Sunday, April 28, 2013

Do I reject my gay brother? Bishop Gumbleton - Homophobia - "Always Our Children" PBS 1999

The Catholic Church and Sex - Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton 
The Millennial Pope | FRONTLINE |PBS - 1999

Brief Excerpt:

I think I am probably typical of many people in my generation, and within the Catholic Church maybe especially, who without knowing it, developed a kind of homophobia. A very deep homophobia. And it comes from the way I was raised--in a Catholic family that did not speak much about sex and in an elementary school system where there wasn't sex education and no one really explained much to you. And you just grew up sort of discovering things by yourself... Photo: Cain Slaying Abel, Jacopo Palma c1590
...And so the whole idea of homosexuality very early on became a very negative thing. And a very, well, evil thing. And when I learned moral theology in my major seminary, I only learned about homosexuality as activity. Nobody made a distinction between homosexual orientation and homosexual activity. And so I never thought of it except in terms of homosexual activity. And that was condemned. Wrong. And so I didn't have an understanding as a priest and a confessor, people coming to me to confess their sins, if they confessed such a sin I had no idea of how I might help them in any way. Because I felt with a deep conviction, that this was a simple choice, and like any other choice, we can choose this or choose that. And so there should be no big problem. And I would talk that way, which was not helpful to somebody who's coming out of the situation where their whole human person is moved, in regard to relationships and affective relationships, toward people of the same sex.
And so I went along with that kind of understanding, and I guess lack of understanding of homosexuality. Until suddenly in my own family I was confronted when my brother wrote a letter to my siblings and me and my mother coming out--saying he is gay and had been all his life--had struggled against it in various ways as many homosexual people do. Because first of all, you're taught it's wrong. And so you somehow feel it's wrong. And you're trying to do the right thing. So you're trying not to be who you are...
Read complete interview:

Being Homosexual: Gay Men and Their Development
By Richard Isay, M.D., 1989, 2009

Chapter 2, Childhood and Early Homosexual Identity

My “coming out” story 
Fr. Marty Kurylowicz 
May 21, 2009 

Fr. Marty Kurylowicz - Charged by the Vatican for “Coming Out” 1997 - 15 years later & President Obama’s letter of appreciation - 2012

Repressed Homosexual Feelings
Psychodynamic Theories

Brief excerpt:

          When an internal impulse provokes too much anxiety, the ego may reduce that anxiety by attributing the unwanted impulse to an external object, usually another person.  This is the defense mechanism of projection, which can be defined as seeing in others unacceptable feelings or tendencies that actually reside in one’s own unconscious (Freud, 1915/1957b). For example, a man may consistently interpret the actions of older women as attempted seductions. Consciously, the thought of sexual intercourse with older women may be intensely repugnant to him, but buried in his unconscious is a strong erotic attraction to these women. In this example, the young man deludes himself into believing that he has no sexual feelings for older women. Although this projection erases most of his anxiety and guilt, it permits him to maintain a sexual interest in women who remind him of his mother.

An extreme type of projection is paranoia, a mental disorder characterized by powerful delusions of jealousy and persecution. Paranoia is not an inevitable outcome of projection but simply a severe variety of it. According to Freud (1922/1955), a crucial distinction between projection and paranoia is that paranoia is always characterized by repressed homosexual feelings toward the persecutor. Freud believed that the persecutor is inevitably a former friend of the same sex, although sometimes people may transfer their delusions onto a person of the opposite sex. When homosexual impulses become too powerful, persecuted paranoiacs defend themselves by reversing these feelings and then projecting them onto their original object. For men, the transformation proceeds as follows. Instead of saying, “I love him,” the paranoid person says, “I hate him.” Because this also produces too much anxiety, he says, “He hates me.” At this point, the person has disclaimed all responsibility and can say, “I like him fine, but he’s got it in for me.” The central mechanism in all paranoia is projection with accompanying delusions of jealousy and persecution… Photo
Read more:

Study examines the roots of homophobia - 4/6/12
Acceptance of gays and lesbians has never been higher, but anti-gay bias still exists. A new study suggests intense hostility toward homosexuals may be linked to a repressed same-sex attraction, combined with an authoritarian upbringing.
Though such factors are not the only cause of homophobia, the findings suggest those "who have a discrepancy within themselves about their expressed vs. unconscious sexual attraction find gay and lesbian people more threatening and are more likely to express prejudice and discrimination toward them," says University of Rochester psychology professor Richard Ryan, co-author of the study, which is published in the April Journalof Personality and Social Psychology. Also an author is Netta Weinstein of the University of Essex, England.
The blocking of unconscious desires by adopting an opposite view is a well-known psychoanalytic concept, suggested by Freud and others. The new study uses "modern methods that allow us to more reliably peer into these less explicitly available parts of peoples' psyches and see what's arising," Ryan says...
Read complete report:

