Interesting that the two religions which require celibacy are the two religions with the biggest problems with paraphilias. Catholicism and Buddhism. But nah, there is no connection.

YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH CELIBACY? TAKE IT UP WITH GOD.

I'm sorry for the all caps I am just on a "forced celibacy" regiment for the night from the wife for not rinsing my cereal bowl. Apparently she would have to move heaven and earth in order to scrape off those flakes of cereal that have permanently attached themselves to the bowl.

I'm sorry for the all caps I am just on a "forced celibacy" regiment for the night from the wife....

Posted by andyuhenet at 2010-03-15 01:37 AM

I thought you two were still on your honeymoon? You're already sleeping on the couch? LOL

I am Greek Orthodox and we do not forbid our Priests to get married. Who started that rule? NO, it wasn't Jesus or God the Father. Google "How many of the apostles were married?
The answer is: "Early writings of the Church suggest that all the apostles were married when chosen by Jesus except John. However, from the Bible we only know of the marriage of Peter (there is mention of his mother-in-law)."

So why then does the Catholic Church order their Priests to be celibate? I went to Catholic school and no one ever told us where that originated. And Nuns too? There were no Nuns at the time of Jesus.

These sick fucks don't believe in god any more than I do, they can't. If they did would they repeatedly rape his children even while they know he is watching? What about the ones who help and have helped in the cover up? All knowing, all seeing my ass.

The whole thing is a scam that they keep going so they can meet little boys and not pay taxes.

Lady Elaine,

The Catholic church was established because man thought he knew better than Scripture.

They picked some Scripture to follow, ignored others. They created their own "commands" to follow.

Sad.

I should add that this isn't the only religion that has done so.

#8 | POSTED BY LISA
"I should add that this isn't the only religion that has done so."

I'd go further than that.
I'd say name one that doesn't.

"The Catholic church was established because man thought he knew better than Scripture."

I'd say "developed" rather than "established".
What grew into the Roman Catholic Church was one of many groups that grew out of early Christianity.
The Church was one of the more successful and "palatable".
They modeled themselves structurally after the Roman Empire, and adopted rituals and traditions that were already in place elsewhere.
In modern terms, they had the best "business model".

In any case. man always thinks he knows better than scripture, although to be fair, scripture itself doesn't "know".
It's there for the interpretation.

"Interesting that the two religions which require celibacy are the two religions with the biggest problems with paraphilias." #1 | Posted by moder8

That's pretty offensive. You can't possibly be arguing that a celibacy rule creates pedophiles. The reason that there is a pedophilia problem in the church isn't because the celibacy rule creates them, its because the celibacy rule acts as a cover for people who are hoping to either combat or conceal their existing pedophilia tendencies.

I'm all for criticizing the Church for their errors, but at least make it logically coherent.

And I'm surprised to read the unusually self righteous and closed minded bigotry of a certain poster here.

I am just on a "forced celibacy" regiment for the night from the wife for not rinsing my cereal bowl.

don't worry.

you are going to fuck up much worse than that from time to time.

How come women are barred from power and decision making? They can't be priests?

How come women are barred from power and decision making? They can't be priests?
#12 | Posted by suzycreamcheese

Sexism aside, the argument has always been that the sisterhood and the priesthood are totally different orders. While the priesthood is proactive, the sisterhood is more passive/reflective.

So why then does the Catholic Church order their Priests to be celibate?

To prevent priestly dynasties that could foment schisms.

I read awhile back, it may even be mentioned in this article, that the devil was making them do it. That's really the best they can come up with?

I wonder why the devil doesn't ever make straight dudes who aren't pedophiles suck little boys off....

They don't believe in god any more than I do.

Celibacy didn't get them into trouble.

Not being Chaste did.

"I am just on a "forced celibacy" regiment"

tell your wife she better change this before you start raping little alter boys ;)

haha

"Celibacy didn't get them into trouble."

Celibacy might not get them into trouble but it creates an environment of sexual repression where most people with normal sexual disires have no interest in being.

Celibacy might not get them into trouble but it creates an environment of sexual repression where most people with normal sexual disires have no interest in being.

which wouldn't apply here. The scandal isn't being driven by "normal sexual desires".

How does one get "sexual repression" out of a vow of celibacy?? You outdid yourself there, danni.
When several religions are experiencing the perv problem, somehow only the Catholic Church gets headlines. A simple Google search will reveal this has been happening across the board.
And, of course, the implication is that no child abusers are atheists or agnostics?

And, of course, the implication is that no child abusers are atheists or agnostics?

Isn't it convenient?

Hey! So the Church is outsourcing too!

I would take Vatican denials with a grain of salt. They used to deny that the Earth went around the sun.

I imagine the Vatican will admit that the whole celibacy thing was fucking idiotic in about 400 years. If there is a Catholic church in 400 years, that is.

ZH,

It is the Devil at work within the Vatican. They admit the deeds, but not the blame.

HC: Reference your #10: What are talking about? My post #1 references paraphilias, not just pedophilias. And the two religions which consistently have had the highest rates of paraphilia behavior have been the two religions which enforce celibacy on their priest-caste. Is truth offensive?

moder8, read the link I posted. Your assertion simply is not true about the two religions.
In fact, children are almost 100-times more likely to be molested by a public school teacher in America. Does that mean public education causes the abuse??

School teachers? I'm only talking about religious figures. That is clear from my posts. Not to be snarky, but why are so many people having difficulty with reading comprehension skills this morning?

why are so many people having difficulty with reading comprehension skills this morning?

Spring Forward hangover

"And the two religions which consistently have had the highest rates of paraphilia behavior have been the two religions which enforce celibacy on their priest-caste. Is truth offensive?"

I don't think what you're saying is offensive. But correlation does not equal causality.

So why then does the Catholic Church order their Priests to be celibate?
Started as an economic issue. In medieval times, the fist born son of a wealthy man inherited almost all the estate. Later born sons either bought their way into the military as an officer, or entered the priesthood. If they were married, their small estate would go to their children.
as celibate priests, when they died, the church got all the leftovers.
Of course, the daughters were dowried off asap.

Very much more serious is the role of Joseph Ratzinger, before the church decided to make him supreme leader, in obstructing justice on a global scale. After his promotion to cardinal, he was put in charge of the so-called "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" (formerly known as the Inquisition). In 2001, Pope John Paul II placed this department in charge of the investigation of child rape and torture by Catholic priests. In May of that year, Ratzinger issued a confidential letter to every bishop. In it, he reminded them of the extreme gravity of a certain crime. But that crime was the reporting of the rape and torture. The accusations, intoned Ratzinger, were only treatable within the church's own exclusive jurisdiction. Any sharing of the evidence with legal authorities or the press was utterly forbidden. Charges were to be investigated "in the most secretive way ... restrained by a perpetual silence ... and everyone ... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office under the penalty of excommunication." (My italics). Nobody has yet been excommunicated for the rape and torture of children, but exposing the offense could get you into serious trouble. And this is the church that warns us against moral relativism! (See, for more on this appalling document, two reports in the London Observer of April 24, 2005, by Jamie Doward.)

