Catholic Church Scandal & PC Terms

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]forlife wrote:

If you understood Maslow’s Hierarchy, you would realize that sacrificing a lower level need to meet a higher level need isn’t contradicted by the model. The point is that people have basic needs at each level, and it is both stupid and immoral to deny the basic need for love and belongingness, in the name of unfettered wealth.

Reducing your wealth by a small percent, while still having your basic safety and survival needs met, is a small price to pay relative to not meeting your needs for love at all.[/quote]

Incorrect. I could write volumes, but you’re wrong. Immolating oneself or sacrificing personal safety by voluntarily participating in a war is 100% self-actualization (as perceived by the practitioners) and fulfills 0% (mathematics restrains me from using negative percentages) of the individual’s physiological or safety needs.

I know you didn’t read and understand Maslow so we’ll do geometry instead; when the highest part of the shape (self-actualization) is much larger than the base (physiological need), you either a) don’t have a pyramid or b) have a pyramid that is inverted.

122

[quote]clip11 wrote:
[Newton was celibate. Tesla claimed his celibacy helped him focus. Mendel was, of course celibate as well.

They were also nerds too![/quote]

Seriously, I think the man was working on the Death Ray just to get rid of the groupies.

123

[quote]Makavali wrote:

I am not linking pedophilia to the Church, I’m pointing out that most of them are not adequately prepared in the seminary to deal with a lifetime of celibacy. It has will continue to manifest itself in child abuse. However small the numbers might seem, even ONE child having such an atrocity perpetrated against them is one too many.[/quote]

This would be true in any convention or profession. You seem to equate causation so quickly without any reliable evidence of causation (or even correlation).

Is clerical celibacy hard? Of course. It is supposed to be. Doesn’t mean it is inherently wrong.

You get confused a lot - they have nothing to do with one another. No one has even remotely argued that “celibacy” is the “ideal” - celibacy serves a purpose in an acute situation where it helps provide spiritual discipline. No one here is saying “hey, you know what it is awesome? Celibacy - everyone should do it. It’s even better than procreatin’”.

Tighten up, and stop blathering this nonsense.

Anyone can have an opinion, but it isn’t too much to ask that it be informed - which is where the failure so often is.

Further, it isn’t too much to ask for the application of the Golden Rule - if you want respect for your point of view, you give respect to those you seek respect from.

Opine all you like, but guess what, chuckles, when you try and pass off something as fact when it’s not, you will be called on it.

Hate religion, love religion, or something in between, I don’t care - but if you or Forlife don’t want to be called out for your intellectual laziness, then don’t wade into the discussion.

124

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Makavali wrote:

I am not linking pedophilia to the Church, I’m pointing out that most of them are not adequately prepared in the seminary to deal with a lifetime of celibacy. It has will continue to manifest itself in child abuse. However small the numbers might seem, even ONE child having such an atrocity perpetrated against them is one too many.

This would be true in any convention or profession. You seem to equate causation so quickly without any reliable evidence of causation (or even correlation).

Is clerical celibacy hard? Of course. It is supposed to be. Doesn’t mean it is inherently wrong.

I note a lot of people here who talk about the merits of male/female marriage because it promotes procreation, and now they speak of celibacy as if it is the ideal? Fuck me, make up your minds already.

You get confused a lot - they have nothing to do with one another. No one has even remotely argued that “celibacy” is the “ideal” - celibacy serves a purpose in an acute situation where it helps provide spiritual discipline. No one here is saying “hey, you know what it is awesome? Celibacy - everyone should do it. It’s even better than procreatin’”.

Tighten up, and stop blathering this nonsense.

So he can’t have an opinion, because religion is private and must be respected?

Anyone can have an opinion, but it isn’t too much to ask that it be informed - which is where the failure so often is.

Further, it isn’t too much to ask for the application of the Golden Rule - if you want respect for your point of view, you give respect to those you seek respect from.

It has a LOT to do with him, or me, or any other person alive today.

Opine all you like, but guess what, chuckles, when you try and pass off something as fact when it’s not, you will be called on it.

