POCOCK vs PSYCHOLOGY BOARD - AUDIO TRANSCRIPT
PHILIP POCOCK - INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE FOR MOLONGLO 2012 ACT ELECTION
Vote 1 - Philip Pocock for Molonglo.
After this election campaign I was brought before a standards panel of the Psychology Board of Australia, following 19 complaints about my theoretical political views on homosexuality expressed during the campaign. While I have no record of patient complaints or misconduct in 16 years of practice, it was ruled that my political views brought the profession into 'disrepute'. While my professional views on homosexuality are really just a logical extension of my views on the nature of sexuality as a whole, they are really based on a model of psychobiology that is somewhat speculative, but consistent with observed behaviour, history and available data to date. My views are being supported more and more by a growing body of evidence from the fields of biology and psychology - deemed not sufficient by the psychology board - in ways that require the application of reason and intelligence, along with a capacity for high level abstraction and lateral thinking, if the connections are to be realized, as many of the explanatory claims haven't been directly addressed in formal studies, as yet.
The audio transcript of the appeal hearing can be found on the link to the right and the judgment from the Tribunal is available from various places, including the ACT Civil Administrative Tribunal and the ANU law records. What is somewhat perplexing to me is that, while I am making religious references on various websites, videos etc., this is because I am seeking to make it clear that there is no conflict between Catholic sexuality teachings and my understanding of the scientific/biological views of sexuality. I came to the personal scientific model first in terms of concrete thinking. I believe that an Omniscient God knows exactly how human beings are constructed, and instructs us accordingly through revelation, and while He has revealed these realities, in a theological sense, primarily through aspects of the Jewish Law, God still requires us to use our intellects to understand why these laws are so, as Pope Benedict has clearly stated.
Of course, although I now understand to a much greater extent in scientific terms, my original simple psycho-physiological model is still a valid psychobiological model, based on the relationship between the 'mind' and the underlying physical nature of human beings. As a result this is the only model that I seek to bring to patients, if appropriate, although describing it as a model which is still not definitive in terms of scientific proof but as an explanatory or metaphorical model that should be consistent with patients' subjective experience if it is actually true. I do not try to proselytise in terms of Christianity, Catholicism or so called natural spiritual practices, with patients, although I am seeking to bring patients into the natural truth or faith on these matters ie dissipate denial, as this is the basis of psychological well-being. As the judgment and the transcript show, no-one seems to 'get' this, including my own counsel, but I can only assume this is my failure to communicate.
The most staggering lack of insight shown, to my mind, is the fact that if any group in society could be realistically expected to provide information on sexuality to families, adolescents and even children, psychologists, who do purport to be experts in relationship counselling, would be that group. I have been trained in sexual counselling and am well aware of the broad range of sexual views and practices in society but often wonder what psychologists who think that sodomy, adultery and masturbation are valid practices actually tell adolescents and couples whom they 'treat' and on what science they base their conclusions, which are contrary to most of history. On the reasoning from this judgment, that there is insufficient 'scientific' proof for psychologists to make public statements on homosexuality, abortion, adultery and masturbation, areas of concern to almost everybody, who should people seek this advice from. A re-run of an ABC Catalyst episode hosted by Dr Maryanne de Masi on 8 December 2015 on Post Orgasmic Inflammatory Syndrome, where individuals developed immune reactions to their own sperm, describes the sort of aversive effects of sperm antibody reactions. Yet a paper from 2008 by Jin-Chun Lu and colleagues in the Expert Review of Clinical Immunology, 2008:4(1):113-126 clearly states that anti-sperm antibodies result from the deposition of sperm in the gastrointestinal tract. Sodomy itself would therefore result in the subjective symptomology seen in homosexual practitioners of somatic denial.
Is advice in this crucial area to be abandoned to the untrained, the self serving, the charlatans and purveyors of pornography or even those of 'good' will who have no scientific idea at all about human nature? It would seem we are required to sacrifice the innocent for the sake of those 'fragile' yet shrill homosexuals. Homosexuals who refuse to take advice to remain celibate and have no one but themselves to blame for their fragility and this is compounded by refusing experienced psychologists the right to make judgment calls when science is supposedly insufficiently clear on this issue.
Mental illness- in terms of neurological and rational dysfunction - is not necessarily experienced by homosexuals or murderers for that matter (who are clearly still competent for trials) but anxiety, depression and plummeting self esteem are to be expected in many of those who engage in the intrinsically sadistic and masochistic behaviours that are homosexual in nature and the abusive nature of homosexual practice will impact on society in a manner similar to violence and murder if not to the same degree although this is questionable as intimated in this statement form Christ to the saint Catherine of Siena.
This is a quote from one of the greatest saints ever regarding homosexuality. St. Catherine relays words of Our Lord, about the vice against nature, which contaminated part of the clergy in her time. Referring to sacred ministers, He said: “They not only fail from resisting this frailty [of fallen human nature]…but do even worse as they commit the cursed sin against nature. Like the blind and stupid having dimmed the light of the understanding, they do not recognize the disease and misery in which they find themselves. For this not only causes Me nausea, but displeases even the demons themselves, whom these miserable creatures have chosen as their lords. For Me, this sin against nature is so abominable that, for it alone, five cities were submersed, by virtue of the judgment of My Divine Justice, which could no longer bear them. It is disagreeable to the demon, not because evil displeases them and they find pleasure in good, but because their nature is angelic and thus is repulsed upon seeing such an enormous sin being committed. It is true that it is the demons who hits the sinner with the poisoned arrow of lust, but when a man carries out such a sinful act, the demons leaves.
Should I take this website down or resign as a psychologist?
Written and Authorised by Philip Pocock GPO Box 1086, Canberra, ACT.- This site was last updated 08/13/17