Not content with shielding its own priests from the law, Ratzinger's office even wrote its own private statute of limitations. The church's jurisdiction, claimed Ratzinger, "begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age" and then lasts for 10 more years. Daniel Shea, the attorney for two victims who sued Ratzinger and a church in Texas, correctly describes that latter stipulation as an obstruction of justice. "You can't investigate a case if you never find out about it. If you can manage to keep it secret for 18 years plus 10, the priest will get away with it."

News reports this morning were talking about the Pope himself, back when he was an arch bishop, transferring a priest who had committed abuse against boys instead of having him prosecuted.

Sully, I agree that correlation does not ipso facto mean causality. (But on some level it does suggest it.) I am unaware of any in-depth psychaitric research which has been able to scientifically establish causality between enforced celibacy and paraphilia behaviors. At this point all that can be pointed to is correlation.

The abuse is about power and its perversion. People need to grasp the true 'evil' nature of the act of defiling an innocent.

I also don't think that comparing minister's affairs to acts of child abuse is fair. Any more than lumping a priest who had an affair with an adult parisoner in with these incredibly evil fucks hiding behind their position of power while they ruin the lives of kids who put their trust in them.

Moral relativism has no place here.

This has nothing to do with celibacy.

It has everything to do with predatory behavior of the most insidious kind..

"This has nothing to do with celibacy."

If the priesthood was full of happily married men would we even be having this discussion?
IMHO it is quite doubtful.

You could almost make a very good case for the proposition that the willingness to take a vow of celibacy should disqualify someone from the priesthood.

I thought celibacy was introduced to the Catholic church to prevent the dilution of the church's assets by eliminating heirs.

Celibacy for sexual beings, which everyone of you reading this are (as some would deny it), is not natural. Celibacy is UNNATURAL.

Celibacy is also unhealthy mentally and physically given that one should at least not be celibate with one self!

Religions have consistently flawed in understanding the world and frankly have set up a Frankenstein understanding of the universe generally and if anything underscores that it is this odd, weird, bizarre perception of sexuality!

I have no problem with priests marrying. What I do have a problem with is the idea that celibacy somehow is instrumental in this perversion.

There are plenty of good guys out there who now get lumped in with these scumbags who did take the oath of celibacy as a result of your twisted logic.

This is about evil personified as far as I'm concerned. Taking the innocence from a child. Nothing more diabolical in human behavior.

Having said that, priests should be a able to marry. There were plenty of sects of priests down through the ages who maintained families and did not seek to hand down their positions to their heirs.

It wasn't until Pope Gregory came along at the millennium that they were universally told they could not marry.

"This has nothing to do with celibacy."

Celibacy is not normal but then again neither is pedophilia.

I think they have a demon problem. The Demons made them do it.

#7 | Posted by Lisa at 2010-03-15 07:08 AM

ALL RELIGIONS were established because man thought he knew better than Scripture.

They picked some Scripture to follow, ignored others. They created their own "commands" to follow.

Sad.

FTFY ;~}

ALL RELIGIONS were established because man thought he knew better than Scripture.

Man does. Any G-d powerful enough to be G-d is powerful enough to instill in us all He wants us to know about Him. The Scriptures are man's attempts to limit G-d in they eyes of his fellow man IMHO.

We created God in our own image.

They picked some Scripture to follow, ignored others. They created their own "commands" to follow.

I agree. We should take all scripture seriously.

I do need some advice, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to best follow them.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

invite them to the barbecue!

Man wrote all the and selected which scripture you use LISA.

Man wrote AND selected all the scripture which you use LISA. (ack! need mo coffee)

Nah, It can't be celibacy that's causing the issue, they just need to stop hiring the guys that check the "Are you a pedophile" box "yes" on their applications...

In all seriousness though, I'm still a little unclear on this. If you are a normal adult hetero or homo type person (male in this case) then even years of forced celibacy wouldn't lead you to little boys, the men that do that sort of thing have other mental issues, it about power not about sex with them. Something else is at work here (it may be heightened by the celibacy thing but it can't be the cause based on modern profiles of pedophiles).

X

They're instructed not to have sex with females. Boys and each other isn't a sentence of eternal damnation. Damn loopholes.

Actually Boyracer, a prominent theory is that due to a vow of celibacy an individual does not go through the normal emotional maturation process associated with sexuality and relationships. So we end up with a bunch of adults who are immature in connection to sexual relationships and behaviors. Hence when they do stray from celibacy, surprise surprise, they end up attempting to establish connections with others who are similarly inexperienced and immature - children.

Actually Boyracer, a prominent theory is that due to a vow of celibacy an individual does not go through the normal emotional maturation process associated with sexuality and relationships. So we end up with a bunch of adults who are immature in connection to sexual relationships and behaviors. Hence when they do stray from celibacy, surprise surprise, they end up attempting to establish connections with others who are similarly inexperienced and immature - children.

horseshit.

"prominent" theory?

sure it is

a prominent theory

Link please.

No link. Just a conversation over beers with three psychaitrist friends who work in the specialized field of paraphilias, including one who has been hired by the Catholic Church to evaluate priests accused of illicit acts. They explain it pretty cogently.

LOL

nice try

Nice try? Not trying anything. Just sharing what I've heard.

Interesting that the two religions which require celibacy are the two religions with the biggest problems with paraphilias. Catholicism and Buddhism. But nah, there is no connection.

#1 | Posted by moder8

One man's paraphilia is another man's optimized ethics!

All love is good love! ZH

are you sure you aren't making it up?

you are trying to suggest that these priests didn't become pedophiles until they were older and, because they were denied a sexual outlet, they transformed into pedophiles.

I have heard that in the 60's and 70's, becoming a Catholic priest was one of the few occupations closeted gay men could enter without anyone questioning why they were single.

Eberly, that is correct. That is what I am suggesting. And I am basing on what I have genuinely been told by psychaitrists who work in that niche field.

