Julio Severo

Therapists who treat homosexuality ‘terrorized’ by Brazil’s psychology council says expert

Julio Severo
Julio Severo
Image

Translated from the Portuguese original by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

July 5, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Marisa Lobo, a Brazilian psychologist who identifies publicly as a Christian, answers questions from pro-family activist Julio Severo about her struggle against Brazil’s leftist Federal Council of Psychology (CFP), which has forbidden her to publicly associate her Christianity with her identity as a psychologist, a ruling that has recently been condemned by the Religious Right and Liberty Committee of the Order of Attorneys of Brazil as unconstitutional.

Lobo says that she was threatened with the loss of her license by the CFP in response to complaints from homosexual activists over her blog and Twitter posts condemning the “gay kit” that the Brazilian government tried to distribute to public school students in 2011, with the stated purpose of fighting “homophobia.” The kit’s explicit contents and positive portrayal of homosexual behavior provoked outrage among Brazilians and the program was suspended by Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff as a result.

Some of the questions of the original interview were eliminated for the sake of brevity, and paragraph breaks have been added for the sake of readability.

Julio Severo: Why is the Federal Council of Psychology threatening you?

Marisa Lobo: For revealing myself on the Internet as a Christian psychologist, for defending my faith and principally for questioning the gay kit, which for me is not a form of preventing prejudice, and is an incentive for homosexual practices. The gay kit is very explicit, and from what I understand about public policy, its applicability is not justified in such a personal way. The gay kit is a way of giving privileges and creating an even greater form of prejudice.

With children things should happen at the appropriate time, in a natural and general way. We should have kits that speak of prejudice as a whole, about bullying suffered by overweight people, nerds, short people, Evangelicals, homosexuals, ugly people, blacks, blind people, etc. In sum: if we give a privileged attention only to one category, we are discriminating against the others. That doesn’t eliminate prejudice; it is just a Machiavellian tactic for privileging and instituting a dictatorship and a superior group, and I am principally in favor of equality.

Julio Severo: If someone involved in homosexuality asks you for help to abandon the lifestyle, what do you do?

Marisa Lobo: I treat them. My oath, my code of ethics, tells me that I have to treat, to listen to psychic suffering, and if the fact of being homosexual is causing any kind of suffering, I do treat them. It’s my obligation, even if it is to change their orientation, condition, or choice, if that is their absolute desire. I could not deny it to them. I would be violating the code of ethics, would I not?  But it’s evident that, as a psychologist, I must respect resolution 01/1999 (the CFP resolution which does not permit treatment of homosexuality as an illness – ed.). The World Health Organization says that homosexuality is not an illness, however at the same time I don’t understand why there is so much pressure from gay militants who fear psychologists who do not refuse such help. Gay militants distort what we do and continue to monitor us.

What happens in the therapeutic setting should be determined by the patient. The neurosis is such that psychologists are fearful and are induced to make clear to the patient that it isn’t an illness, whether it is or not. But if he’s going to therapy it’s because he’s suffering. And if, I repeat, it is his will, I have to be a channel, without imposing, something I have never done. What they say about me is a lie and another strategy for condemning people who are Christian.

Julio Severo: Are the threats of the CFP impeding you from helping homosexuals?

Marisa Lobo: The decision of the person should always be respected. We must always keep in mind the demands of the patient. We should respect his will without pressure. A reversion (of his condition) can happen in many cases. The terrorism of the CFP does not permit homosexuals to believe this. The CFP thinks that when someone says they want to change, it is because of an imposition of religion, and, since they don’t believe in God—because God for many of them is a myth—they always are going to treat this topic with religious prejudice. I now let my patient decide. If it’s what he wants, we go there, and in the process, he will determine and even confirm if that is what he wants.

Julio Severo: Why is the CFP, which doesn’t impede Spiritist psychologists from applying Spiritist techniques in their treatment, so involved in what you do as a Christian that they busy themselves with your clients?

Marisa Lobo: Why? Look, I don’t know. It’s impossible that they still don’t know that a Brazilian Association of Spiritist Psychologists exists, or Buddhist psychology, or Jewish, or esoteric, or parapsychoology, etc. There exists a grand number [of such things]. You only need to go to Google to prove it. The Federal Council of Psychology is the most persecutory, unethical autocracy in history.  They have no moral standing to persecute me. They are activists for ideologies, policies, sexual orientation, atheism, and they vent their hatred and prejudice against Christians, principally Evangelicals.

But the response is clear: Christianity speaks openly about homosexuality. So they want to destroy us for being Christians. They combat the Bible punishing those who follow it, because of religious prejudice. It is necessary to put an end to the activism of the CFP, which should be investigated by public prosecutors, since it committs various crimes, it violates its policies, it’s hypocritical, unethical. It clearly persecutes those who oppose it. That’s why I have been persecuted. There is a war [against me] because today I question that Council and its director.

