Tuesday, 22 April 2014

Ideology Dividing Society from Christ

Dr Peter Saunders of Christian Medical Comment had a very interesting post recently. In it he noted that when ideology drives medical science an intellectual dishonesty results. I think he has an excellent point.

It certainly seems that the link between abortion and breast cancer (as demonstrated by a number of studies) is not being acknowledged in modern gynaecological medicine, and that there is psychological opposition to ‘Change Therapy’; a treatment for unwanted same-sex attraction (here), probably based on the idea that homosexuals are ‘born that way’ (n fact, no biological evidence for this has been scientifically established. I fact, studies of identical twins strongly suggest there is no biological cause). Quite obviously, when links between abortion and cancer are ignored or treatments for disordered inclinations opposed by ‘professionals’, the average secular person simply goes along with the professional voices while militant atheists use them as leverage for bringing about legislation which is contrary to science and to common sense.

Is it not the case that practicing medicine and formulating legislation in accord with ideologies rather than natural law has allowed millions of babies to be discarded in the IVF process? Is it not the case that this has given rise to women not being properly informed about the link between breast cancer and abortion as demonstrated by several studies? Is it not the case that society has been hoodwinked into accepting homosexuality on the false premise that it is something with which they are born? As a result of ideology-driven medicine and legislation, the prosecution of good Christian people for their faith has begun. Note the prosecution of the hoteliers who refused to accept bookings by same-sex pairings (here); the sacking of a Registrar because she could not register same-sex associations as marriage (here); the disciplining of airline stewards and nurses etc. for wearing a crucifix (here). All this points to the tolerant society being intolerant of Christianity, and intolerance is in fact bigotry; a small-mindedness that refuses to allow others the right of conscience. When it is backed up by legislation we have oppressive legislative practice; persecution of Christians by prosecution in the courts.

It all comes back to the ideology known as person-centred theory, which has spread through society like a poison. In this theory the focus is on the self and the desires of the ego, which is intrinsically anti-other and therefore anti-society. It cannot be otherwise when the basic thrust of person-centred theory is the unholy trinity of “I, Me and Myself”; the “what I think; I feel, I need is my right, otherwise I am being oppressed”. Legislation and medical practice which acquiesce to the ‘unholy trinity’ only promotes and protects the chaos and disorder we see in modern society. Socio-political philosophy must critically re-consider the “I me myself” ideologies, taking full note of the societal chaos resulting from the implementation of the person-centred ideology from which it springs.

Meanwhile, those claiming to seek and promote “the tolerant society” must give up what many see as their hypocrisy and practice tolerance toward Christians and others of faith.


  1. You appear to substantially misunderstand the theoretical under-pinning of person centred therapy Father. It's certainly not an ideology and it's stance is non-directive and neutral. It seeks to assist and guide people into discerning their own way, nothing more or less. If you don't mind me saying so, you appear to be heading the same way as reactionary fundamental Christians. If you can't understand something then you shouldn't show your ignorance by condemning it. By the way, the ego is a psychoanalytic concept which wouldn't be recognised in person centred therapy cf karl rogers.

    1. Thank you, Dr Alan.
      I am aware that the ‘ego’ is a concept in psychoanalytic theory as postulated by Freud, and that Rogerian theory does not have such a concept, but eclectic therapists borrow from all kinds of schools without misunderstanding one or the other or both.
      Rogerian therapy is, in my view, inherently self-contradictory (t directs its practitioners to be non-directive) and requires them to leave behind their own value system (this surely excludes the practitioner being totally genuine with the client).
      In that the Church has a Doctrine which is eternal and objective she is bound to have problems with a system that espouse the relativism of “find your own values free from external influences”.
      Blessings of the season to you.


Please comment using a pseudonym, not as 'anonymous'.
If you challenge the Magisterium, please do so respectfully.
We reserve the right to delete from comments any inflammatory remarks.
If we do not reply to your comment it is through lack of time rather than interest.