#59 | Posted by eberly

People are attracted not only by gendermale, femalebut also by other factors such as age. The average man refrains from sex with a child not only because he's a moral person but also because a child does not tempt him sexually. The term used to describe an orientation toward pre-pubescent children is "pedophilia," of which there are two types. One is the exclusive type: the person is attracted only to children. The other is the non-exclusive type: there is some attraction to adults. . . . Ephebophilia is a condition in which a person is attracted not to prepubescent children but to children or adolescents around the time of puberty, basically teenagers. . . .
We don't know if [people have this condition] because they were born that way or because they were damaged during their early psychological maturation. Regardless of the cause, it's not that they chose to be that way. . . . It may have to do with various hormones, with chromosomes, and so on. . . . There may also be some biological factors that determine the kinds of behaviors or kinds of partners that cause sexual arousal. There's a lot of research going on in that area, so it may be that we will find that there are more biological factors that contribute to the intensity and nature of sexual desire than we previously suspected. We also now have biological treatmentsnot that we can change an orientation but if a person is hungering sexually for the wrong kinds of partners, to make it easier for them to resist acting on unacceptable sexual impulses. . . . People who are attracted to children often become aware of it at quite a young age, about the time most of us become aware of certain attractions. . . . Dr. Fred Berlin,founder of the Sexual Disorders Clinic at the Johns Hopkins Hospital and professor of psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

Conclusion: They are born this way, just like homosexuals. If so, then who are we to deny them their orientation?

#62 | Posted by Sabbatai at 2010-03-15 03:12 PM | Reply | Flag: missed the class on what is a consenting adult

If so, then who are we to deny them their orientation?

In our society, because we have ruled repeatedly that children do not have the same rights as adults and consent is the key factor. A child cannot consent.

Conclusion: They are born this way, just like homosexuals.

not true. according to moder8 and his 3 drinking buddies, it is a result of sexual repression.

if those same guys could have just gone out and had lots of hetro/homo sex then they would be just fine. according tho them, more sex when younger will "cure" them.

I guess if I had 3 drinking buddies who claimed that if we just got the homos laid more as teenagers then they wouldn't be homos anymore.

sounds reasonable doesn't it?

Here is some more food for thought......most men don't enter the seminary until just about the same time the rest of us get out of college......and don't take their celibacy vows until a time approximately when many of us get married.

In our society, because we have ruled repeatedly that children do not have the same rights as adults and consent is the key factor. A child cannot consent.

#64 | Posted by kanrei

So you are then acknowledging that "orientation" is a moot point?...that just because someone might have a certain sexual orientation, is not reason to allow fulfillment of that orientation?

But what about all the poor sob stories about being denied such fulfillment? You know...the stories where certain orientations protest on how cruel it is to be told they can't oblige their desires/orientation?

I guess then it is appropriate to proscribe certain sexual behaviors, regardless of orientation?

Now we're getting somewhere!

#65 | Posted by eberly Read my post again. Dr. Fred Berlin trumps moder8.

So you are then acknowledging that "orientation" is a moot point?...that just because someone might have a certain sexual orientation, is not reason to allow fulfillment of that orientation?

No, I am saying bringing pedophiles into a discussion about gay rights is dishonest and foolish as consent is a key issue. To say "gay rights is a single point issue" is folly.

Instead, explain to me why two tax paying adults who choose to live together should be denied the same rights two other tax paying adults don't get.

#67

I know. I was being sarcastic.

No, I am saying bringing pedophiles into a discussion about gay rights is dishonest and foolish as consent is a key issue. To say "gay rights is a single point issue" is folly.

#68 | Posted by kanrei

This is the typical tactic of one who has no argument. Simply make the fiat statement without backing it up, and pretend the issue is settled.

Dr. Berlin, cited above, has stated that the pedophile has a certain sexual "orientation" toward children (hence "ped" from the greek paidia - child). Berlin states that such an orientation is not chosen but is part of the person...either he was born this way or was damaged psychologically early in life (nature vs. nurture).

The same thing is said of homosexual orientation.

Though you wish it weren't the case, the concept of "Consensual sex" does not make the two orientations "separate issues." They are only declared "separate issues" by those who want them to be separate issues, because of the lack of the hypocrisy that arises when applying proscriptions against certain orientations and not others. Such is the problem with "optimized ethics."

correction: "because of the gross hypocrisy", not "lack of"

This is the typical tactic of one who has no argument.

ROLFMAO at Sabbatai. That is a typical tactic of one who doesn't understand the arguement.

Dr Berlin is one person with a hypothesis.

Instead, explain to me why two tax paying adults who choose to live together should be denied the same rights two other tax paying adults don't get.

Your turn.

#72 | Posted by kanrei Ok, enlighten me!

#74 If you haven't got the point in any of the weeks and weeks we have been talking about it, then there is little hope of you ever getting it. It has been explained to you, shown to you, links posted endlessly.

Instead, explain to me why two tax paying adults who choose to live together should be denied the same rights two other tax paying adults don't get.

Your turn.

#73 | Posted by kanrei

Another attempt at misdirect. "Tax-paying adult" has nothing to do with whether "orientation" = "ethical behavior."

Another attempt at misdirect.

Yeah, you are really good at misdirecting. Talking to you is an exercise in futility. I think so are your attempts at thought. Good day.

"ethical behavior" has nothing to do with legal or rights. Nice try, but ethics change from person to person.

#74 If you haven't got the point in any of the weeks and weeks we have been talking about it, then there is little hope of you ever getting it. It has been explained to you, shown to you, links posted endlessly.

#75 | Posted by kanrei

I see!

Then I guess my original charge was correct, you have no argument, and now defer to condescension. ROFLMAO

Then I guess my original charge was correct, you have no argument, and now defer to condescension

LOL! Big FF for you.

In our society, because we have ruled repeatedly that children do not have the same rights as adults and consent is the key factor. A child cannot consent.

#64 | Posted by kanrei at 2010-03-15 03:14 P

Try RIF.org. It will help you understand the words you read Sab.

KANREI, can you answer this question honestly?:

If a person is born with a certain sexual orientation, can you think of a case where it would be appropriate to tell the so-oriented person, "NO!" if they wanted to act on that orientation?

If a person is born with a certain sexual orientation, can you think of a case where it would be appropriate to tell the so-oriented person, "NO!" if they wanted to act on that orientation?

WAY TOO VAGUE a question, and I have answered that one as well. You really should work on your reading skills.

In our society, because we have ruled repeatedly that children do not have the same rights as adults and consent is the key factor. A child cannot consent.

#64 | Posted by kanrei at 2010-03-15 03:14 P

Hell, we stop it all the time as it is 100% natural for older men to want young girls, but we put a minimum age. Why? Informed consent. That you do not understand the concept of Consent scares the Hell out of me. So does the fact that you look to legal and rights as ethical.

I've often seen self-righteous twits make huge stretches trying to equate pedophilia with homosexuality..... mostly panicky homophobes... but this clown is the twittiest I've ever seen.