Julio Severo: If the CFP revokes your license, what will you do?

Marisa Lobo: I am not going to abandon my profession over that, nor anything else that is legal and moral.  The CFP has no morals, because it has gagged us, and no one dares to contest its decisions. We are obligated to accept them as the truth, even if they are lies.

They are social surfers, adopting themselves to the evolution of society, even if that evolution is bad, because they have lost the sense of what is right and wrong for the individual, of the family, of the necessity of rules, ethics, morality, principles. They are just surfing. As a result, family crises and inhumanity are on the increase, and now the legalization of abortion is coming, a record-breaking number of divorces, condoms in the schools, the legalization of drugs—and psychology adapts. Soon, we’re going to see sex on the beaches, and the whole world applauding because psychology is going to determine that it is a right to express one’s sexuality. That’s the direction humanity is going in.

Julio Severo: What caused the complaint against you in the CFP?

Marisa Lobo: The fact of my speaking of God in my social networks and of having asked the deputies to pay attention to the content of the gay kit, which was an aberration, with extremely inappropriate and sexualized content that in a sense eliminates prejudice, but creates even more. They didn’t like it. When they learned that it was a Christian talking, they began to persecute me, as a psychologist who categorizes herself as a Christian, and later in the process as a homophobe, because I said on Twitter that I love gays, but I prefer for my child to be heterosexual. And I still don’t understand why having an opinion instigates violence. Now I’m going to lose my right to say that I’m happy being a heterosexual, and that I prefer my children to be heterosexual?

They want society to think that I persecute gays, that I offer treatment for gays because I’m a fundamentalist, prejudiced. They decided that, and that’s that.  I don’t accept it. The truth is that they are contradictory. They are trying to use everything to qualify me as a “homophobe.” And in 15 years of work, never did any patient complain that I imposed my religious convictions in my practice. The case against me is religious persecution, religious prejudice. The CFP thought that I would shut up, because many people deify psychology.  Well I, Marisa Lobo, only have one God, and I don’t serve the insanity of these members of the Council. If they revoke my license, they are going to dig their moral grave.

Julio Severo: True Christianity is “lose for the purpose of winning.” Do you fear losing your psychology career because of Christian testimony?

Marisa: The only fear I have is that God might turn his face from me. God gave me the opportunity to be persecuted for the love of him, and I accepted. God wants to change something, and here I speak as a pastor. I am only an instrument. If my license is removed, I am going to fight in all venues. My greatest fear is that Jesus would deny me before the Father, and that will not happen, because I am not denying him before men.

Complete interview in Portuguese

Related LifeSiteNews coverage:

Brazilian psychology association seeks to revoke Christian therapist’s license

Gays disrupt hearings in Brazilian Congress on psychological treatment for homosexuality

FREE pro-life news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

Two Congressmen confirm: National 20-week ban on abortion will come up for a vote shortly

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 17, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A bill to end abortion in the United States after 20 weeks will move forward, and it will have the strong support of two leading pro-life Congressmen, the two Republicans told LifeSiteNews.com at the eighth annual Susan B. Anthony List Campaign for Life Summit on Thursday.

Rep. Chris Smith, R-NJ, told LifeSiteNews and the National Catholic Register that ongoing House discussions on H.R. 36, the "Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act," will result in a pro-life bill moving forward.

"Very good language" is being put together, Smith told The Register. He told LifeSiteNews that he fully anticipated being able to support the final bill, because the House Republican caucus "wouldn't have something that would be unsupportable. Our leadership is genuinely pro-life."

In 2013, the "Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" easily passed through the House of Representatives, only to be stalled by a Democratic-controlled Senate. This year, an identical bill was halted by Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-NC, and other Republicans -- surprising and angering pro-life leaders who thought its passage was assured. That bill, H.R. 36, is now being rewritten so it can be voted on by the full House, though its final wording remains uncertain.

Some fear that the House leadership will modify the bill to mollify Ellmers. She and others objected that the bill allows women to abort a child after 20 weeks in the case of rape – but only if they report that rape to the authorities.

Pro-life activists say removing the reporting requirement would take abortionists at their word that the women whose children they abort claimed to be raped. Congresswoman Ellmers has publicly stated the House leadership is considering such a proposal.

Jill Stanek, who was recently arrested on Capitol Hill as part of a protest to encourage Republicans to pass H.R. 36, said that would be "a loophole big enough for a Mack truck."

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Congressman Smith said the bill will come to the floor shortly. "The commitment to this bill is ironclad; we just have to work out some details," Smith said.

