You can see his credentials here: http://jresume.com/mstankovich

Well, here I go, Johnny-Come-Lately, offering my two cents. Let me state from the outset that I am a psychiatrist, an Orthodox Christian, and very interested in this discussion. I think I will avoid clinical-speak and address what I honestly believe to be misguided criticism. I believe M. Stankovich has been misunderstood. Read carefully his statements, especially in the context of statements he has made on other sites, including Monomakhos. He has been very clear that he is not questioning the traditional Orthodox moral stance in regard to same-sex sexual activity. He has also been quite clear that his anecdotal experience matches in many ways what Dr. Pappas has expressed. He seems to be engaged in the lonely activity of pointing out sloppy thinking on the part of many who are laudably eager to defend the historic moral stance of the Church on this issue, but who perhaps will fall into self-defeating traps if careless thinking is continued. I really admire this. He has not once questioned Biblical prescriptions nor proscriptions. Unfortunately, his verbosity perhaps sometimes obscures his very salient and helpful points. Additionally, perhaps his passion is based upon his presumption that readers are primed to take Dr. Pappas’ views as authoritative in and of themselves. Perhaps he is wrong. It is possible that most readers simply take her perspective as just that—an individual clinician’s perspective. One point of disagreement—I do think one should weight more heavily the opinion of a seasoned psychiatrist against that of a plumber, but the rhetorical point is well taken. However, one thing that I appreciate is that he is actually very careful in choosing his words. I do not see this as cageyness, but as precision—M. Stankovich is willing to admit both what we know and what we do not know.

On a thread on Monomakhos he made a very important point which, I think, shows some of what M. Stankovich is attempting to achieve. He pointed out that if we carelessly avoid the possibility that “Gay, Inc.” is correct about there being some biological vulnerabilities toward same sex attraction in an effort to make it purely a matter of development and choice, that we are facing the risk of painting ourselves into a corner if clear biological vulnerabilities are established to exist. M. Stankovich has been quite clear that this should lead us to a thoughtful consideration of how to address this very real cross, and that it should not cause us to question the moral proscriptions of our Tradition. He has also expressed a great deal of confidence in the strength and grace given to the Church to withstand attacks from those who unjustly seek to question her prescriptions for moral purity. I believe this confidence can help to reduce a defensiveness which too quickly and—again I use the word “carelessly”—leads to sloppy thinking which may lead to a dead end.

He has also raised the important point that the term “homosexuality” may include under its umbrella forms of same-sex attraction which are very amenable to healing, and others which may be more refractory and may require a pastoral response geared more toward bearing the cross given in a victorious—albeit somewhat lonely—way. I would add an additional point: it may be that the “heterosexuality” experienced by those who’ve found a measure of healing may not be quite the same thing as the “heterosexuality” experienced by those who’ve never suffered from same-sex attraction. To focus too heavily on reparative therapies is something that Protestant sects have done because they lack the well-developed path of celibacy which exists within the ancient churches. I think the Roman Catholic model of “Courage”—a ministry which supports those with same-sex attraction in developing the virtue of chastity, whether it means developing a form of heterosexuality or living in celibacy with a sense of intimacy and victory—may have something to teach the Orthodox Church in this respect. But again, that is simply the “perspective” of one clinician which, by necessity is anecdotal!

In summary, I don’t believe M. Stankovich is attempting to discredit anyone, but rather challenging us all to thinking soberly and without defensiveness of what will be required to speak into the lives of those who struggle with a passion which may have more than one form and which poses a great challenge to living in purity.

1. I haven’t insulted you. People who use “s/he” are invariably feminists, and feminism is an ideology. Ergo . . .

2. I don’t know what you mean by “soothsaying.”

3. I wonder less what your credentials are than why you are so cagey about them. Why don’t you just tell us? They are relevant, because the fundamental question, which you have dodged, is: Why should we accept your professional opinion and reject Dr. Pappas’s? You haven’t given us any facts disproving her opinion, and you haven’t told us what your credentials are, so why should we not believe her?

I only can hope that I have something to contribute in another topic.

M. Stankovich,

Medicine in any form is not a hard science. I would argue that there is almost nothing that would qualify as a hard science as human beings always are involved and our various spiritual and emotional states always matter. Medical diagnosis is a gift and and a skill that requires the capacity and the empathy to reach beyond the facts and the data to the truth–much of it is not teachable, IMO. Even with heart attacks to discern. Not to mention the thousands of diseases (some benign, some not) that present themselves with “flu-like symptoms”.

As to depression, not only the why but the what is usually a difficult call. Is the depression solely emotional and psychological; is it evidence of a spiritual crisis that is not medical at all; is there something wrong physcially that needs treatment; or a combination of one or more of the factors?

Science does not have the answers to/for humanity. Science can create tools which can be used effectively by those with the gifts to do so.

Again, the facts never, ever speak for themselves. While we should strive for as much factual acuracy as possible, the interpretative matrix in which the facts are ordered, selected, and used is more significant. The interpretative matrix that is Holy Tradition and the Scripture is much more reliable than any paradigm science has produced. The effectiveness of Holy Tradition should be without doubt. It has been used and reported on for 20 centuries at least and the lives of the saints are its best evidence.

Frankly, I don’t get your objections other than, perhaps, you are still greiving and feel responsible for the death of a friend/patient. As tough as such a circumstance is, it is an exceedinly small data sample and subject to a great deal of interpretative bias which can shed little light on the truth of which Dr. Pappas speaks and you seem to fundamentally agree with.

Also, you betray yourself as being “outside the ‘point of view of the Church'” when you use constructions like “s/he,” which only feminist ideologues use, and by your passionate and unjustified dismissal of another professional’s professional opinion.

But all you are now saying is, “Her experience is not my experience, and therefore her professional opinion is not my professional opinion.” OK. So what? Why should we pay more attention to your opinion, based on what you’ve read and seen, and reject her opinion, based what she has read and seen? She at least is speaking from an Orthodox perspective.

By the way, what exactly is your experience? What are your degrees in? What do you practice? And how long have you been in practice? We know these facts about Dr. Pappas, but we don’t about you.

Mr. Bauman, I am a practical man. I would fully expect that if you presented in the ER with chest pain, difficulty breathing, and pain radiating down your left arm, a physician would immediately & without hesitation draw your blood & conduct an ECG to determine if you are having a heart attack. Based on the findings, s/he would provide you the indicated care. Both the determination & indicated care are evidence-based medicine. If, however, you present to me with symptoms suggesting clinical depression, the diagnosis is a straightforward application of established criteria, but there are no, not one, objective physiological test that will tell me why you are depressed. And so, the dilemma, as I see it, is an extraordinarily complex interaction of my knowledge-base, training, experience, character, opionion, faith, virtue, sobriety, and sinfulness, and you. Theanthropos. My communication is exceptionally poor if you are able to conclude my comments to be outside the “point of view of the Church,” “out of phase with the rest of the conversation” (which leads me to ask if not here, where?), or an academic exercise that I am overly-invested in “winning.” I see mine as an awesome responsibility, and I fully believe this.

M. Stankovich, if you disagree with Dr. Pappas on the nature of the illness, just say so. If you want to prove that you’re right and she’s wrong, prove it. But don’t just fulminate about the absence of background research in a simple interview. Your unreasonableness on that point makes it obvious that you are too invested in this issue personally for us to believe that your only concern is scientific truth.

M. Stankovich, here’s the problem. Facts and data mean very little except in an interpretation matrix. Facts and data always require interpretation. The assumptions that underlie the interpretation matrix are what yield the result, not that facts or data. When you debate within your research environment, you and your colleges share the same assumptions to the point that you don’t even know you are doing it sometimes. You are not debating the assumptions at all, just how best to interpret the facts and data within those assumptions.

The assumptions of modern science, particularly in the area of anthropology, i.e, what it means to be human and the hierarchy of values in much of the scientific community are at odds with the teachings of the Church. There are not only different assumptions and values concerning human beings; the life of the Church penetrates to a level unavailable to any scientific inquiry.

So, M. when you come into a forum that evaluates, or attempts to do so, social, cultural and anthropological issues from the point of view of the Church, your attempts to bring in your preferred method of thinking simiply do not communicate at all. The conclusions you have reached and the methodology used to reach them are not very meaningful and will certainly be perceived as out of phase with the rest of the conversation.

How one interprets facts and data is not the conversation here. The conversation here is about the faith, about the Theantropos which to me means both the God-man Jesus Christ and our human inter-realtionship with God. It is about who we are and who God wants us to be, not about the number of angels on the head of a pin.

http://www.jariiivanainen.net/Releasing_from_homosexuality.html

About 10.4% of the entire African-American male population in the United States aged 25 to 29 was incarcerated, by far the largest racial or ethnic group—by comparison, 2.4% of Hispanic men and 1.2% of white men in that same age group were incarcerated.

Further, African-Americans are more likely to suffer homelessness, poverty, unemployment and addiction. From these uncomfortable facts we should gather what about the intrinsic qualities of African-Americans or how the problem should be addressed?

Of course, the area one is gathering this data makes a substantive difference as well. Statistically, there will probably be less poverty among blacks in states like New Hampshire than in, Mississippi, say.

I’m not drawing a parallel between race and behavior (or orientation even), but simply questioning what value such statistical studies provide or what insights we can glean from them other than that a problem exists …