Wash your hands when your done playing with it, K.

#83 | Posted by kanrei

Yes, I understand what "consenting adult" means, and that children cannot consent (though this too is debatable), but could you answer the question please:

Can you name a sexual orientation where it would not be appropriate for a person to act out his orientation? Does such an orientation exist?

Instead, explain to me why two tax paying adults who choose to live together should be denied the same rights two other tax paying adults don't get.

How about, they're brother and sister?
How about, they are not in an emotional commitment based on love and physical attraction?

Raises an interesting question, of why should sexual activity at all be a dominant element in defining marriage? Who are we to say that sex is central to marriage?

Since marriage can be what we wish it to be, perhaps we should award friendships with the same status.

By the way, by what argument do you limit it to only two people?

Tradition?

I am not arguing a slippery slope, but I have problems with the fact that the arguments used for gay marriage can apply to almost any number of arguments of how marriage can be defined.

"Who are you to deny that I and . . ." can be married?

-why should sexual activity at all be a dominant element in defining marriage? Who are we to say that sex is central to marriage?

Most gay couples I've been acquainted with or known of have the same kinds of relationships as straight couples, where sex may be somewhere down the list of reasons they are together.

Funny how the same people "outraged" by clergy abuse are the ones equally outraged the Boy Scouts will not let gays be scoutmasters.
The fact is, their outrage is caused more by the religion involved than any righteous feelings toward the safety of young boys. And don't waste bandwidth with the "gay does not mean pedophilia" canard. Most of these clergy are gays going after teens, which is technically not pedophilia. It's good old homo predatory behavior.

#89 | Posted by Diablo

It is an interesting ommission, isn't it Diablo? And notice the deafening silence on my last question? I'd be willing to bet the silence has something to do with what you have identified.

I'll go ahead and ask the question again, in case the silent ones have forgotten.

Can anyone give an example of a sexual "orientation" where it would be inappropriate for a person with that orientation to act in a way consonant with his orientation?

Sabba: Wouldn't you agree it is a stupid question? Common sense indicates that acting in conformity with an orientation that leads a person to victimize or abuse other people would be inappropriate. Kind of hard to take the question seriously.

How about, they are not in an emotional commitment based on love and physical attraction?

Has never once stopped a man and woman from marrying.

99.999999% of pedophiles are not Catholic Priests. 99.99999% of shitheads are libtards. Go figure.

Don't like the Catholic doctrine? DON'T BE A CATHOLIC. Afraid of Catholic Priests? DON'T BE A CATHOLIC. Afraid your child could be molested by a Catholic Priest? DON'T LET YOUR CHILD BE A CATHOLIC.

And you libtards are always saying you are the smart ones - sheesh. The answer to your problems? DON'T BE A CATHOLIC. What the hell does the CC do to you if you are not a Catholic?

I guess tolerance of lifestyle (re: Catholic not pedophilia) only matters to libtards when it concerns anal sex.

And notice the deafening silence on my last question?

Simple game Sabbi: you don't answer our and we don't answer yours. Answer mine and you will see an answer from me.

"How come women are barred from power and decision making? They can't be priests?
#12 | Posted by suzycreamcheese"

Yes. This is one of the very few areas where the church actually gets it right. Now run along and make me a pie.

And for the posters above who ressurected the long-ago debunked accusation against Ratzinger, a simple web search would have produced the following, available at the Catholic League website. When will the bigots actually research their rants?

Monday March 15, 2010
BBC'S HIT JOB ON THE POPE

October 3, 2006

On October 1, the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) aired a documentary, "Sex Crimes and the Vatican," that accused Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) of covering up priestly sexual abuse for 20 years. The show, which aired on the BBC's flagship, Panorama, says that Cardinal Ratzinger had been in charge of enforcing a 1962 Vatican document that was allegedly written to cover up these crimes.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue commented as follows:

"It is a tribute to American journalism that the lies told by the BBC have not been widely disseminated in the United States. The 1962 document that the BBC refers to had absolutely nothing to do with covering up priestly sexual abuse. Quite the contrary: it dealt specifically with solicitations that a priest might make in the confessional. In fact, it prescribed penalties for any priest who, whether by words or signs or nods of the head' (my emphasis) might convey a sexual advance.

"This was an ecclesiastical response to a possible offense that, given the priest-penitent privilege, lay outside the purview of civil authorities. Furthermore, if a priest were found guilty, he could be thrown out of the priesthood. To top if off, if the penitent were to tell someone about sexual solicitation by a priest in the confessional (perhaps another priest), he or she had 30 days to report the incident to the bishop or face excommunication. In other words, the Vatican document actually prescribed punishment for the penitent if he or she didn't turn in the guilty priest. The 1962 document was superseded by the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the norms established in 2001 for dealing with serious crimes involving the sacraments. As for the sexual abuse scandal, it was not until 2002, after the scandal had exploded in the media, that Pope John Paul II appointed Cardinal Ratzinger to investigate these matters.

"In short, the BBC's hit job on the pope demands a quick and sincere apology."

"Most of these clergy are gays going after teens, which is technically not pedophilia. It's good old homo predatory behavior.
#89 | Posted by Diablo"

Well aren't you just the expert on all the in's and out's of man on boy sex? Keep away from the little ones, Diablo.

When you can't make a point, go ad hominem, monte. It proves your shallowness.

Instead, explain to me why two tax paying adults who choose to live together should be denied the same rights two other tax paying adults don't get.

Your turn.

#73 | Posted by kanrei at 2010-03-15 03:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Explain to me why two sets of tax paying parents, one set white, and one set black do not have equal chances at government funded pel grants for their respective children? Explain to me why two sets of tax paying parents, one set white, and one set black do not have equal chances at government funded ROTC scholarships? Explain to me why two sets of tax paying parents, one set white, and one set black do not have equal chances at government funded Military Academy entrance?

Do I need to go on? Why can't you marry your sister? Why can't you marry your dog? Why can't you marry more than one woman? Why can't you marry your company (it pays taxes and if you are an S corp you live under the same roof).

Civil unions. Instead of calling the couple "married" you can call them "unionized". Liberals love unions so this should be a home run solution.

-Simple game Sabbi

Niceville's question is self-serving claptrap.

If he can get someone to admit that some sexual orientations are inappropriate, which of course, some most obviously are, then he will want to add homosexuality to that list.

Explain to me why two sets of tax paying parents, one set white, and one set black do not have equal chances at government funded pel grants for their respective children? Explain to me why two sets of tax paying parents, one set white, and one set black do not have equal chances at government funded ROTC scholarships? Explain to me why two sets of tax paying parents, one set white, and one set black do not have equal chances at government funded Military Academy entrance?