He also noted that, while a vote on the 20-week ban has been delayed for nearly three months, "we did get the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act passed, and that would have been in the queue now, so we just reversed" the order of the two bills.

Congressman Smith spoke to both outlets shortly after participating in a panel at the Summit.

Another speaker was Rep. Steve King, R-IA, who also supports the 20-week ban.

"I can't think of what” language that is actively under consideration could make him rethink his support for the bill, King said. He also told attendees that the nation was moving in a direction of supporting life.

The outspoken Congressman declined to answer further, noting "that's asking me to anticipate an unknown hypothetical."

The annual Campaign for Life Summit and its related gala drew other high-profile speakers, including presidential candidate Senator Rand Paul, potential presidential hopeful Senator Lindsay Graham, and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus.  

Advertisement
Featured Image
"Someone who doesn’t flinch at the dismemberment of babies is not going to flinch at the dismemberment of some evangelical baker’s conscience."
Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

Pro-lifers are winning. So now they’re coming for our cupcakes?

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon van Maren

As I travel across Canada (and at times the United States) speaking on abortion and various facets of the Culture of Death, one of the things I hear often is a hopelessness, a despair that the West is being flattened by the juggernaut of the Sexual Revolution. There is a feeling among many people that the restriction of religious liberty, the continued legality of abortion, and the redefinition of marriage are inevitable.

This is, of course, one of the most prominent and successful strategies of the Sexual Revolutionaries—create an aura of inevitability while concurrently demonizing all those who oppose their new and mangled “progress” as Neanderthals on the cusp of being left behind by History. That inevitability becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, because many people don’t realize that the various battles in the Sexual Revolution actually all correlate to one another—that what we are seeing now is the end game of an incredibly vast and well-planned cultural project.

It is because we miss many of these connections that we often cannot see, with clarity, how the culture wars are actually unfolding. I read with great interest a recent column by Rev. Douglas Wilson, eloquently titled “With stirrups raised to Molech.”

“We are now much occupied with the issues swirling around same sex mirage,” he writes, “but we need to take great care not to get distracted. Why have the homosexual activists gone all in on this issue? Why is their prosecutorial zeal so adamant? We went, in just a matter of months, from ‘let’s let individual states’ decide on this, to federal judges striking down state statutes, followed up hard by official harassment of florists, bakers, and photographers. Why the anger, and why the savage over-reach? And do they really think we couldn’t remember all the things they were assuring us of this time last year?”

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

It’s a compelling question, and one that I’ve heard many Christians puzzling over recently. Why do the advocates of the Sexual Revolution despise those who disagree with them so viciously? It is partly because their cultural project does not, as they claim, consist of “living and let live.” It is about compulsory acceptance of any and all sexual behaviors, with tax-payer funding for the rubbers and pills they need to ensure all such behaviors remain sterile, and extermination crews to suction, poison, and dismember any inconvenient fetuses that may come into being as the result of casual coitus.

The ancient mantra “the State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation” has long been abandoned—the emboldened Sexual Revolutionaries now demand that politicians show up at their exhibitionist parades of public indecency, force schools to impose their so-called “morally neutral” view of sexuality on children, and force into silence those who still hold to traditional values.

Rev. Wilson, however, thinks that this loud and vicious war on conscience may be about even more than that. The pro-life cause, he notes, has been very successful in the Unites States. The abortion rate is the lowest it has been since 1973. Hundreds of pro-life laws are passing on the state level. The abortion industry has been successfully stigmatized. True, the successes are, for pro-lifers, often too feeble and not nearly adequate enough in the face of such unrestrained bloodshed. Nevertheless, the momentum has turned against the Sexual Revolutionaries who have championed abortion for decades—their shock and anger at the strength of the pro-life movement evident in pro-abortion signs at rallies that read, “I can’t believe I still have to protest this s**t.”

It is because of the pro-life movement’s success, Wilson muses, that the Sexual Revolutionaries may be coming at us with such fury. “If a nation has slaughtered 50 million infants,” he writes, “they are not going to suddenly get a sense of decency over you and your cupcakes. Now this explains their lack of proportion, and their refusal to acknowledge the rights of florists. Someone who doesn’t flinch at the dismemberment of babies is not going to flinch at the dismemberment of some evangelical baker’s conscience. This reveals their distorted priorities, of course, but it also might be revealing a strategy. Is the homosexual lobby doing this because they are freaking out over their losses on the pro-life front? And are they doing so in a way intended to distract us away from an issue where we are slowly, gradually, inexorably, winning?”