Homophobic? Maybe You’re Gay 
By Richard M. Ryan and William S. Ryan - April 27, 2012
WHY are political and religious figures who campaign against gay rights so often implicated in sexual encounters with same-sex partners?
In recent years, Ted Haggard, an evangelical leader who preached that homosexuality was a sin, resigned after a scandal involving a former male prostitute; Larry Craig, a United States senator who opposed including sexual orientation in hate-crime legislation, was arrested on suspicion of lewd conduct in a men’s bathroom; and Glenn Murphy Jr., a leader of the Young Republican National Convention and an opponent of same-sex marriage, pleaded guilty to a lesser charge after being accused of sexually assaulting another man.
One theory is that homosexual urges, when repressed out of shame or fear, can be expressed as homophobia. Freud famously called this process a “reaction formation” — the angry battle against the outward symbol of feelings that are inwardly being stifled. Even Mr. Haggard seemed to endorse this idea when, apologizing after his scandal for his anti-gay rhetoric, he said, “I think I was partially so vehement because of my own war.”...
Read complete report:

Is Some Homophobia Self-Phobia?
Apr. 6, 2012 — Homophobia is more pronounced in individuals with an unacknowledged attraction to the same sex and who grew up with authoritarian parents who forbade such desires, a series of psychology studies demonstrates.
The study is the first to document the role that both parenting and sexual orientation play in the formation of intense and visceral fear of homosexuals, including self-reported homophobic attitudes, discriminatory bias, implicit hostility towards gays, and endorsement of anti-gay policies. Conducted by a team from the University of Rochester, the University of Essex, England, and the University of California in Santa Barbara, the research will be published the April issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
"Individuals who identify as straight but in psychological tests show a strong attraction to the same sex may be threatened by gays and lesbians because homosexuals remind them of similar tendencies within themselves," explains Netta Weinstein, a lecturer at the University of Essex and the study's lead author...
Read complete report:

How Dangerous Homosexual Repression Is – Paranoia Projection

Reaction Formation - Homophobic men
Defense Mechanisms in Social Psychology
Brief excerpt:

          Concept. The concept of reaction formation involves converting a socially unacceptable impulse into its opposite. To apply this notion to esteem protection, one may propose the following: People respond to the implication that they have some unacceptable trait by behaving in a way that would show them to have the opposite trait. Insinuations of hostility or intolerance might, for example, be countered with exaggerated efforts to prove oneself a peace-loving or tolerant person.
          Evidence. The original ideas about reaction formation pertained to aggressive and sexual impulses, and these are still plausible places for finding defenses, provided that acknowledging those impulses or feelings would damage self-esteem. With sex, there are undoubtedly still cases in which people regard their own potential sexual responses as unacceptable…
          A comparable finding with male subjects was recently reported by Adams, Wright, and Lohr (1996). They assessed homophobia and then exposed participants to videotapes depicting homosexual intercourse. Homophobic men reported low levels of sexual arousal, but physiological measures indicated higher levels of sexual response than were found among other participants. Thus, again, the subjective response reported by these participants was the opposite of what their bodies actually indicated. This finding also fits the view that homophobia may itself be a reaction formation against homosexual tendencies, insofar as the men who were most aroused by homosexuality were the ones who expressed the most negative attitudes toward it…