So instead of fixing that, we should expand injustice to gays as well?

Instead of calling the couple "married" you can call them "unionized".

I really hate that we mostly agree with what needs to be done, but instead fight bitterly over what to call it.

Why not call them sodomites?

Why not call them sodomites?

I doubt they have been to Sodom.

#103 | Posted by Diablo - Indeed!

#103 | Posted by Diablo at 2010-03-15 04:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

I believe a certain percentage of hetero couples participate in this act (DR leftists always ask this of any hetero on the DR when challenging the attraction of an asshole by a male of the species) - they may take offense to that term also. I still say call them "unionized".

#107

Lost any semblance of conscience years ago.

Niceville can't decide whether to water board gays until they admit they are deviants, or just march them all off to the gas chambers first.

So he's decided on both.

Can anyone give an example of a sexual "orientation" where it would be inappropriate for a person with that orientation to act in a way consonant with his orientation?

#90 | Posted by Sabbatai at 2010-03-15 04:22 PM

I'll bite. Beastiality, having sex with a dog, cat, horse, whatever is innappropriate.

And on top of that, going the other way I don't know why having more than one wife is illegal. Granted, it makes the divying up of ones assets at death a lot messier, but illegal?

#108 | Posted by Corky

Emotional rants and hyperbole do not an argument make!

I'll bite. Beastiality, having sex with a dog, cat, horse, whatever is innappropriate.

#109 | Posted by bigjohn

Very good BIGJOHN! Now, without appealing to your gut-level abhorrence to fracking a horse (you might be accused of Equine-Frackophobia if you did), can you tell us why such an act is wrong?

Ah, Sab posted while I was.

This 'gut check' of morality has a fatal flaw. It is totally relativistic.

There are quite a few cultures that have existed throughout history that don't have the 'gut check' on marrying close kin, or having sex with men. In fact, the ancient Greeks thought that male / male partnership was superior to male / female partnership.

Any knowledge of other cultures or the past would have pointed this out to you. You simply are using modern, western social mores and placing eternal moral ethics to it.

To #111:

It is wrong because a horse can't consent to having sex. Unless some super species of horse comes out that can consent and make those responsible decisions by themselves then I'd be fine with it. It's not my cup of tea, but whatever floats their boats.

#112 | Posted by bigjohn

Ok, so then answer the question: Why is fracking a horse wrong? If one is sexually oriented that way, to deny such would be unfair! Unless of course, horse-fracking is wrong?

I thought I answered, it is wrong because the horse can't consent. If they could, it wouldn't be wrong.

I see! So "consent" is the end-all deciding factor in optimizing our ethics?

And if I should like to frack my kid brother who "consents"...would that be wrong?

Assuming of course that the horse did consent!

Legally, I believe it would be (depending on where you live). But if your brother was of legal age to consent to sex, then more power to you.

Is that it then Sab?

#118 | Posted by bigjohn

I must say, yours is a mindless position! Or, yours is simply what must be allowed if you are to have your particular form of deviancy.

You mentioned polygamy, but apparently with no qualms about it. This too is revealing!

The whole push to normalize homosexual relationships is predicated on the assumption that there are no structural prerequisites to valid sexual relationships; that commitment and fidelity are sufficient criteria, unless society can prove harm to all participants (which is why "consent" carries the particular faux weight that it does in their arguments), in all circumstances, and in scientifically measurable ways.

Given such premises, there is no logically consistent reason why society should resist various forms of multiple-partner sexual unions, whether traditional polygyny, "threesomes," or some other arrangement. Since the restriction of the number of sex partners at any one time to two persons is predicated on the existence of two distinct and complementary sexes as necessary and sufficient to produce a sexual whole, the elimination of such a premise must result in the eventual elimination of a number requirement. It is not surprising that one Supreme Court decision that found a right to same-sex "sodomy" in the Constitution sparked a lawsuit to validate polygamy; nor it is surprising that the ACLU filed a brief on behalf of the polygamist, citing the sodomy ruling and insisting that the burden of proof is on the state to prove that polygamy is always harmful (for the record: It isn't).

Similarly, if consent, commitment, and fidelity are adequate for establishing a sexual union and, further, if the concept of too much structural sameness becomes irrelevant, then there is no reasonable basis for withholding public recognition of man-mother or adult brother-sister unions. And I highly doubt Mendel's genetics is going to head this one off when it comes down the pike!

That's it BigJohn

Time to get outa here.

See you all tomorrow!

Too bad your leaving, I'll post this hopefully you get it tomorrow.

I think there is a very big difference between man - mother, brother - sister unions compared to the others we are talking about. That is the health of the offspring. We know it is unhealthy for any potential offspring. On top of that parent child relationships are unhealthy because of the relationship itself and the master/subordinate nature(hence why Woody Allen is a douchebag, even though it isn't his own spawn).

But as for polygamy, this is allowed in ancient and modern cultures, and I have yet to see the harm in it. The reasons why it is said to be socially harmful apply to 'regular' marriages as well. You can have a power controlling freak in regular monogamous relationships too.

Great social harm may be a reasonable excuse for making something illegal, but I don't see it with polygamy. If you can prove me wrong then I might agree with you.

What happens behind closed doors of consenting adults is fine with me. The fact that it's been illegal to do things in a 'free' country like America for so long is sickening, but times are changing thankfully.

It was once illegal for interracial marriage in this great country, apparently that had a 'icky gut' feeling to it to, at least to many. Now how many still get that feeling? 'icky gut' is no way to make the rules of law that society follows, or for moral codes.

It is wrong because a horse can't consent to having sex. Unless some super species of horse comes out that can consent and make those responsible decisions by themselves then I'd be fine with it. It's not my cup of tea, but whatever floats their boats.

This argument doesn't work. You can't have sex with an animal because it can't consent, but you can slaughter it, butcher it, cook it and eat it without giving consent.

Great social harm may be a reasonable excuse for making something illegal, but I don't see it with polygamy. If you can prove me wrong then I might agree with you.

BigJohn, that's pretty easy to demonstrate. The name David Koresh mean anything do you?

You can't have sex with an animal because it can't consent, but you can slaughter it, butcher it, cook it and eat it without giving consent.

Grendel, by your reasoning, dogfighting and cockfighting should be permitted, right?

Why are such activities illegal?

Why are such activities illegal?

Cruelty.

Butchering an animal is ostensibly a quick and painless act. Having animals fight is akin to torture.

Yes, sometimes the lines are blurred a bit.

Yes, sometimes the lines are blurred a bit.

Yes, particularly from the point of view of a lobster being boiled alive before being eaten.