Hate religion, love religion, or something in between, I don’t care - but if you or Forlife don’t want to be called out for your intellectual laziness, then don’t wade into the discussion.[/quote]

If celebecy is to blame (in part) for the ill behavior of some priests, then what is the excuse for public school teachers who sexually abuse children at higher rates than ‘the churches’?

125

[quote]Makavali wrote:
pat wrote:
Do you have any evidence that voluntary celibacy is an “unhealthy repression of human sexuality”? I’d like to see the study. Further there is not one single shred of evidence that celibacy leads to and kind of deviant sexual behavior. I would counter argue that somebody who chooses abstinence as a life style is far more in control of his sexuality than someone who indulges his urges regularly. Voluntary celibacy is NOT “unhealthy sexual repression”.

Further, you will find most pedophiles are not Catholic priests. Those who were deserve everything they got, but to link the priesthood with pedophilia is a false link, just like the link between homosexuality and pedophilia.

Sorry, I read the thread title and got a bit confused, leading me to think that we were discussing the Catholic Church scandal.

I am not linking pedophilia to the Church, I’m pointing out that most of them are not adequately prepared in the seminary to deal with a lifetime of celibacy. It has will continue to manifest itself in child abuse. However small the numbers might seem, even ONE child having such an atrocity perpetrated against them is one too many.
[/quote]
The seminaries spend a tremendous amount of time on celibacy. They give them a million outs between the time they enter and the time they are ordained. Further, they are free to leave the priesthood if they just cannot stand it.

Sure one child abused is one to many, in any circumstance. Those who abuse or harm children sexually or otherwise should be skinned alive. Thatâ??s how little respect I have for child molesters or abusers.

No, it has nothing to do with anybody but the parishioners, the priests and the church. It is of zero consequence to anybody outside of that.

Sure he can have an opinion. He can say what he wants and I can respond anyway I like. He has no business on demanding changeâ?¦

[quote]
You are completely incorrect about religion. You don’t know what you are talking about…Those are merely your preconceived biases based on selective facts.

Enlighten us then. Simply declaring me to be incorrect helps nothing.

It’s even worse than that. It is the most intimate violation of the human person. Some are dead, many are getting raped regularly themselves. There will always be bad people in every institution, it does not invalidate the whole institution unless the institution itself condones it. It does not, it vehemently abhors it.

Bullshit. The Church knew what was going on and deliberately went out of their way to conceal it.[/quote]

Bullshit, there was a bishop who was involved in the cover up, I can assure you there was no cover up sponsored by the church itself. This was not taken lightly.

126

Ill just say that it takes a stronger man than me to commit to a lifetime of celibacy. I couldnt do it under normal circumstances.

127

[quote]orion wrote:
No, no, no the idea that you have the right to make someone help someone else by force if necessary, that makes it a medieval concept.[/quote]

You’ve already advocated that medieval idea yourself, since you are on record for supporting taxes.

Again, it’s a question of where you draw the line. Don’t try to take the moral high ground by bemoaning the compulsion of other people when you support forcing others to pay taxes for causes that YOU happen to support.

128

[quote]Sloth wrote:
We should be able to pick up some new Catholics over that move.[/quote]

Because Catholic fairy tales are real, but Lutheran fairy tales are just silly.

129

[quote]pat wrote:
I am not anti-forlife…He puts himself out there to be challenged. So I do, it has nothing to do with him personally. In this matter he has no concern. He is neither Catholic or a priest. What the church does is of absolute no consequence what so ever. I question his motives, are not people free to behave as they choose? Yet he asserts that they should change? Even if they did change it would still be zero consequence to him. [/quote]

Wouldn’t promoting the health and happiness of people be the “Christian” thing to do? Except when it comes to the Catholic church, where the health and happiness of your members don’t really matter?

Many Catholic priests are strongly in favor of repealing the celibacy requirement. Life is too short, let them be happily married, father children, AND serve their congregations with dignity and respect.

