. Therefore the further that a psychiatrist or psychologist is from Orthodoxy - from that truth about the human soul that they purport to study or deny - the more likely they are to be wrong, and their practice to be malpractice. That is not to say that an Orthodox practitioner is guaranteed to be a good one, but at least they start from correct premises in their practice.

IOW, I believe most practitioners of any 'psych' to be malpractitioners to varying degrees, and the science, such as it is, to be riddled with pseudo-science wherever it touches on the soul. But here, those closer to Orthodox truth are working from better premises and so have better understandings of what they are observing and treating. Other problems, like the education they receive, and the extent to which that education takes those first philosophical premises into account, can still be a problem even for the Orthodox practitioner.

But I think the most useful thing to discuss on the topic will be what exactly marriage is, something too many people assume as defined when the definitions vary considerably in our time. The only way out of that trap is to consider what it has always been; to take human history into account.

 

[Ignatius21]

And I in turn would point out that her field decidedly and necessarily touches on the soul as well as the body. If her colleagues' knowledge begins with a philosophically wrong understanding of what the soul is, then it doesn't matter if they ALL disagree. If their knowledge is wrongly founded - and I believe that it is, then they can only be right coincidentally - when their understandings happily coincide with what happens to be the truth about the human soul. Therefore the further that a psychiatrist or psychologist is from Orthodoxy - from that truth about the human soul that they purport to study or deny - the more likely they are to be wrong, and their practice to be malpractice. That is not to say that an Orthodox practitioner is guaranteed to be a good one, but at least they start from correct premises in their practice.

In materialistic terms, which so far as I can tell undergird much of any modern science, including psychology, the very idea of the soul as an immateral "thing" is mocked and rejected. The "self" or "ego" or whatever you care to call it, is merely some complex network of neurons in the brain somewhere, that comes into existence at conception and passes away with the body at death. Thus there is no such thing as a "spiritual" malady because no "spirit" exists. I have heard Christian psychologists mocked in terms resembling they way intelligent design scientists are mocked...they aren't REAL scientists so long as they continue to hold silly, childish ideas.

But I think the most useful thing to discuss on the topic will be what exactly marriage is, something too many people assume as defined when the definitions vary considerably in our time. The only way out of that trap is to consider what it has always been; to take human history into account.

That's the very problem at issue. We're attempting to define a term the way it has always been understood, over against the way it's arbitrarily being redefined. At root there's a clash over world views here, one affirming the reality of meaning, the other saying that all words and ideas are simply arbitrary social constructs that can be redefined on a whim. The fact that huan history gives millennia of support to the Christian position means absolutely nothing to a secular humanist. If anything that's evidence of why the meaning should be changed! They'll say something irrelevant and nonsensical like "Yeah, well for thousands of years they thought the sun went around the earth" or "women had no rights, so should we go back to that, too?"

I believe that if "same sex marriage" becomes the norm and the law in our society (and really, what are the odds that it won't be?) the ultimate result will simply be the elimination of marriage as anything other than a term describing a temporary, consensual legal contract between two (or more!) parties agreeing to certain terms about who gets what property in the event of a split. It will be easier to just eliminate the benefits of tax breaks, or child tax credits, or whatever other "special" benefits are conferred upon marriage currently.

 

[Gregorios]

I got into a bit of trouble in my "Death and Grief Counseling" class yesterday. The discussion turned towards "What makes someone actually dead?" Of course clinically this is when the heart stops but they wanted to make it a metaphysical question and so I responded (somewhat arrogantly I admit and may God forgive me for it)," You're asking a question that you are not ready to hear the answer for." They wanted to talk about essence and the soul and all this..things which they cannot understand correctly and it will bear no fruit other than to upset people. So they decided that there isn't "one right answer" which, of course there is, but they don't want to hear that. So, I dropped the class, it was an elective anyway, because I don't feel like rehashing heretical crap with these folks, stick to science and leave metaphysical and spiritual things for people who are ready for the truth.

 

[Photini]

That's the very problem at issue. We're attempting to define a term the way it has always been understood, over against the way it's arbitrarily being redefined.

That's an interesting thought. I may be wrong, but historically, weren't most marriages arranged? Isn't it only a recent trend that people are free to choose their own spouse? Couples really no longer have the obligation to produce an heir for inheritance purposes, etc. Wasn't the idea of romance and choosing a spouse based on emotion historically foreign to the idea of marriage? I sometimes wonder if this newer trend of people dating and choosing spouses based on "falling in love" is why homosexuality seems more pronounced now than before. Basically, homosexuality always has been there (obviously), but historically marriages were nearly always arranged with little or no regard to wishes of those to be joined.

Just thinking outloud.

 

[Dorothea]

That's an interesting thought. I may be wrong, but historically, weren't most marriages arranged? Isn't it only a recent trend that people are free to choose their own spouse? Couples really no longer have the obligation to produce an heir for inheritance purposes, etc. Wasn't the idea of romance and choosing a spouse based on emotion historically foreign to the idea of marriage? I sometimes wonder if this newer trend of people dating and choosing spouses based on "falling in love" is why homosexuality seems more pronounced now than before. Basically, homosexuality always has been there (obviously), but historically marriages were nearly always arranged with little or no regard to wishes of those to be joined.

Just thinking outloud.

That's a good and interesting point.

 

[Thekla]

That's an interesting thought. I may be wrong, but historically, weren't most marriages arranged? Isn't it only a recent trend that people are free to choose their own spouse? Couples really no longer have the obligation to produce an heir for inheritance purposes, etc. Wasn't the idea of romance and choosing a spouse based on emotion historically foreign to the idea of marriage? I sometimes wonder if this newer trend of people dating and choosing spouses based on "falling in love" is why homosexuality seems more pronounced now than before. Basically, homosexuality always has been there (obviously), but historically marriages were nearly always arranged with little or no regard to wishes of those to be joined.

Just thinking outloud.

My great aunt (who was married, three children) couldn't understand the modern idea of "romance" being central -- she talked about choosing someone she could "build a life with".

 

[.Iona.]

It's clear which train of thought overrides in that interview.

 

[Incariol]

I got into a bit of trouble in my "Death and Grief Counseling" class yesterday. The discussion turned towards "What makes someone actually dead?" Of course clinically this is when the heart stops but they wanted to make it a metaphysical question and so I responded (somewhat arrogantly I admit and may God forgive me for it)," You're asking a question that you are not ready to hear the answer for." They wanted to talk about essence and the soul and all this..things which they cannot understand correctly and it will bear no fruit other than to upset people. So they decided that there isn't "one right answer" which, of course there is, but they don't want to hear that. So, I dropped the class, it was an elective anyway, because I don't feel like rehashing heretical crap with these folks, stick to science and leave metaphysical and spiritual things for people who are ready for the truth.

Disagreeing with people is a part of school... I'd rather stick to the science myself, though, but I'm not surprised that that discussion would come up in a class on bereavement counseling. Even if psychological science doesn't address the existence of a soul, the people in the field, atheists, Muslims, Buddhists and Christians alike, all need to consider their own beliefs about the nature of death before trying to help someone else work through it.

 

[cobweb]

My great aunt (who was married, three children) couldn't understand the modern idea of "romance" being central -- she talked about choosing someone she could "build a life with".

I took a very pragmatic approach to marriage as well. Most of the folks in my family marry young and are married a very long time. From them I knew that the butterflies in the stomach and the school girl giddines tends to go away after a while. People often get old and fat and if you can't enjoy each other's company outside of the bedroom and overlook their annoying little habits it won't last.

Don't get me wrong... I did love him a lot (and still do), but I cared more about if he would be a good man, husband, and father.

 

[Thekla]

I took a very pragmatic approach to marriage as well. Most of the folks in my family marry young and are married a very long time. From them I knew that the butterflies in the stomach and the school girl giddines tends to go away after a while. People often get old and fat and if you can't enjoy each other's company outside of the bedroom and overlook their annoying little habits it won't last.

Don't get me wrong... I did love him a lot (and still do), but I cared more about if he would be a good man, husband, and father.

 

[Photini]

My great aunt (who was married, three children) couldn't understand the modern idea of "romance" being central -- she talked about choosing someone she could "build a life with".

Exactly. In America, it really shouldn't be shocking to us that homosexuals want to be able to marry. As a society, we have already accepted that it is okay to choose a spouse based on romantic feelings and physical attraction. So there is nothing "on a whim" about this situation.

Just look at movies... I have never seen arranged marriages painted in a positive light that I can remember. It is always a "tragedy" that the princess has to marry someone other than her "true love". Up until recently, I viewed arranged marriages as even oppressive and cruel.

 

[Damaris]

Basically, homosexuality always has been there (obviously), but historically marriages were nearly always arranged with little or no regard to wishes of those to be joined.

Just thinking outloud.

There's a part of the Betrothal service where the priest asks both the groom and the bride to confirm that they are doing this of their own free will.