Why is that allowed, I wonder? It seems it's okay to "play with your food" just so long as you eat it afterwards.

"Why is that allowed, I wonder?"

According to Leviticus 10:10, it's not.

Grendel, by your reasoning, dogfighting and cockfighting should be permitted, right?

Why are such activities illegal?

Our ideas of animal rights are anything but consistent or based upon some universally accepted ethics.

Rather they are based upon arbitrary cultural practices.

Thus a human killing an animal for sport (i.e. hunting and fishing) is accepted and legal, though not always quick and painless. While animals killing each other for sport is not, even if it was quick and painless.

Moreover, it is considered immoral and illegal to kill animals capriciously--provided that the animal is not an insect. The cuter and more endearing to us that the animal is, the more we take offense and find it immoral.

(I have facetiously argued with my son that if evolution is correct (I do believe it is) that as more humans populate the earth insects will evolve in cuteness and appeal in order to survive better. Kill as many ants as you want, but oh don't harm the cute little lady bug.)

So, for the sake of argument, let's put aside the consuming animals without their consent.

Is it alright to use animals physically for work or for entertainment, recreation and amusement without their consent?

Before you get on the back of a horse and ride it for miles do you ask permission from the horse?

Of the two ways, there is only one way of riding a horse that is not perverse; yet both require a human being taking advantage of the animal without consent.

The line is drawn at sexual use, but is that line arbitary?

I, of course, believe bestiality is perverse because it is contrary to our human design--our physical form and function dictate the fundamental nature of our accepted behaviors and as such our ethics based upon a natural law. We are designed to eat and digest meat; therefore, the eating of meat is ethical. We are designed to have sex with one another, thus sexual relations between humans is accepted and inter-species sex is not.

Is regard to sex between humans, this is where it gets sticky (pardon the pun). Does the design of nature point us to having sex with members of the opposite sex? I think the answer is an unequivocal yes. Does the design of nature point us to having sex with members of the same sex. The answer is a unequivocal no. Tab A was designed for Slot B.

But to hell with that, right? Why should we deny a person's inborn desires to any other human based upon some kind of natural design? Anyone who finds it disgusting is simply being narrow. Fine, I don't have a horse in this race, but I do ask how can we thus sit on (and ride) our high horse and tell those who find physical pleasure with animals that it is contrary to nature?

(By the way, when Fido willfully and happily begins humping your leg, I think the consent is implicit.)

Is regard to sex between humans, this is where it gets sticky (pardon the pun). Does the design of nature point us to having sex with members of the opposite sex? I think the answer is an unequivocal yes. Does the design of nature point us to having sex with members of the same sex. The answer is a unequivocal no. Tab A was designed for Slot B.
So. No oral, no anal, no handjobs, and no titty fucking? If hetero anal is allowed, homo anal must also be allowed too, as the butthole is not a gender-specific orifice.

So, for the sake of argument, let's put aside the consuming animals without their consent.
Not putting that aside, if we are permitted to raise animals to eat them, people who order a cheeseburger and eat only half establish sufficient logical basis to allow us to raise animals for entertainment purposes, even if said entertainment is harmful or fatal to the animal.

By the way, when Fido willfully and happily begins humping your leg, I think the consent is implicit
Try to fuck Fido and you may find his consent is less than forthcoming.

Catholics forbid their clergy from having normal sex and their clergy end up with a shitload of pedophilia, far higher than the natural rate of occurrence in the general population.

Muslims hide their women from sight beneath sheets and end up angry as fuck, willing to commit suicide in order to be rewarded in virgins.

Yeah, sexual repression.. nothing to see here.

So. No oral, no anal, no handjobs, and no titty fucking? If hetero anal is allowed, homo anal must also be allowed too, as the butthole is not a gender-specific orifice.

In the strictest sense these are perversions of the sexual act as designed by nature. Throughout history some have become more acceptable.

In general I think homosexuality has faced a more difficult time with acceptance because of the dual elements of human sexuality. Essentially, human sexuality is as much about the mind as it is about the physiology. So Tab A and Slot B have to be accompanied by a natural attractiveness between sexes to in order to fulfill the design.

The acts that you mention seem to be more acceptable by society because the sexual attractiveness falls within the line of natural order--though the specific act may not. In other words the deviation is not as far from the design as is homosexuality.

Bestiality would fall farther away from that norm, but it is all on a continuum and where one draws the line seems to be arbitrary.

Try to fuck Fido and you may find his consent is less than forthcoming.

I will take your word for it.

In the strictest sense these are perversions of the sexual act as designed by nature.

I disagree. Homosexual sex and other forms of sex that are not penis-in-vagina are routinely witnessed in nature. You even mentioned one, the leg-humping dog.

(I'm not sure if there's a deeper meaning to your "designed by nature" phrase or if that's just a convenient way to phrase it. Earlier you said you think evolution is real, so I assume you aren't trying to make an "intelligent design" implication here.)

***

Of course the Vatican denies any linkage between their celibacy requirement for the priesthood and the problem of pedophilia. (I'll sound like 1Lib when I say this, but if they said otherwise, can you imagine the lawsuits?)

However, it's commonly understood that the celibacy requirement of the priesthood has made the priesthood a convenient dumping grounds for Catholics whose sexuality is not condoned by Rome. The entire issue of homosexuality can simply be avoided if the homosexual Catholic man becomes a celibate priest. Then it doesn't matter who or what he wants to fuck because his vow of celibacy renders that question moot. Except, of course, for those instances when the mortal flesh succumbs to temptation; priests are no less fallible than the rest of us when all is said and done.

Try to fuck Fido and you may find his consent is less than forthcoming.

I will take your word for it.

:) Hahah!

plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

".... there was once a medieval monk who persistently said a phrase in the Latin Eucharist wrongly, either because he was illiterate and had learned it that way or because it had been transcribed incorrectly in his copy. Instead of "quod in ore sumpsimus", he would say "quod in ore mumpsimus". Now sumpsimus is Latin for "we have taken" (the full phrase means "which we have taken into the mouth"), but mumpsimus is just nonsense.

What made this particular mistake memorable is what the monk was supposed to have said when he was corrected. According to the version of the incident told in 1517 by Richard Pace, later the Dean of St Paul's Cathedral in London, the monk replied that he had said it that way for forty years and "I will not change my old mumpsimus for your new sumpsimus".

As a result, the word came to be applied to someone who sticks obstinately to their old ways, in spite of the clearest evidence that they are wrong. The word can also have the related meaning of some custom or notion that is adhered to, even though it has been shown to be unreasonable...."

"I will not change my old mumpsimus for your new sumpsimus".

~Mumpsimus

Neat story!

Spud loves learning new words.

Particularly if they are also old words.

