Catholic Colbert: It Gets Better

I like Colbert when he is funny but I also like him here, "out of character".  Wouldn't it be cool if our bishops could join this "It Gets Better" Campaign?  Or would that be too "out of character"?

Does anyone think for a second that gay teens are bullied in a more brutal fashion and to a greater degree than teens who are openly catholic and trying to be chaste? In today's Politically Correct world where adults can be terminated for not being PC... who really believes homophobia is a sweeping danger and that the reverse isn't even a problem?

From the most powerful political party to most influential hollywood and pop culture icons, to the federal government, public school aparatus, to international Left, being gay is celebrated, exaulted, praised, rejoiced over and considered heroic. But try being 7 or 12 (or 42 in industry) and beg to differ with the crowd about this and see what happens.

MOST cases of bullying is not the lone bully being cruel to the lone victim, but a leader of a gang of peers...or a leader including authority figures who can bring the hurt to you on a whole different level including a terror campaign.

Most bullies therefore are popular kids or popular causes sweeping along everything and one in their path. That's why most victims surrender and it takes an exceptional kid to fight back. Ditto with the culture wars. One side claims victim status while savagely attacking their opponents from the high ground... and then are amazed when these ideological opponents are self-selected by this experience into an army of confident David's challenging the Goliath?

Look at the abortion wars: pro-abortion industries and causes are funded 20 to 1 over pro-life groups and yet.... are just barely winning. Ditto with Global Warming, ditto with gay lifestyle issues.... so keep believing that you're victims fighting bullies while acting like bullies confident in the inevitable sweep of historic victory and see what happens.

John:  my lady doth protest too much!

How many Catholic Matthew Shepards have there been in the past 50 years?

Talk with kids who have been bullied by being called "fag", "Queer" etc. before you spout such inanities.  There is NO comparison between the bullying the Colbert is addressing and any kid who allegedly is trying to remain chaste.  How many of THEM have been killed?

"Does anyone think for a second that gay teens are bullied in a more brutal fashion and to a greater degree than teens who are openly catholic and trying to be chaste?"

Ummm... yes?

Seriously, if you think otherwise, then you need to pull your head out of your ass, wipe the shit from your eyes, and take a long hard look at reality.

I mean, damn...

Abe,

In my community it is much more fashionable to be gay than to be someone who deeply accepts the fullness of the Catholic faith.  But I live in a well-to-do suburb. 

I would suspect that if Colbert truly has a deep faith in Christ and the fullness of His Catholic Church (rather than a fashionable faith) then he likely can empathize with those who are bullied.

So? That's got jack-all to do with whosit's absurd claim about bullying.

It would be great if the bishops could be on the side of those being bullied instead of being among those doing the bullying.  Even David Cameron did one of the "It Gets Better" videos - imagine if the pope did one of them.

Abe,

The times they are a changing.  Don't you watch the news or TV?  The NBA does service commercials about this.  NY has Gay Marriage.  California teaches this to all of the kids.  Really it is not so bad being Gay.

On the other hand if you are a ''deep'' and faithful Catholic you are at a minimum strange and possibly an intolerant bigot.  These are high crimes indeed!

Crystal,

You prove my point.  Thanks.

My, my.  The tighty-righties find themselves on the less popular part of the stick and do indeed get quite defensive.

Poor pure chaste orthodox Catholics - so picked upon! 

My, my.

I'll ask again:  how many of them have been murdered for being pure chaste orthodox Catholics in the past 50 years?

Ah, no doubt you're right. I had forgotten that being gay was validated by television these days, and since the world presented by the tube so wonderously reflects day-to-day reality, it must be Catholic kids getting their heads slammed into lockers and kicked out of their homes, and not gay ones.

Thanks for reminding me about the social barometer that is NBA service ads!

Abe,

You surely exaggerate the extent of the problem today.  But lets not quible.  I don't remember seeing any reports of Gay pharmacists who might lose their job or Gay gynecologists who should get out of the field (per the recommendation of the ACGO).

Likewise, I can't recall any Roman Catholics getting discharged from the US armed forces after getting caught with a rosary.  That still has nothing to do with Mr. Lyon's asinine claim.

There's no reason a bishop or priest couldn't do one. The Catechism of the Catholic Church itself is against bullying gay people: "They men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided" (no. 2358). There would be no danger of it being taken as an endorsement of homosexual acts or gay marraige, as the position of the Catholic Church on these things is clear and well known (indeed, it is infamous to many).

Regarding this other point, clearly a certain amount of teasing and harrassing of pious Christians can and does occur in some places. But it is not comparable to the _violence_ that gay students have often received. I know of no instances of Christian students, or chaste students, or what-have-you, being bullied to the point of suicide or murdered. It is shameful to attempt to make a comparison here.

Oh, Maria, I'm sure-no doubt its time will come when the one restraining is removed.

How many US Catholic teens commit suicide after being bullied for being Catholic? How many US Catholic teens are kicked out of their homes for being Catholic?
How many US Catholic teens are told by their priests and bishops that they are intrinsically disordered for being Catholic?
How many US Catholic teens are told they really aren't Catholic, they just have a Catholic problem?

Et cet.

Really, playing the victim card is not convincing here. And I say that as someone who was a chaste Catholic kid all the way well past college age and who was rather distinguished among his peers for being forthrightly Catholic in the 1970s (when, btw, being religious was WAY WAY less cool among kids than it is today). 

It's true that the times they are a changin'. Society is on its way toward a greater acceptance of LGBT people than in the past. But the pain of facing life as a young homosexual can be so intense. This fact is not meant to deny any chaste Catholics out there who also face hardships. You're pain is real too. But the pain that Catholics face can be something very different than what homosexuals face. For the gay person, not only are we struggling with discrimination, we are at the same time faced with a potentially traumatic dillema that something so intrinsic to our mental, emotional, and sexual personhood is so-called "un-natural" and some of the greatest spiritual leaders (i.e. the Pope) tell us that the love we feel is "dis-ordered,"  and "in no way acceptable."  Here is a relevent little excerpt from the book Virtually Normal by Sullivan:
"No homosexual child, surrounded overwhelmingly by heterosexuals will feel at home in his sexual and emotional world, even in the most tolerant of cultures. And every homosexual child will learn the rituals of deciet, impersonation, and appearance. Anyone who believes political, social, or even cultural revolution will change this fundamentally is denying reality. This isolation will always hold. It is definitional of homosexual development. And children are particularly cruel. At the age of eleven, no one wants to be the odd one out; and in the arena of dating and hormones, the exclusion is inevitably a traumatic one." (pg.13).
One more thing: If you are both LGBT AND CATHOLIC you might find some resources at this website: http://lgbtcatholicsupport.weebly.com/  That is the original site but we are moving the blog to http://thegoodgaycatholic.blogspot.com/
Thanks for listening.
Blessing,
Scout

John, the problem I have with what you write is that if that deep faithful chaste Catholic teen happens to be gay and admits it, they will quickly find out how much their deep faithful chaste catholic life counts.

Joe, the openly gay pharmacist or gynecologist need not bother applying at Catholic hospitals no matter how chaste and deeply faithful they may be.  The fact is one still can not be Catholic and openly gay and work for any Church enterprise.  No matter how many rosaries one drapes around their neck.

John is right.
All you bleeding heart liberals lost your way years ago.  It is not good to be gay and that is why kids tease homosexuals.  It is because homosexuality is not good nor is it healthy or fun.  It is bad to be gay and everyone knows that almost inherently, but we are trained by wierdos to tolerate bad behavior because we don't want anyone to feel bad.  It is pathetic.  Gay is anything but happy, it is not normal nor should people think it is normal.  It is a dis-order of the person.  

And now all the pathetic liberal ignorant people are going to start shouting and crying and you know what, you all are going to end up in hell because gay behavior is SIN.  And until you tell yourselves and others that homesexuality is not normal, you just like those Taliban fools that want people to be like them.  Gay is NOT GOOD, and we need to tell children it is sinful!
 

Abe, going immediately to profanity is what bullies do.

You seem to be under the impression that in 2011, in America (and the West) that gay teens and gay young adults are disproportionately likely to be bullied and that the bullying they experience is WORSE than what others receive.

I disagree. I have reasons and arguments. You have curses and vitriol. Now either we argue like adults or this back and forth is a phenomenological example of how those on the Left who preen and pride themsleves with sophistication and intelligence cannot actually employ either when in a disagreement with someone on the 'right".

Right now and for the last 10 years, in our Public schools and universities, someone who is open about their homosexuality have known that from the largest political party to Oprah to EVERY pop star, movie actor, and major corporations.... that gays are a protected minority.

Every pop starlet that wants instant favorable press declares themselves to be bi-sexual and then savages the Catholic church - and gets instant fawning press about how brave and courageous they are. Every Fortune 500 company and most churches and smaller businesses have made it official policy to hire 'diversity' managers whose job description is to ferret out any one who would beg to differ with open homosexuality on parade or who aren't sufficiently accepting (not just tolerant of, but accepting) of their agendas.

Thats a fact and it's known on all levels of our society.

So who's brave and heroic? The Left wing hedonists who sneer at and put down Catholics knowing they'll not be harmed.... or the Catholics put down who won't get favored treatment in the media, halls of congress, academia, industry, and the world....?

But lets go to your claims. Mat Shepherd wasn't killed because he was gay, he was killed - and just so happened to be gay. Go read the trial. Those guys were druggies and criminals, not seminarians or Knights of Columbus. 

While it's gotten almost no mention in the media, lots of catholic youth and adults have been savagely beaten and killed by homosexuals for the 'crime' of peacefully disagreeing with them. And those folk know in Public school, in industry, in politics and now in the military that if a gay person dislikes them and accuses them of homophobia, they will have no refuge from authority and no one will listen to them when they're abused. It's the mob, peer pressure mentality that produces bullies.

Bullies are leaders of a pack, not lone wolves. They attack physically only sometimes - most of their work is done by verbal and social opprobrium from a position of authority or a position of power from which to cow others into silence and submission. And right now, in 2011, the Catholic Church doesn't have much power to compare with Wall Street, the Federal government, the Democratic party, Hollywood, and the Media complex which can bring immediate pain and career-ending put downs on anyone who disagrees with them.

So while it IS true that gays and minorities have been abused by others it is NOT TRUE that ONLY gay or minorities get bullied or that in 2011 gays and minorities are at some special risk of being bullied by legions of homophobic Catholics. 

And me disagreeing with your moral lifestyle isn't a case of bullying, it's a case of one adult disagreeing with another. Disagreement is not the same thing as ad hominem character assassination or real assassination.

But to hear the gay lobby tell it, thou shall not disagree with them or it's "hate" and "violence" but they can disagree with us and our religion, and direct spittle and vitriol our way forever and it's all OK because it's just and rational and mature and somehow will make up for their youth of being bullied.... because nothing cures the scourge of bullies like becoming bullies and nothing gets ride of evil racism like minorities becoming racists in turn?

The gay movement (and others on the left) excel in bully tactics and terrorist tacticts - submit or feel the personal wrath directed at you. Submit or shut up or get hounded out of office, job, career, or school. Sued or physically assaulted. Or both. And the moment a lone person fights back, the media goes wall to wall in panic and howls of unfair advantage to the lone victim who dares to fight back.

It's all tolerance and live and let live...until they're in charge and then it's absolute intolerance for Catholics. Gay marriage is the legal pretense for open and "legal" persecution of the Catholic church and you'll gladly march us into the gulags all while crying about how you're the victims and we're the bullies.

No doubt about it.  Just now I feel more blessed than ever to be a liberal.

Hey John Lyons,

tl;dr

No big loss, I'm sure.

When you can't argue, insult.
When you don't have reasons, accuse the other side of being irrational.

When science is not on your side, bluff and claim "the scientific consensus has spoken!"

When you can't describe your end goal, ignore it but claim all you do is "progressive" towards this unstated goal and anything that opposes you is "regressive".

When you want less freedom for most people and maximum freedom and power for a few elites, call this "liberal" even though that's the opposite of what liberal originally means.

And when on a Catholic chat site hosted by a Catholic magazine, obstensibly for Catholic readers, and a topic of popular concern is brought up, assume that the worldly, pagan ethos is the reigning intellectual paradigm not needing explanation or justification while Catholicism needs to prove its very right to exist.

But whatever you do, never, ever, treat the hated 'conservative' as a fellow citizen who just so happens to disagree. Cause that would be inhuman or something. Especially when the topic is "bullies and victims".

Mr. Lyons is exactly right.  The only evidence of bullying on this thread is by Mr. Rosenzweig, who no doubt feels justified in swearing at and insulting those who dissent from the leftist agenda. 
 

I feel absolutely fine with saying just about anything to anyone who has anything as stupid to say as what Mr. Lyons said before. What he said wasn't "dissent from the leftist agenda" (what blather), it was just really, really, really dumb. And cruel. So, sorry if potty language is more upsetting to you than speech that actually seeks to mitigate the reality of suffering that people experience.

I mean, I appreciate the fact that lots of folks are upset that their bigoted views are growing less mainstream. Who likes to lose influence? I appreciate the fact that you don't like the fact that your views are likely to induce certain people to call you bigots. Certain people like me. You are bigots. Are your feelings hurt? No care ever.

Granted, I could be more charitable. Perhaps Mr. Lyons' mother dropped him on his head when he was an infant. Repeatedly. Maybe he was cursed by a witch-you know: you shall be an ass evermore! Or maybe he didn't mean to write what he did. Perhaps he just accidentally mashed some keys with his fist and, against all odds, the nonsense from above was the result. Or maybe he left his laptop open in a public place, and some deranged baboon, recently escaped from a zoo, got to it and posted under his username.

I'm sure it was the last case. Those damned baboons! I apologize, Mr. Lyons, for holding you accountable for the words of a baboon. But next time, be more careful about leaving your laptop unattended.

Yes, Mr. Lyons, gay youth get bullied with a great deal more frequency than Catholic youth.  I've seen bullies' inane vitriolic behavior with my own eyes and heard their cretinous words with my own ears.  Somehow, I think (hope) you know that what you wrote is not the truth.

Mr. Lyons, I will not address the questions of whether homosexuals or chaste Catholics are more frequently and/or more severely bullied, or of whether gays bully Catholics, because our faith calls us to respond in the same way regardless.  Jesus called us to pray for those who persecute us.  Honestly, I, as an openly-chaste, pro-life, single, heterosexual Catholic who hopes to marry a woman someday, do not perceive that I am being persecuted, as you evidently do, but regardless, the fact that one person or group is persecuted does not make the persecution of any other person or group acceptable.  The perseuction of chaste heterosexual Catholics does not absolve us  chaste heterosexual persecuted Catholic victims from our obligation to denounce persecution of anybody else and to comfort the victims of this or any other form of oppression whenever and under whatever circumstances we see them. 

I will acknowledge the deep disadvantage of being Catholic and the great advantage of being gay when there are six gays and lesbians and no Catholics on the Supreme Court. 

The early Christians were willing—often eager—to be persecuted and die for their faith. Now religious people whimper if someone looks cross-eyed at them or considers them a kook.

No kid should be bullied for any reason, and I can't help but feel that the people who claim that religious kids are bullied are actually worried about how they, not kids, are regarded. 

Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you (falsely) because of me.

Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

I have seen people write anonymously in Catholic online forums things like, ''I really have to be careful about saying anything at the office about homosexuality, because if people find out how I feel, I won't get invited to lunch.'' It breaks my heart.

There are far more Catholic youth in Public schools than there are gay youth period.
And bullies have hurt children from time immemorial over any difference (size, shape, color, family, religion, class....) so that gay kids get bullied is not unique to gay kids. To act as though they and they alone are targets is disingenuous and to claim that the bullying they experience is worse.... again is not proven by anecdotes.

However if it is established by science that gay kids ALWAYS have more pain when bullied than heterosexual kids.... all else being equal, how does that prove that homosexuality is not a biochemical/psychological disorder needing loving treatment rather than perfectly harmless variation?

Secondly, since you get to call me a bigot - based on my disagreeing with you, but I don't get to call you a bigot based on your insta-diatribe, insta-ad hominem what does this prove about your supposed "liberalism" and claim that judgmentalism and imposing of one's religious views on others is wrong?

So...only your feelings matter? Only the feelings and sensitivities of SOME minorities matter? You don't want equality, you want to be treated differently, "special" all while claiming that you are normal and just one of the guys!

But phenomenologically, beyond the rhetoric and politics, the proof is in the pudding. Healthy, sane, mature people don't spontaneously combust into vitriolic passion and calling strangers 'bigots' and waxing on about how they must be handicapped children on the basis of someone begging to differ about the claim that 1% of the student population suffers more incidents of bullying than 30% despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

The APA did not take SSA out of the DSM-III after some exhaustive, multi-decade scientific longitudinal study. They took it out for political reasons with a slim majority of less than 50% of their members voting.... and then on the premise of a single white paper written by a Dr. Spitzer. Since then science has repeatedly shown in twin studies that same sex attraction is not 100% incident in identical twins - ergo, it's not genetic.  

We also know that it is highly varied and a diverse phenomenon (as the movement itself attests to by adding letters to the group with bi-sexual, transgendered, Q and ? added to the spectrum). Science is showing that there very well MAY BE TEMPORARY SAME SEX ATTRACTION - or sexual confusion that will not lead to permanent, life long attraction... that therefore many teens might begin to feel attraction for a while but it won't last.

Those teens in this environment will be hauled into the gay subculture, branded as forever and inescapably gay and if they have doubts will be *(and are) shouted down. COURAGE has plenty of witnesses to this fact of gay on gay violence and wrath.

You may very well have been always felt attracted to the same sex but it doesn't stand that it's "natural" or "from conception" and therefore somehow "wonderfully healthy with only evil society and bigots to blame for all our troubles".

People with same sex attraction need love and friendship and fellowship and therapy. Just as people with alcoholism, depression, or other disorders need friendship, love, acceptance and therapy, not craven neglect or help in self-destruction in the name of self-realization.

 They don't need to be told that everything and anything the gay subculture cooks up as fun and wonderful and fulfilling is so, and that anything they want to do is ipso facto healthy.

Because if it were and we were the insane, unhealthy ones, we'd see overwhelming evidence in societies from Europe to America of more well adjusted citizens, less drug use, less self-destructive behavior, less suicidal ideations, less domestic violence, and less spontaneous combustion at cultural and moral differences.... than what we're seeing despite all the changes in favor of the lifestyle of those with same sex attractions.

So you call me an enemy and evil-doer but I'm actually the only one brave enough to tell you what you need to hear and I'm the only sort of person who sees people as people not sexual urges that can't but be fed.

Wow, Mr. Lyons. Just. Wow.

If I'm wrong, show me. Don't just say it, or snear it, or proclaim it. Spell it out and show it, point by point.

Any evidence, John? Scholalry studies, links to academic works, etc.? 

Stay cool.

If I'm wrong, show me. Don't just say it, or snear it, or proclaim it. Spell it out and show it, point by point. 

John Lyons:

The problem is that you have not presented any evidence that you are correct.  You have made a lot of assertions, but you have not presented any statistics or studies to back up your views, yet apparently you expect people to do research to refute your assertions. You have also made it pretty clear that you will not accept the American Psychiatric Association as an authority, and since the American Psychological Association and most other medical associations agree with them, you have ruled out the entire medical establishment as having anything to say that you will accept as evidence against your position.

Since then science has repeatedly shown in twin studies that same sex attraction is not 100% incident in identical twins - ergo, it's not genetic.  
 
Did you know that about 10% of the time, when one identical twin has Down Syndrome, the other twin does not?  

The APA did not take SSA out of the DSM-III after some exhaustive, multi-decade scientific longitudinal study. 

What would that study have consisted of? How do you prove or disprove scientifically that something like homosexuality is a disorder? What would be the criteria? What would you look for over those long decades? 

 

I see that you now call for proof. But note how in the beginning of this back and forth it was taken on faith that gay teens are abused more frequently and worse than non-gay teens. No prove needed. None produced.

And me questioning this assertion (more and worse) was responded to with shrieks of "heresy" and ad hominems.

So now I'm the one who needs to provide proof?

Google Dr Spitzer, APA, 1973. You'd think something as huge as de-listing something from the dsm would be preceeded by copious studies, lots of consensus, lots of persuasive reasoning... but it's just not there.

When I was researching it that there wasn't a library shelf full of studies pointing invariably towards how sane SSA was before 1973 and how most of the studies since were sponsored by gay friendly funders made me go "hmmmm" and since science is supposed to be facts based and not ideologically driven, it ought to make you go Hmmmm too. That's why twin studies are so important. If it's a genetic thing, if people are "born that way" then one would expect identical twins to almost always be gay together....but that's just not the case.

Since there were no groundswell of studies prior to 1973 showing some sort of breakthrough in science in favor of de-listing SSA, a student of science has to conclude that the de-listing was political, not rational.

And since virtually every study since then has taken the de-listing as Gospel and built their argument of sanity on the fact that the APA says so.... it behooves pro-gay partisans to show us their data pre-1973 that can wow us with its rigor. But it doesn't exist.

So you want proof. Yeah so do I. The APA de-listed them by assertion. Not by 'science'.

But note how in the beginning of this back and forth it was taken on faith that gay teens are abused more frequently and worse than non-gay teens. 

John Lyons:

You are changing what you said originally, which was, ''Does anyone think for a second that gay teens are bullied in a more brutal fashion and to a greater degree than teens who are openly catholic and trying to be chaste?'' I am not asking for proof of this or any of your assertions. I am asking for evidence. Proof and evidence are two different things. 

And since virtually every study since then has taken the de-listing as Gospel and built their argument of sanity on the fact that the APA says so.... it behooves pro-gay partisans to show us their data pre-1973 that can wow us with its rigor. But it doesn't exist.  

What would be the nature of data that pointed to homosexuality being either a disorder or not a disorder? Regarding something being a disorder, what does it prove if it is genetic or not? Is there anything that would convince you that homosexuality is not a disorder? What kind of data would you want to see? I think you are correct in saying that the APA did not make its decision based on scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a disorder. But I don't think evidence exists to prove this matter one way or another. Whether homosexuality is a disorder or not isn't an empirical question. 

Finally some adults. Thank you both for your well thought out responses.

Norm, what you describe falls into two categories, one, failed therapies and two, the underlying theory of health itself. The former does not disprove the latter necessarily.

One may have a sound theory of health but erroneous threatment regimes and vice versa. Freudian therapies (and others as you mentioned) may very well be failures without the underlying problem ceasing to be a problem. 

And as for sodomy being condemned in the scripture, and therefore assumed to be a sin, this is not entirely based on faith. The Church does in fact have quite a bit of experience both from pagans and from believers in various socio-cultural situations to base itself on when teaching that there is a distinction between the feeling for something (uncontrollable, ergo, a-moral) and the acting upon those feelings (willful and thus entering the realm of morality). After all, sodomy was very common in the ancient world and not unknown in the Catholic world of monasteries and convents and civil societies too.

The church of course also believes in spirits and demonic possession - which the APA does not accept and yet this is not 'scripture' based for the Church but experiential - based on actual cases, whereas the APA can't accept demonic possession as 'real' because it does not accept the existence of spirits. So in this which side is basing itself on the evidence and which on an a priori theory of what is and is not possible?

There were plenty of lived experience with men struggling or giving in to same sex attractions including pedastry and other relationships that the Church has encountered along the way to base its doctrine on apart from scripture. One experience is that men who experience this attraction tend to be extremely volatile in their anger. Not all of them. But enough to be noticed. Especially when in power. So the Church rests its teaching on phenomenology and scripture not scripture alone when teaching that the attraction itself is a disorder but not a sin, whereas the acting out may be sinful to the degree it's freely chosen behavior (thus disliking someone is not immoral - it's automatic, whereas hatred of someone can be immoral because we can chose to not hate).

So it's not just that "the bible says its bad" it's also because experience has shown some behaviors or obsessions to invariably lead to individual and communal harm - while the origin of these behaviors must be acknowledged to be mysterious and not entirely within a person's control.

Take depression for example. Like same sex attraction, people have been depressed for all of recorded history.

Depression is also a mysterious phenomenon involving a complex mix of factors which includes bio-chemical, environmental, genetic, and experiential inputs. Some depression (like some same sex attraction) is temporary and conditional. Some depression (like some same sex attraction) is more permanent - something that's "not a choice" but more like the horizon or color the individual grows up with.

There are many therapies for depression (like using leeches) that can't work as they're based on an erroneous theory of health in the first place. But that doesn't mean depression is not a problem. Certainly people can and do live loving, productive, caring lives despite their depression. They can and do raise about it and thus show great virtue. Ditto with same sex attraction. Or blindness or deafness or other irrational fears and worries or obsessions.

Alcoholism is a disease and not a moral failing too - and there have been a plethora of erroneous therapies for alcoholics without these therapies disproving the disease nature of the phenomenon! So it doesn't follow that because Freudians' therapies were failures that the condition was not a problem.

On the other hand, having depression (or being an alcoholic) does not rob a person of dignity any more than having same sex attraction.

Note what I just wrote. I don't believe same sex attraction makes a person evil, sinful or bad. Neither does the Catholic Church.

People can be saints despite their disordered appetites or disordered handicaps. Being impaired in the development of ones' mind or body does not make one a sub-human or second class citizen, but those disorders or handicaps are real and need to be recognized as such so proper care and support can be rendered. 

Having a chemical imbalance towards depression or the alcoholic 'gene' or same sex attraction does not make a person evil, sinful or bad. But acknowledging the handicap is the first step to avoiding pitfalls and developing worse conditions. 

Talk of human developmental or other disorders - is based on the presumption that the order of human sexuality is heterosexual, the mind is optimistic, and our diet ought to be rational.

Now what makes me think depression is not "normal"? Here we enter the realm of philosophy not religion. Inasmuch as human beings are rational and free and gregarious, being in control of our moods and not controlled by them makes us more free to govern our lives with reason rather than be forced by moods to react - my a priori being that reason ought to trump appetites.

This is Aristotelian and if you disagree, fine. But it's not "bs" based on pure bias.

Now maybe your world view is that appetites always ought to trump reason and so even if we know a given thought pattern or obsession will lead us to physical and interpersonal harm, oh well, better to give in and go with the flow than resist as 'resistance is useless' then we just will have to disagree.

Phenomenologically, how does a healthy adult human being react to the news that a small unpopular minority of his fellow citizens believe a religion which holds his appetites and obsessions to be harmful if followed but otherwise merely a disorder, not a sin?

As a Catholic I am a member of a religion that makes up just 23% of the Population of the USA. Most other citizens are Protestants and most Protestants believe that our faith is wrong and therefore we are doomed to hell for not believing in faith alone salvation. And anti-Catholic bias and outright persecution is older than the USA itself.... but does this widespread bias make ME flip out when in the presence of some Protestant bigot? No. But that's anecdotal. But with millions of Catholics and millions of Protestants, is there thousands of regular cases of Catholics spontaneously combusting when they hear about some Protestant preacher condemning us to hellfire? No. But there are lots of cases of gay activists blowing a gasket when dealing with Catholics who merely beg to differ.

Would a mature, health, rational adult human being take offense and flip out, and assume that disagreement about their health automatically is personal murderous hatred for them?

Would a mature, healthy, rational adult human being assume all subsequent misunderstandings be just bigotry and personal irrational hatred to be responded in kind.... or would a mature healthy rational human being take the time to patiently explain why it's not so?

That those who struggle with SSA also tend to have higher incidences of suicidal ideations, drug and other self-abuse, domestic violence issues among themselves, and a distinct tendency towards violent outbursts when disagreed with..... seems to be evidence that they are not healthy. Especially since the Catholic church is a minority in this country and our world view is decidedly NOT popular among the elites.

And so according to MY world view that human beings ought to be guided by reason and not feelings, and that self-destructive behavior of alcoholics, depressed people etc. and those with SSA ought to be alleviated, not encouraged, I would be committing the sin of omission if I just stood by and watched an alcoholic drink and drive, or a depressed person indulge in depressing suicidal ideations, or a homosexual go on and on about how impossible it is to live without indulging his feelings....

But thinking someone is sick if they're merely different is not the same thing as thinking them evil when they're innocent. Yet that is how you gentlemen respond to any criticism of the gay agenda - which is also interesting.

Just because you were bullied as kids "for being different" doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees with your difference or rather your understanding and claims about the healthiness of this difference are ipso facto wrong and bullies.... that childhood bully was wrong to bully....but your difference (like someone with asbergers or autism) is not 'healthy' just because.