          Concept. Projection is a popular concept in everyday discourse as well as in psychological thought. In its simplest form, it refers to seeing one’s own traits in other people. A more rigorous understanding involves perceiving others as having traits that one inaccurately believes oneself not to have. As a broad form of influence of self-concept on person perception, projection may be regarded as more a cognitive bias than a defense mechanism. Nonetheless, projection can be seen as defensive if perceiving the threatening trait in others helps the individual in some way to avoid recognizing it in himself or herself, and indeed this is how Freud (e.g., 1915/1961a) conceptualized projection. Thus, there are multiple ways of understanding projection, and they vary mainly along the dimension of how effectively the undesirable trait or motive is repudiated as part of the self…
          …It could be argued that the false consensus effect achieves a kind of defensive success insofar as it reduces the distinctiveness of one’s bad traits. To be the only person who cheats on taxes or breaks the speed limit would imply that one is uniquely immoral, even evil—but if everyone else is likewise breaking those laws, one’s own actions can hardly be condemned with great force. Consistent with this, Sherwood (1981) concluded that attributing one’s undesirable traits to targets who are perceived favorably can reduce stress. This explanation could also fit Bramel’s (1962, 1963) demonstration that males who were told they had homosexual tendencies were later more likely to interpret other males’ behavior as having similar tendencies. Likewise, it may explain the findings of Agostinelli, Sherman, Presson, and Chassin (1992): Receiving bogus failure feedback on a problem-solving task made people (except depressed people) more likely to predict that others would fail too.
          None of these findings links seeing the trait in others to denying it in oneself, and so they fall short of the more rigorous definition of projection. Given the failure to show that projective responses can function to conceal one’s own bad traits, Holmes (1968, 1978, 1981) concluded that defensive projection should be regarded as a myth. In retrospect, it was never clear how seeing another person as dishonest (for example) would enable the individual to avoid recognizing his or her own dishonesty. The notion that projection would effectively mask one’s own bad traits was perhaps incoherent.
          Recognizing the implausibility in the classical concept of projection, Newman, Duff, and Baumeister (1997) proposed a new model of defensive projection. In this view, people try to suppress thoughts of their undesirable traits, and these efforts make those trait categories highly accessible—so that they are then used all the more often when forming impressions of others (see Wegner, 1994; Wegner & Erber, 1992). In a series of studies, Newman et al. showed that repressors (as defined by Weinberger, Schwartz, & Davidson, 1979) were more likely than others to deny having certain bad traits, even though their acquaintances said they did have those bad traits. Repressors were then also more likely to interpret the ambiguous behaviors of others as reflecting those bad traits. Thus, they both denied their own faults and over interpreted other people as having those faults.
          The view that suppressing thoughts about one’s undesirable traits leads to projection was then tested experimentally by Newman et al. (1997). Participants were given bogus feedback based on a personality test, to the effect that they had both good and bad traits. They were then instructed to avoid thinking about one dimension on which they had received (bad) feedback. Next, they observed a videotape of a stimulus person and rated that person on all the dimensions on which they had received feedback. Participants rated the stimulus person about the same on all dimensions, except that they rated her higher on the trait for which they had received bad feedback and been instructed to suppress. They did not rate the stimulus person higher on traits for which they had received bad feedback without trying to suppress it. Thus, projection results from trying to suppress thoughts about some bad trait in oneself.
Read complete research:

  1. SEXUAL ORIENTATION is less about sex and more about LOVE, being one with another human being.
  2. 3 Psychological Facts About Growing Up Gay
  3. Fr. Marty Kurylowicz - Coming Out 1997
  4. Fr. Marty Kurylowicz – Charged by the Vatican for “Coming Out” 1997 for the Protection of Children – 15 years later

...What is not that well known is that John Paul’s courageous commitment to truth and justice had extended to homosexuals. It was only after the death of John Paul, April 2005, I was informed that John Paul had commissioned a group made up of theologians and scientists to thoroughly investigate all the authoritative facts on sexual orientation focusing on homosexuality.  

This group was enthusiastic about the steady progress they had been making, having already made significant changes and confident of the possibilities that others would be made in the near future. In the fall of 1997, there is evidence of a significant step made forward towards a fuller knowledge and acceptance of homosexuals in the Church. Six months after the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops made their statement to the press referring to my “coming out” in March 1997 for the protection of children as  “unprecedented,” they released the first ever, a positive document focused on children growing up gay called “Always Our Children” September 1997. 
A news reporter had asked the USCC Bishops if my “coming out” as a gay Catholic priest to help stop the lifetime harm and violence caused to very young children growing up gay by antigay social and religious norms had anything to do with the release of their document. Their response was “no” indicating that they had been previously working for some time on their document  “Always Our Children.”  I was informed later that my coming out did help to push it forward in getting it released, but also confirming that the long hard work on the document happened quite some time before.  This news was most encouraging to learn that the US Catholic Bishops were concerned about the lives of gay children throughout the 1990s and well into the 2000s. This vibrant commitment and care for gay children on the part the US Bishops was an outgrowth of John Paul’s group. 

However, it is frightening to witness that 15 years later, such a drastic void of human compassion and empathy the US Bishops once had for gay children in 1997. The pervasive attitude among the US Bishops observed today and in the recent past revealed by their endless dehumanizing public unsubstantiated antigay statements is a deliberate and complete disregard for the safety and well-being of children growing up gay. The toxic pollution from their antigay statements is as lethal, as smoking in a neonatal care unit. The proof the US Bishops were aware of the life-threatening harm antigay statements are to gay children, because in 1997 they released their document “Always Our Children.” Photo

What happened in the past 15 years that they the whole group of US Bishops became ignorant of the authoritative research data regarding the care and well-being of gay children?  Or worst when and how were they convinced that gay children are subhuman? Being subhuman they are excluded of the moral rights and obligations that binds all human beings together, meaning it is wrong to kill a human being, but not to kill a bug, a rat or anything subhuman. This vibrant commitment and care for gay children on the part the US Bishops ignorance all began deteriorating quickly after Ratzinger became Benedict XVI in April 2005 
with his immediate removal of all the scientists commissioned by John Paul to work with theologians on the issues of homosexuality.  If someone considers homosexuals to be subhuman, not true human beings then understanding their science is irrelevant and unnecessary. This is the ongoing process of the dehumanization of children cloaked in secrecy and silence.