Welcome to the DR! Nice first post.

On Topic?

Vatican denies?

Wot this time?

The earth rotating around the sun?

The equality of women?

No?

That celibacy has led to sexual abuse?

* deep sigh *

K, let's do this.

Back in the day in Europe power resided primarily in two places. In royal houses and within the structure of the church.

Kings and such were able to pass on their inherited wealth to future generations and so were the clergy.

By making celibacy a tenet of the Christian church the priests were no longer able to accrue power in the same way as royalty.

They still fucked around, of course, but they had no legitimate heirs according to law and thus were less of a threat.

And thus the church became a place where gay men could hide their orientation and become men of power and not an embarrassment to their unenlightened families.

That some of these men used that power to seduce or rape young men and boys seems almost inevitable in hindsight.

That Eggz Benny the XVI spent an inordinate amount of time within the church covering up these crimes makes him a figure worthy of derision.

Be Well.

/Fer the purposes of full disclosure Spud'll admit to being an atheist/recovering Catholic.

I disagree. Homosexual sex and other forms of sex that are not penis-in-vagina are routinely witnessed in nature. You even mentioned one, the leg-humping dog.

Nature seems to have exaggerated the sexual urge in some animals to ensure that copulation and thus reproduction takes place--hence Fido's attraction to your leg. Even so, the point is ultimately toward some kind of reproduction--the goal--even if individual acts are misdirected. In animals such misdirected actions are not evaluated in terms of acceptable or non acceptable because animals are amoral.

Human beings are quite different.

Humans for example have a kind of innate aggression and capability to violent actions and the means by which they hunt and kill in order to feed themselves. That human beings sometimes misdirect this natural urge and capability toward other human beings does not by necessity make murder moral or acceptable.

Looking to animal behavior as a basis for human morality is fraught with problems.

If one, however, is going to look to nature that has no moral and ethical system in order to extrapolate one, it seems better to look at the natural human form and logically the function of the various elements of that form in order to come up with a base line of acceptable behavior rather than the specific and often erratic behavior of other species that exist without any necessary constraints of morality.

Grendel,

Very fair minded post. I think the animals argument is only really good for proving it can be natural and not a choice. Outside of that, you are correct that humans are guided by morality.

it seems better to look at the natural human form and logically the function of the various elements of that form in order to come up with a base line of acceptable behavior

This is where it gets a little gray IMHO. Acceptable to whom? This kind of sets up the "tyranny of the majority." What if belief in G-d is deemed unacceptable?

I broke my number 3 rule in my post #138: I don't play "what if" games. You do not have to answer Grendel.

Grendel

you might find this line of study interesting

If one, however, is going to look to nature that has no moral and ethical system

It has one... but the natural ethics that have evolved in the human lineage lack the element of supernatural coercion present in religious ethical systems. As I've explained several times on several other threads, there is an evolutionary basis for our innate sense of justice and morality.

We are hardwired to see right and wrong in terms of the ethic of reciprocity - the golden rule. That simple concept forms the basis of all ethical systems, secular and religious, and moreover it has an evolutionary basis.

it seems better to look at the natural human form and logically the function of the various elements of that form in order to come up with a base line of acceptable behavior

Indeed it does. Your error is in defining form and function strictly by the standards of reproduction when sex, both homosexual and heterosexual, fulfills other important purposes. The vast majority of even heterosexual sex acts are not for the purposes of reproduction. Sex can range from a simple pleasure shared between people to a way of cementing bonds between committed individuals. In either case, the interpersonal aspect of the sex act is benefiting those involved. Pleasure and intimacy have their own value, and this value is not confined to heterosexual partners.

If you look to nature when establishing a "base line of acceptable behavior," you look to the golden rule / ethic of reciprocity. If you operate off of the ethic of reciprocity, your standard of acceptable behavior must be harm. No individual wants to be harmed, so no individual should inflict harm on others. There is no harm in sexual relationships between consenting adults - homosexual or heterosexual. That is the conclusion of "Darwinian ethics".

Now, of course, there will always be people like Sabbatai who think that belief in God is the only thing keeping them from fucking goats.

-Now, of course, there will always be people like Sabbatai who think that belief in God is the only thing keeping them from fucking goats.

lol, agreed.

Much like many modern stone age Muslims believe that women being covered is the only thing that keeps them from being raped on the streets.

Much like many modern stone age Muslims believe that women being covered is the only thing that keeps them from being raped on the streets.

A good chunk of the world exists as a modern society, but quite a few of its members are still stuck in a stone-age mentality. It makes for some interesting problems, to say the least.

-It makes for some interesting problems

Globalization, meet Stone Age.

Neither of which are, of course, entirely appealing.

#143 | Posted by Corky at 2010-03-16 11:22 AM | Reply

Yeah, but then she turned around....

"but somewhere" = sour grapes.

Sometimes it's not tiring after over 40 years.
Beautiful women need love too.

Very fair minded post. I think the animals argument is only really good for proving it can be natural and not a choice. Outside of that, you are correct that humans are guided by morality.

Yes, that something occurs in the natural world is by no means indicative of whether it is moral or not.

Nature is red in tooth and claw.

Whether you believe in God or not, evolution or intelligenct design, we accept that humanity has created for itself an identity that is separate from the natural world.

Thus one can look to nature for understanding of the basis for some of our ethical systems, but it can never be any ultimate yardstick for determining what is ethical or not.

To ZH,

It has one... but the natural ethics that have evolved in the human lineage lack the element of supernatural coercion present in religious ethical systems. As I've explained several times on several other threads, there is an evolutionary basis for our innate sense of justice and morality.

I disagree in part. Nature, in particular animals, have behavior that is the result of natural selection so that a creature may live long enought to reproduce. That is not the same as morality. Morality is an idea and as such is alien to the animals world--as far as we can tell.

Our systems of justice and ethics may have developed out of some evolutionary forms of behavior but that is precisely it. They evolved from to the point where they are something else entirely and have become sui generis.

The notion by the way is not universally accepted, but in some form of another has been understood since the time of the ancients--sans the theory of evolution.

What you suggest is nothing more than the basis of natural law as understood by the Greeks and adopted by Christian philosophers and theologians of the Middle Ages.

In regard to the golden rule going back that far. I would need to think more on that. My tendency is to think that you overstate it. While human survival may depend on reciprocity and doing no harm so as not to receive harm; however, survival in the rough and tough world or prehistory and even history may very well have depended on clubing your neighbor over his head in order to get his food and woman.

Sorry if this note makes little sense or has errors. But I am writing in haste, must leave. May return later.

Thanks for the link Corky. Interesting.

Now, of course, there will always be people like Sabbatai who think that belief in God is the only thing keeping them from fucking goats.

#141 | Posted by ZombieHunter

Actually, no! Only that if there is no God, then fracking goats is merely a choice made, having no moral implications at all.

Bentham was wrong, Dostoevsky was right!

And thus the church became a place where gay men could hide their orientation and become men of power and not an embarrassment to their unenlightened families.

That some of these men used that power to seduce or rape young men and boys seems almost inevitable in hindsight.

#135 | Posted by dethspud

So you would admit that the problem with deviancy in the church is more an infection from the outside than a problem within?

One would have to wonder why the Church gets the bad rap for the infection?

So you would admit that the problem with deviancy in the church is more an infection from the outside than a problem within?

No, quite the opposite, in fact, albeit with a proviso.

By adopting an unnatural position (ie. celibacy in the clergy) for political rather than spiritual reasons the early Church set itself up for failure.

By protecting the predators in their midst fer years and years as Benedict XVI is alleged to have done they show quite clearly the systemic, institutional nature of their moral failure.

How does the church not deserve a "bad rap" for that?

Obviously, individual responsibility is a factor. It is simply not the only factor and you would do well to take a larger overview of the issue if you are really concerned with understanding the topic fully.

Be Well.

So you blame the existence of homosexual priests and pedophile priests on celibacy???

One would have to wonder why the Church gets the bad rap for the infection?

Because of their decades if not centuries long role in covering it up.

I think we can all acknowledge the unfortunate reality that pedophiles exist and children are sexually exploited.

What is so upsetting about this ongoing nightmare is not so much the abuse, it's the Church's handling of the abuse. Priests are trusted implicitly and are granted privileged access to our children. Meanwhile, the Church hierarchy is not only aware certain priests are committing these transgressions, but actively quashing investigation into the crimes, and shuffling offending priests from diocese to diocese once the water gets too hot.

The re-deployment of abusive priests to new, fertile ground is reminiscent of Ted Bundy leaving Washington for Utah for Florida as his crimes began to catch up with him. Except there's not a lone actor as in Ted's case, there's a chain of command stretching all the way back to Rome playing an active role in the deception and suppression of the truth.

So you blame the existence of homosexual priests and pedophile priests on celibacy???

No, I simply see that the celibacy requirement for the priesthood has made the priesthood a haven for Catholics whose sexual mores are at odds with the teachings of the Church. No sex, no conflict. Except of course priests are only human, and sex does happen.

And I expect there are at times darker motives at work -- an astute pedophile should recognize becoming a priest not only grants him heightened access to his prey, but a veil of protection from accusations as well. Perhaps he observed that the priest who abused him as a child is still a priest decades later, and has never been called on the carpet for what he's done.

While human survival may depend on reciprocity and doing no harm so as not to receive harm; however, survival in the rough and tough world or prehistory and even history may very well have depended on clubing your neighbor over his head in order to get his food and woman.

But there's even reciprocity there, as a head-clubber would certainly not think himself to be exempt from becoming the clubee.

Additionally, morality has a distinct carve-out for life-or-death scenarios. Faced with starvation, a Jew can eat pork. Heck, you can even eat your fellow man if you happen to survive a plane in the Andes, or take an ill-advised mountain route to California.

Only that if there is no God, then fracking goats is merely a choice made, having no moral implications at all.

Apparently you simply lack the intellectual capacity to conceive of morals without the threat of supernatural coercion. No matter. As I have stated before, your religion (along with every other) is merely an incorporation of Darwinian ethics into myth. Religion is an explanation of why it is important to follow the ethic of reciprocity in terms that ignorant tribal cultures can understand. Unfortunately, a lot of obnoxious tribal baggage gets attached in the process.

The fact that you view this baggage as necessary for ethical behavior demonstrates profound ignorance in the subject matter. It is telling that you cannot manage to articulate a coherent argument to the contrary. Your steadfast defense of the value of supserstition is also an insult to the intelligence of every human being on this planet.

Not allowing Catholic priests to marry is so 1139 AD. They should return to the policy that existed before that year. With dramatically falling numbers of new priests it's time to reverse the CC's position on this. They'd be more in touch with their congregants as well.

Not allowing Catholic priests to marry is so 1139 AD.

They can't have the priesthood partying like it's 1099. After the incident with the communion wine and ensuing syphilis outbreak, the Pope decided enough was enough.

LOL!

they do bad things because people do bad things.

it does not matter if you are a priest, a politician, a cop, a general, a boy scout leader, a mother or a father or a son or a daughter.

good and evil DO exist.

the dude who said 'shit happens', said a mouthful.

#161 | Posted by skizziks at 2010-03-17 12:06 PM | Reply | Flag: Very poor taste.

Flies/dropping like

FF #161

SPUD can call celibacy an unnatural position, but homosexuality is natural?

Getting your rocks off is more natural than not.

In the middle of a self-described "rant" full of bile, sexual repression, and prayers for genocide, Elcid attempts to give a lesson on morality.

I give it a FF. His comments shouldn't dumped, they should posted on the front page in bold in case anyone forgets just what kind of "morality" the right expects of itself.

As to the topic:
No one should be surprised that god chose a pedophile defender as the Vicar of Christ on the eve of an outbreak of pedophilia --after all, Catholics believe the accession of the pope is the divine will of god-- remember, this is the same god that saw fit to kill an anti-nazi pope and inaugurate a pro-nazi pope right before the invasion of Poland.

God can see the future and he knows what we need and when and precisely we need it.

SPUD can call celibacy an unnatural position, but homosexuality is natural?

Lesee now... celibacy is NOT found in nature.

Homosexuality IS found in nature.

So yeah... pretty much.

Ya know wot else is not found in nature.

Religion-based intolerance.

Now, which one of you will dump this one? DUMPling? Greeneyed? RCADE?

#161 | Posted by skizziks at 2010-03-17 12:06 PM | Reply | Flag: Very poor taste.
#162 | Posted by ELCIDCE90

......just pointing out the obvious, if you find the truth is not to your "taste" well then so be it......

.....He fucked the Virgin Mary.....
....who is he to talk ?.......
#161 | Posted by skizziks at 2010-03-17 12:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

#161 | Posted by skizziks at 2010-03-17 12:06 PM | Reply | Flag: Very poor taste.

G-d ate her out too? :)

***

You know, one thing I've always wondered about the Ten Commandments is the one that goes "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, or his ox," etc, etc.

But apparently it's okay to covet your own wife and livestock?

So does that mean you can fuck your own livestock?

So does that mean you can fuck your own livestock?

Only if it is not the Sabbath, the animals are not in estrus, you do so outside of the camp, and the animals are not used as food or sacrifices.