130

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Incorrect. I could write volumes, but you’re wrong. Immolating oneself or sacrificing personal safety by voluntarily participating in a war is 100% self-actualization (as perceived by the practitioners) and fulfills 0% (mathematics restrains me from using negative percentages) of the individual’s physiological or safety needs.

I know you didn’t read and understand Maslow so we’ll do geometry instead; when the highest part of the shape (self-actualization) is much larger than the base (physiological need), you either a) don’t have a pyramid or b) have a pyramid that is inverted.[/quote]

You’re lecturing me on the real meaning of Maslow’s Hierarchy when you’ve probably not taken any classes beyond Psych 101. Contrary to what you might read in a summary paragraph from your introductory texbook, research on Maslow’s model shows that people move back and forth within the pyramid, and that it is not the rigid construct you’re claiming it to be.

Per your own example, people can even choose higher order needs over lower order needs, based on their values. You know, like paying taxes in order to serve a greater good.

131

[quote]forlife wrote:
There’s no reason whatsoever why priests should be required to be celibate. Ministers in many other faiths are equally dedicated to their flocks, without needing to deal with the psychological issues of repression and sexual acting out that tend to result from such artificial constraints.
quote]

This is wrong from a Catholic perspective. The celibacy requirement has less to do with the priestly role as minister to the congregation and more to do with the role of consecration of the Eucharist at Mass. Since the Catholic faith is pretty much the only Christian faith that believes in the Divine presence in the Eucharist, there is a very clear distinction.

132

[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
I am not anti-forlife…He puts himself out there to be challenged. So I do, it has nothing to do with him personally. In this matter he has no concern. He is neither Catholic or a priest. What the church does is of absolute no consequence what so ever. I question his motives, are not people free to behave as they choose? Yet he asserts that they should change? Even if they did change it would still be zero consequence to him.

Wouldn’t promoting the health and happiness of people be the “Christian” thing to do? Except when it comes to the Catholic church, where the health and happiness of your members don’t really matter?
[/quote]

Whose definition of “health and happiness” are you using? Are you not projecting your own definition? Can you discern that priests are not happy for some reason? Sexual activity is not a mandate for happiness is it?

[quote]
Many Catholic priests are strongly in favor of repealing the celibacy requirement. Life is too short, let them be happily married, father children, AND serve their congregations with dignity and respect.[/quote]

There are some, but most are happy the way they are. They went in to the priesthood with their eyes open. It’s not like this is some big secret. They are free to leave, there are other ways to serve that do not require Holy Orders.
Secondly, there are married priests in the Catholic Church.

133

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
We should be able to pick up some new Catholics over that move.

Because Catholic fairy tales are real, but Lutheran fairy tales are just silly.[/quote]

As opposed to atheist fairy tales?

Nothing from nothing leaves nothing…

134

[quote]pat wrote:
Secondly, there are married priests in the Catholic Church.
[/quote]

Who? If some can be married, why can’t they all?

135

[quote]pat wrote:
As opposed to atheist fairy tales?

Nothing from nothing leaves nothing…[/quote]

  1. I’m an agnostic, not an atheist.

  2. I don’t believe in fairy tales; unless there is substantiating objective evidence, why the hell would I choose to believe in it anyway?

136

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
We should be able to pick up some new Catholics over that move.

Because Catholic fairy tales are real, but Lutheran fairy tales are just silly.[/quote]

Aww, is someone cranky? You’re not even trying anymore.

137

But that’s what you believe, isn’t it? Those silly Lutherans have it all confused, and don’t know the real Jesus, otherwise their doctrines would be identical to yours.

138

[quote]forlife wrote:
But that’s what you believe, isn’t it? Those silly Lutherans have it all confused, and don’t know the real Jesus, otherwise their doctrines would be identical to yours.[/quote]

You’ll take this thread in any direction you think might further the cause, eh?

139

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You’ll take this thread in any direction you think might further the cause, eh?[/quote]

You’re the one that brought up recruiting those poor lost Lutherans to the Catholic cause.

140

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
You’ll take this thread in any direction you think might further the cause, eh?

You’re the one that brought up recruiting those poor lost Lutherans to the Catholic cause.[/quote]

You did link a story about lutherans…