02 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIt's not about morals being relative; it's about keeping things in perspective. Does a child hurt more with a priest than a parent? Or does the former just sell more newspapers?
Are morals relative? might ask the Lord.
With the Bible that is clearly not in accord.
Don't compare one wrong to a wrong that is greater.
Let he who's not sinful throw the first potater.
EDIT: And give Scribs more ammunition against the Church?
02 Dec 05
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe former is more newsworthy. Any old fool can be a parent. Priests purport to be called and ordained by God himself to serve as a beacon of Christ.
It's not about morals being relative; it's about keeping things in perspective. Does a child hurt more with a priest than a parent? Or does the former just sell more newspapers?
Priests are culturally regarded as respectable figures. It is newsworthy when they do not live up to this reputation, and act in a manner grossly contrary to that reputation, especially to the extent of endangering the community who trusts them. Once they are no longer culturally regarded as respectable figures, then their misbehavior will no longer be any more newsworthy than the average schmuck parent who molests his kid.
02 Dec 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOnce they are no longer culturally regarded as respectable figures, then their misbehavior will no longer be any more newsworthy than the average schmuck parent who molests his kid.
The former is more newsworthy. Any old fool can be a parent. Priests purport to be called and ordained by God himself to serve as a beacon of Christ.
Priests are culturally regarded as respectable figures. It is newsworthy when they do not live up to this reputation, and act in a manner grossly contrary to that reputation, especially to the e ...[text shortened]... avior will no longer be any more newsworthy than the average schmuck parent who molests his kid.
Is that your aim then? To reduce everything to the lowest possible common denominator?
02 Dec 05
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhat is your aim, to perpetuate a myth?
Is that your aim then? To reduce everything to the lowest possible common denominator?
Five years ago, if you picked a random customer at 7-11 and a random priest, and asked a random mother who she would be more comfortable leaving her child with for a month, she would almost surely pick the priest, because of the cultural reputation priests have as being respectable, trustworthy and moral. The mother would obviously be making the wrong choice, because of the false perception of the nature of priests. I would like to eliminate that. You would like it to persist.
Today, if you offered that mother the same choice, I think she'd have to ponder it. That's a good thing, in my opinion.
03 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou humurously and unawarely gave a concise but very precise and correct description of how you and many of your "rational" friends often proceed in discussions and debates. You simply put forward a claim and insist, and keep insisting, your opponent refutes it.
He's posting in invisible ink. Prove me wrong.
Very clever indeed ..... 😉 😀
03 Dec 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeOn the contrary. If you examine this very thread, I went to the effort to refute an opponent's mythological claim. I didn't simply state the opposite and then go into insist mode, even though I was correct. I shouldered my own burden.
You humurously and unawarely gave a concise but very precise and correct description of how you and many of your "rational" friends often proceed in discussions and debates. You simply put forward a claim and insist, and keep insisting, your opponent refutes it.
Very clever indeed ..... 😉 😀
My post makes the point that one ought not assert fantastical things that cannot be proven false if they are false, which happens to be a common tactic among my opponents. Don't deny that you see this all the time here.
03 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerRed herring. Nowhere does the report state that this is a rationale for the ban; people who are "active" anythings would be banned from the priesthood except in the very limited number of cases of allowable married priests. The document would ban people with "strong homosexual" tendencies (whatever that means) and those who have been sexually active in the last three years for starters. This is simple, irrational discrimination; there is no automatic ban for heterosexuals who commit the also "grave sin" of contraception in the prior three years and have strong "heterosexual" tendencies (whatever that would mean). The last category truly gives away the game: it bans from the seminaries those who "support the gay culture" (whatever that means). Can you give a strong correlation between those who "support the gay culture" and ephebophily? In truth, the document seems to be a hostile reaction to homosexuals acheiving some degree of success in ending certain legal discriminations and their attempts to end more. The RCC has staked out a position unequivocally hostile to homosexuals, even those willing to remain celibate (why is their pledge of celibacy less entitled to be trusted than active heterosexuals who have used contraception regularly?), based on political grounds.
The strong correlation between ephebophily and homosexual orientation is a good reason to ban active homosexuals from seminaries and, hence, the priesthood.
03 Dec 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeI have made the claim the the RCC has -- cleverly, I might add --
You humurously and unawarely gave a concise but very precise and correct description of how you and many of your "rational" friends often proceed in discussions and debates. You simply put forward a claim and insist, and keep insisting, your opponent refutes it.
absolved itself of blame in this incident by the way in which it has
handled the issue.
I do not blame the Church herself for the priests who run errant (in
any fashion) for it would not be possible to micromanage individuals
to that level. I do blame the Church for the way in which in
harbored and protected those individuals to the point of repeatedly
putting its youth in danger.
The Church has made no apology for this (other than this vague
statement cited by LH) and has done nothing to remedy this situation.
That is, a person of any moral integrity would dismiss those in the
hierarchy who protected pedophile priests. The Church has done
literally the opposite (with Law, say) by giving them nice retirement
packages paid for by the faithful.
If you disagree with this, then demonstrate it. Stop smearing the
WolfPack(TM) by attacking them.
Nemesio
03 Dec 05
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioPersonally, I think most of the criticism of the RCC in the matter of alleged priest molesters is unfair and irrational. Parents who had their children molested by priests should have been going to the police to file charges, not to the local archbishop to file some sort of a complaint (often requesting monetary compensation). If your child was molested by a cashier at Wal-Mart, you wouldn't complain to customer service. Further, archbishops had little way to adjudge these cases on their merits since most were simply "he said, he said". I don't think it's fair to blame them for generally taking the word of their priests over complainants who were unwilling to file formal charges. Nor does the payment of settlements necessarily entail an admission that the people in question were actually molested; as any lawyer knows, there are numerous reasons to settle cases often having little to do with their relative merits. I think the Church is getting a (mostly) bum rap on this one.
I have made the claim the the RCC has -- cleverly, I might add --
absolved itself of blame in this incident by the way in which it has
handled the issue.
I do not blame the Church herself for the priests who run errant (in
any fashion) for it would not be possible to micromanage individuals
to that level. I [b]do blame the Church for the way in w ...[text shortened]... e with this, then demonstrate it. Stop smearing the
WolfPack(TM) by attacking them.
Nemesio[/b]