John Paul from the start of his papacy was publicly clear about his commissioning a group of scientists and theologians to review Galileo’s trial and get to the truth regardless of the consequences to the image of the Church.  Later, he followed the same formal to get to the truth about homosexuality. How was Ratzinger beginning, as John Paul’s closest advisor, able to work in direct opposition to John Paul’s basic values? John Paul is commissioning groups in particular one on homosexuality unearthing every bit science to find the truth.  At the same time, Ratzinger, his top advisor is doing the exact opposite.  He is forcefully suppressing all the emerging authoritative science on homosexuality beginning in the 1960s and 1970s that no longer supports homosexuality, as a disorder or sickness, but instead finding that homosexuality is a normal and natural part of human development. Photo  Ratzinger’s arbitrary dismissal of the relevance of “human sciences” related to homosexuality is noted in a letter he sent to Archbishop Hunthausen, dated 9/30/1985 (p 155). “Conflict in the Catholic Hierarchy: A Study of Coping Strategies in the Hunthausen Affair, with Preferential Attention to Discursive Strategies” by Timothy Peter Schilling 2003 

In 1990, Ratzinger, in a speech in Parma, Italy stated that  "At the time of Galileo the Church remained much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself. The process against Galileo was reasonable and just."  

What is so surprising is how Ratzinger was able for 27 years throughout John Paul’s papacy keep his constant covert antigay operations, from arousing any suspicion to reach John Paul. As John Paul was insisting on considering all the scientific authoritative research on sexual orientation, Ratzinger was systematically forcefully suppressing all the scientific authoritative research on sexual orientation, as well as, silencing and removing all those supporting gay people and gay rights. Archbishop Hunthausen along with Sr. Gramick and Fr. Nugent of New Ways Ministry Photo
their pastoral ministering to end the discrimination of gay people by educating people on the science and theological aspects of homosexuality was consistent with what Pope John Paul II had started in the Vatican.  And yet they were relentlessly being attack by Ratzinger for years that was for the most part shrouded in secrecy.  Ratzinger was able to work continuously in direct opposition to the importance that Pope John Paul II placed on science - throughout his papacy without raising any suspicion. Astounding and frightening!  This could only have been pull off with the same precision like skill of the systematic organization that was involved in the years of the child sexual abuse cover-ups as was found in the independent investigations that have all led back to Benedict XVI...
Read more:

Holy Office of the Inquisition

Ecclesiastes 1:5 (New International Version)
5 The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.
Ecclesiastes 1:5 (New American Standard Bible)
Also, the sun rises and the sun sets; And hastening to its place it rises there again. 

1 Chronicles 16:30 (New International Version)
30 Tremble before him, all the earth!
The world is firmly established; it 
cannot be moved.
1 Chronicles 16:30 (New American Standard Bible)
30 Tremble before Him, all the earth; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved

Psalm 93:1 (New International Version)
The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty;
the LORD is robed in majesty
and is armed with strength. The world is firmly established; it 
cannot be moved.
Psalm 93:1 (New American Standard Bible)
1 The LORD reigns, He is clothed with majesty; The LORD has clothed and girded Himself with strength; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved

Psalm 96:10 (New International Version)
10 Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns."
The world is firmly established, it 
cannot be moved;
he will judge the peoples with equity.
Psalm 96:10 (New American Standard Bible)
10 Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved; He will judge the peoples with equity." 

Psalm 104:5 (New International Version)
5 He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.
Psalm 104:5 (New American Standard Bible)
He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it will not totter forever and ever.

Injustice anywhere is a
threat to
Justice everywhere
Martin Luther King

The Nobel Peace Prize 1964
Martin Luther King Jr.

What you cannot do is accept injustice.

From Hitler – or anyone.
You must make the injustice visible
– be prepared to die like a
 soldier to do so.
Mahatma Gandhi

Kids Are Being Hurt!!!

“Someday, maybe, there will exist a well-informed, well considered and yet fervent public conviction that the most deadly of all possible sins is the mutilation of a child’s spirit.” 

…whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. Matthew 18:6

Important note: No disrespect meant to Pope Benedict XVI or the hierarchy, the one and only concern is the safety and well-being of children.

Kids Are Being Hurt!!!

No comments: