Wednesday, June 04, 2008

Paul "Fire&Brimstone" Melanson Should Consider His Sources

Paul Melanson is the webmaster of lasalettejourney, a pro-Catholic and anti-gay website. I thought a bit about whether I would call it anti-gay, but see some of the articles he has published for example and decide for yourself:

"We simply want equality.."
Homosexual activists and other anti-Christian bigots attack Christian youth festival
San Fransisco Mayor shows his own form of intolerance and hypocrisy
Homosexuals in the Third Reich
Jewish Holocaust Victim: Equating Homosexual and J...
A slippery slope of perversion...

I could go on and on citing articles that Paul has written, but these are enough to make my point, and make most people uneasy. In his latest he cites a 2006 study from renowned expert on sexuality Judith A. Reisman. Let's review some facts. First off, Reisman has her Masters of Arts and Doctorate in Philosophy and communications. How exactly does that make her an expert on sex? She is famous for challenging the works of Dr. Alfred Kinsey. In turn here is the response she received:

Attention has focused on Dr. Alfred Kinsey recently because of the institute's celebration of the 50-year anniversary of his book and reports that a Hollywood film company is interested in producing a film about Kinsey.

This attention provides an opportunity for long-time anti-Kinsey crusader Judith Reisman to put forth, once again, her opinions on Kinsey and on the Institute. Allegations against Alfred Kinsey and his research on children's sexual responses, as reported in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, were first made in 1981 by Dr. Reisman. She subsequently enlarged on these ideas in a book written jointly with Edward Eichel and published in 1990 (Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud). When The Kinsey Institute responded, Reisman filed suit in 1991 against The Kinsey Institute, then director June Reinisch, and Indiana University, alleging defamation of character and slander. In September 1993, Reisman's lawyer withdrew from the case, and in June 1994 the court dismissed Reisman's case with prejudice (which means that Reisman is prohibited from refiling the suit).

Response to Controversy
Below is a reiteration of previous accusations and the Institute's response.

The act of encouraging pedophiles to rape innocent babies and toddlers in the names of "science" offends. The act of protecting them from prosecution offends. The act of falsifying research findings which, in turn, open the floodgates for the sexual abuse of children, offends. (from Dr. Laura's (Schlesinger) website)

This would be a cause of great concern if it were true. Kinsey was not a pedophile in any shape or form. He did not carry out experiments on children; he did not hire, collaborate, or persuade people to carry out experiments on children. He did not falsify research findings and there is absolutely no evidence that his research "opened flood gates for the sexual abuse of children". Kinsey did talk to thousands of people about their sex lives, and some of the behaviors that they disclosed, including abuse of children, were illegal. In fact, many sexual behaviors, even those some between married adults, were illegal in the 1940's and 1950's. Without confidentiality, it would have been impossible to investigate the very private lives of Americans then, and even now.

Where did Kinsey's information about children's sexual responses come from?

Kinsey clearly stated in his male volume the sources of information about children's sexual responses. The bulk of this information was obtained from adults recalling their own childhoods. Some was from parents who had observed their children, some from teachers who had observed children interacting or behaving sexually, and Kinsey stated that there were nine men who he had interviewed who had sexual experiences with children who had told him about how the children had responded and reacted.

In a British documentary, a woman says she was sexually abused by her father and grandfather, and that her father justified it as doing research for Alfred Kinsey by filling out questionnaires.

We have no reason to doubt that this woman was sexually abused. However, Kinsey did not ask people to fill out questionnaires. It is conceivable that this woman's father or grandfather wrote to Kinsey, as many people have done. Following that documentary, we checked through Kinsey's correspondence and could not find any that would match this story. We do know that there have been people who have used Kinsey's name to justify what they do sexually, even recently.

Kinsey used a Nazi SS officer from Germany as one of his key contributors.

In Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Kinsey invited people to write to him about their sex lives. In 1955, a German wrote to him and told him about his sexual experiences with children. Kinsey, in his reply, was non-judgmental, as usual.Kinsey never made use of this information. He did however point out how strongly society condemned such behavior. Kinsey never made use of the information from this man. He also had no idea that this man had been a Nazi ten years earlier.... To suggest that Kinsey had something to do with Nazi torture of children is a bizarre fabrication.

The fact that this woman is not a Dr. of psychology or even sociology makes me wonder why anyone cares to call her an expert in sexuality, and the fact that the courts told not to bother coming back with her complaints seems to sum up how valueless her words are.

I was hoping for better from Paul after reading the begining of his blog and his family background. Unfortunately it seems he uses the same tactics as James Dobson; cite people whose work is junk and add in the fear factor to keep people hating their neighbors. Paul, I love you as Christ asks us to, but I am very disappointed in how you show your love to people who are different from you, like me. I hope this article gives all who read it something to think about when they look in the mirror today.

Our Lady La Salette is the reconciler of sinners, not the persecutor of homosexuals. I challenge all Christians to ask yourself one question. By what terms can we live in peace with our fellow man who refuses to follow the path we believe is right? I look forward to your answers. As something to consider, please watch this short video of a man who lived a horribly miserable life repressing his homosexuality, then learned how to love himself as God made him. Therein he finds the peace Christ wants all of us to have.


John said...

If a Catholic needs information about sex he/she should talk to a priest.

John said...

Check out this site for a genuine Catholic attitude :

Paul Jamieson said...

Go to the Unitarian Church

You will not be worshipping in the Catholic Church

You are not a Catholic.

John said...

Catholics are not monolithic.

Primacy of conscience is plenary.

Stewart said...

Every conscience must be a correctly-formed conscience. Read what the Catechism has to say about this.

John said...

I am no stranger to the Catechism.

Stewart said...

If you were not a stranger to the Catechism, you would know that a correct conscience is formed by the Church's teaching. And the Church's teaching regarding homosexual acts is clear: 2357.

John said...

So, Stewart, you're saying that Primacy for Conscience means nothing unless it conforms to already pre-ordained answers? I don't buy it.

2357 is simply a false teaching.

You know it is false because it is demonstrably incorrect.

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

I don't believe Christ would allow His followers an excuse to be unkind and uncharitable. All I have ever read and understood in my heart about God is that it is better to love those around you unconditionally and leave the judging to He who knows people's hearts.

You can cite what you will of the church's teachings but we all know that the church has been wrong in the past. I can think of no stronger an example of this than my home town, where the Salem Witch Trials were held.

The church is not infallible, only God's love is.

Ryan Charisma said...

you mean wiches weren't real then? maybe they don't exist today because they were exterminated way back? did you think of that? I mean, the church and courts had those women, men & children tortured and put to death. But the big question is,

"could witches marry and be legally recognized?"

even if they're not real, but religous zealots said they existed, like they say the gay agenda exists, and fear & hype overruled rational thinking.

And all those people are burning in hell for bareing false witness against their neighbors? I assume so. Or maybe they're in purgatory right now? you know, the waiting room for heaven.

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Witches would not be able to get married if they were real because it would cause cancer. I don't have to prove that accusation, I only have to say it. ;)

Besides, the Pope cancelled Pergatory, didn't he?

John said...

Purgatory is still valid doctrine; it is Limbo which is no longer supported.