Sex and Marriage (Short Version)



Sex and Marriage (Long Version)


Donations Link  


Links to ACAT Trial Audio for Pocock vs Psychology Board




Do you:


o   Want to get rid of ACT legislation for homosexual unions and stop being labelled

"homophobic" because you love the truth, encapsulated in the natural law,

the province of Church and State, institutions both under God.


Quote from Catholic Catechism Item no 2357.


"Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as

acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that

"homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.

They are contrary to the natural law."


o   Want a politician who will seek to protect your children and your grandchildren, with

a framework that will enable them to make better decisions about relationships. This

will reduce the level of emotional pain, self harm, mental illness and substance abuse

so prevalent in society today.


o   Want to create a society based on real economic, bio/psycho/social/spiritual freedom.




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 ACAT 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, but God still requires us to use our

intellects to understand why this is so, as Pope Benedict has clearly stated. Of course now I understand toto a much greater extent that my

original simple psychophysiological model is still a valid psychobiological model based on the underlying physical nature of human beings.

As a result this is the only model that I seek to bring topatients, if appropriate, although describing it as a model which is still not definitive

in terms of scientific proof but as an explanatory model or even metaphor that should be consistent with their subjective experience if it is

actually true.  I do not try to proselytise in terms of Christianity 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 understand

this, including my own counsel, but  I can only assume this is a failure to communicate, on my part.


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 provide relationship counselling would be that group. I have

been trained in sexual counselling and wonder what psychologists who think that sodomy, adultery and masturbation are valid practices tell adolescents

and couples who they see. 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.  Is advice in this crucial area to be abandoned to the

untrained, self serving, charlatans, purveyors of pornography and even those of good will who have no idea at all about human nature.


It would seem we are required to sacrifice the innocent for the sake of the 'fragile' homosexuals who refuse to take the advice to remain celibate

 and have no one but themselves to blame for their fragility by refusing experienced psychologists to make judgment calls when science is insufficient.


Should I take my various information websites down or resign as a psychologist?



Receipted campaign Donations can be made by going to the following web site: or by post at GPO Box 1086, Canberra, ACT. 02 62477960

Written and Authorised by Philip Pocock - This site was last updated 09/11/14