It’s a fascinating perspective. It’s true—and has always been true historically—that when one group of human beings is classified as nonhuman by a society as nonhuman and subsequently butchered, the whole of society is degraded. No nation and no culture can collectively and systematically kill so many human beings without a correlating hardening of the conscience. But on the pro-life front, there has been decades of fierce resistance, hundreds of incremental victories, and a renewed energy among the upcoming generation of activists. For the Sexual Revolutionaries who thought the battle was over when Roe v. Wade was announced in 1973, this must be a bitter pill to swallow indeed.

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Lisa Bourne

, ,

‘Prominent’ Catholics attacking Archbishop Cordileone are big donors to Pelosi and pro-abort Democrats

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne

Note: To sign a petition supporting Archbishop Cordileone, click here

SAN FRANCISCO, CA, April 17, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Big donors to the Democrat Party and pro-abortion Nancy Pelosi are among those publicly harassing San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone for protecting Catholic identity in the area’s Catholic high schools.

A big-ticket full-page ad ran April 16 in the San Francisco Chronicle attacking the archbishop and calling Pope Francis to oust him for his efforts to reinforce Catholic principles in the schools.

A number of prominent San Francisco-area residents identifying as Catholic are signatories of the ad, and several are wealthy donors to Democrat entities and pro-abortion politicians, Catholic Vote reports.

Federal Election Commission records indicate Charles Geschke, Adobe Systems chairman and previous head of the Board of Trustees at the University of San Francisco, gave more than $240,000 to Democrat groups, as well as $2,300 to Nancy Pelosi and $4,000 to John Kerry, both politicians who claim to be Catholic but support abortion and homosexual “marriage.”

Also on the list is political consultant and businessman Clint Reilly, who gave nearly $60,000 to Democrat organizations, along with $5,000 to Barack Obama, whose administration vehemently promotes abortion and homosexual “marriage” and has continually opposed religious liberty. Reilly gave $4,600 to Pelosi as well.

Another individual in the ad attacking the archbishop who also gave big campaign donations to California pro-abort Democrats was Lou Giraudo, a former city commissioner and business executive who contributed more than $24,000 to Nancy Pelosi, $6,000 to Dianne Feinstein and $4,300 to Barbara Boxer.

Nancy Pelosi herself challenged the archbishop for his stance on Catholic teaching last year when she tried to pressure him out of speaking at the March for Marriage in Washington D.C., claiming the event was “venom masquerading as virtue.”

The archbishop responded in a letter that he was obliged “as a bishop, to proclaim the truth—the whole truth—about the human person and God’s will for our flourishing ... especially the truth about marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife.”

The April 16 ad attacking Archbishop Cordileone was the latest in an ongoing assault since the archbishop took steps in February to strengthen Catholic identity in the schools and clarify for faculty and staff in handbooks and contract language the long-standing expectation that they uphold Church principles. 

It said Archbishop Cordileone has “fostered an atmosphere of division and intolerance” and called on Pope Francis to remove him.

“Holy Father, Please Provide Us With a Leader True to Our Values and Your Namesake,” the ad said. “Please Replace Archbishop Cordileone.”

The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy (CCC), a national association for priests and deacons, condemned Archbishop Cordileone’s harassers in a statement, saying the archbishop “teaches in conformity to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

“The character assassination and uncharitable venom being cast upon a bishop merely defending the doctrines of his religion is appalling and repugnant,” the CCC said. 

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

“It is totally inappropriate, improper and unjust for the media and others to vilify and brutally attack him when he is doing precisely what an ordained minister and pastor of souls is obligated to do,” the group stated, “namely, speak the truth in season and out of season.”

Those behind the attack ad said the proposed handbook language was mean-spirited, and that they were “committed Catholics inspired by Vatican II,” who “believe in the traditions of conscience, respect and inclusion upon which our Catholic faith was founded.”

The Archdiocese of San Francisco denounced the ad upon its release, saying it was a misrepresentation of Catholic teaching and the nature of the teacher contract, and a misrepresentation of the spirit of the Archbishop.

“The greatest misrepresentation of all is that the signers presume to speak for “the Catholic Community of San Francisco,” the archdiocese responded. “They do not.”

The CCC pointed out that just as physicians are expected to be faithful to the Hippocratic Oath, bishops, priests, and deacons are expected to be faithful to the Church, its teachings and its authority, “since their objective is the salvation of souls, not a popularity contest.” 

In openly declaring their support for Archbishop Cordileone, the group urged the media and others to show “prudence, civility, and fair-mindedness” toward those with whom they disagree.

“He took an oath to be faithful to the Gospel,” the Confraternity stated of Archbishop Cordileone, “and in the words of the disciples in the New Testament, ‘better to obey God than men.’”

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook