Even more Catholics behaving badly [Archive]

Yahzi

28th March 2003, 11:12 AM

BillyTK
Hoo yeah! What is "normal", exactly? Surely celibacy is normal for priests, nuns and monks in the catholic faith?
What is normal for human beings is normal regardless of culture.

All normal human beings are sexual creatures, equipped with hormones and genitalia. The mere prescence of culture does not change that.

MRC_Hans
perfectly OK to call the entire Catholic church suspect,
I am asserting that the church's claim to produce morally superiour people is suspect because of these incidents.

Furthermore, I am asserting that the entire Church is suspect because of the way these incidents were handled by the Church. Nobody suggests eliminating police departments just because one cop goes bad; but when the response of the department is to immediately shield the bad cop from any retribution, and in fact to transfer him to another set of unknowing potential victims, then you start wondering if police departments are worth the trouble.

The difference between a crime and an accident is what you do afterwards. The Church, by attempting to cover up these things, has transmutated the accident of employing pedophiles into the crime of aiding and abetting them.

The Church often asserts that its doctrines and policies are better than any secular alternative. These incidents, and the manner in which they are handled, suggest this is not true: that Catholic doctrine is, at best, no better than any other (and at worst, much worse!).

I am not indicting Catholics; I am indicting the Catholic system. There is no double standard here.

Man of jade
1. To the general public, to most everyone, is religon harmful to their way of life?
:eek:

Um... aren't these stories exactly that: stories of how religion can be harmful to the general public and most everyone?

Or are you trying to say that since priests only molest a few boys each year, it's ok?

You are focusing on only the negatives of religon. Is this not true?
This is like somebody saying, "You are only focusing on the negatives of heroin addiction."

If you are trying to make a utilitarian argument that religion is a net positive force despite its admitted negatives, then stop complaining about the presentation of its negatives and start presenting its positives. Instead, reading your posts leaves me with the distinct impression that we shouldn't be discussing what is wrong with religion because it's so good in other (unnamed) areas. This makes no sense at all. Surely you understand that.

If you think religion is good in spite of these stories, then tell us about the good things it does. If you think these stories aren't true, then tell us that. But how can you tell us these stories are true and yet shouldn't matter?

And how do you know you aren't being optomistic, and only focusing on the positives of religion?

Man of jade

28th March 2003, 02:46 PM

Shecky;
Well, yes. When a religion discourages birth control to the detriment of women and their families and possibly societies. When a religion discourages rational thinking. When a religious whacko decides to kill, either one at a time or en masse, in the name of god. Those are times when religion is harmful to life.

I don't think you can deny there have been sometimes very negative effects on humanity caused by religion. Do you suggest that religion is at least inconsequential if not beneficial? If it were, it'd be worth attacking just for it's frivolity.
Ok, lets take this step by step.

When a religion discourages birth control to the detriment of women and their families and possibly societies.

Do we necassarily have to follow religon by the letter?

When a religion discourages rational thinking.

So anybody who doesnt think like you isnt rational?

When a religious whacko decides to kill, either one at a time or en masse, in the name of god.

I agree that killing is wrong. 9/11 was wrong, and so is whats going on in the middle east. Killing people is wrong? Tell that to stalin. He was an atheist, and killed millions upon millions of people. Hitler wasnt the only one who decided to target jews. Stalin did the same.
I found a VERY interesting website with statistics stating that atheists actually had MORE martyrs than any other religon. Im going to have to find that website again.

Yahzi;
Um... aren't these stories exactly that: stories of how religion can be harmful to the general public and most everyone?

Or are you trying to say that since priests only molest a few boys each year, it's ok?

Yahzi, did I say it was ok? No. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Im talking about proof. Has the general public been directly affected negatively by religon more than they have been affected positively? Saying that IF you lived in this city, IF you went to a specific church, and IF an offending priest worked there at the time, you MIGHT have been affected is not proof. Do you have any solid proof Yahzi, or are these merely baseless claims?
This is like somebody saying, "You are only focusing on the negatives of heroin addiction."

If you are trying to make a utilitarian argument that religion is a net positive force despite its admitted negatives, then stop complaining about the presentation of its negatives and start presenting its positives. Instead, reading your posts leaves me with the distinct impression that we shouldn't be discussing what is wrong with religion because it's so good in other (unnamed) areas. This makes no sense at all. Surely you understand that.

If you think religion is good in spite of these stories, then tell us about the good things it does. If you think these stories aren't true, then tell us that. But how can you tell us these stories are true and yet shouldn't matter?

And how do you know you aren't being optomistic, and only focusing on the positives of religion?
What does religon teach? It teaches the values of Love, Happiness, and the joy of helping others. I've yet to go to a sermon that wasnt teaching those values. The radicals that teach otherwise are a vast minority. The laws and values of Canada and the U.S. are based on religous values. Those laws keep crime and murders to a minimum.

Graham

28th March 2003, 03:16 PM

Ok, lets take this step by step, patronising Man of Jade.

When a religion discourages birth control to the detriment of women and their families and possibly societies.

Do we necassarily have to follow religon by the letter?

If everyone is going to individually decide exactly what they believe in, what do we need religions for at all? Hints? Ideas?

When a religion discourages rational thinking.

So anybody who doesnt think like you isnt rational?

No, anyone who believes in something utterly ridiculous is irrational.

For all your snide comments, it's that simple.

When a religious whacko decides to kill, either one at a time or en masse, in the name of god.

I agree that killing is wrong. 9/11 was wrong, and so is whats going on in the middle east. Killing people is wrong? Tell that to stalin. He was an atheist, and killed millions upon millions of people. Hitler wasnt the only one who decided to target jews. Stalin did the same.
I found a VERY interesting website with statistics stating that atheists actually had MORE martyrs than any other religon. Im going to have to find that website again.

Christians did this, atheists did that. This sort of argument gets no-one anywhere. Religions don't kill people, people kill people. The only thing I'll point out, therefore, is that atheists are not a faction Religions are all united by their willingness to believe. You can't be united by a common disbelief.

Remember, atheists only believe in one less god than you.

Yahzi, did I say it was ok? No. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Im talking about proof. Has the general public been directly affected negatively by religon more than they have been affected positively? Saying that IF you lived in this city, IF you went to a specific church, and IF an offending priest worked there at the time, you MIGHT have been affected is not proof. Do you have any solid proof Yahzi, or are these merely baseless claims?

You seem to limit your consideration of religion to Christianity so I'll do the same. For the past 2000 years, Christianity has constantly anbd consistently retarded the progress of civilisation by clinging desperately to every last outmoded method of thought and sticking its small-minded oar into every last attempt at free thought or progress.

Capitalisation to emphasise: IF you live in ANY country where religion has a controlling interest (I was thinking of my own country, Ireland, but whilst we are slowly breaking free of our religious chains the US is wrapping itself tighter and tighter within them and that is Yahzi declared place of residence) then you HAVE been affected.

What does religon teach? It teaches the values of Love, Happiness, and the joy of helping others. I've yet to go to a sermon that wasnt teaching those values. The radicals that teach otherwise are a vast minority. The laws and values of Canada and the U.S. are based on religous values. Those laws keep crime and murders to a minimum.

Again, I assume you're using the word "religion" as a euphamism for "Christianity" since there have been many, many religions in the history of the world that have taught none of these things.

Even so, read the Old Testament some time, not a lot of Love, Happiness, and the joy of helping others in there is there?

Oh, you mean you're not just restricting your understaning of religion to Christianity but to Christianity and the New Testament only? Sorry, for a minute there, I thought you were giving some consideration to a tiny part of the rest of the world - my mistake :rolleyes:

The laws of modern states are based on reasonable values. The fact that some religions also happen to believe in some of those principles is coincidence, nothing more. If you can name one religion that agrees with absolutely every law and statue on the books in the US or Canada, I'll be surprised.

Civilisation progresses in spite of religion, Man of Jade, not because of it. "Religion" teaches foolishness, nothing more.

Graham

PS - I apologise for answering when you weren't speaking to me, I trust that as a good Christian (and for no other reason) you'll forgive me . . .

Man of jade

28th March 2003, 06:37 PM

Graham;
No, anyone who believes in something utterly ridiculous is irrational.

For all your snide comments, it's that simple.
Snide comments? Go look at Yahzi's posts. Snide comments left and right there.

Christians did this, atheists did that. This sort of argument gets no-one anywhere. Religions don't kill people, people kill people. The only thing I'll point out, therefore, is that atheists are not a faction Religions are all united by their willingness to believe. You can't be united by a common disbelief.

Remember, atheists only believe in one less god than you.
Thank you. Someone needed to say that, but nobody was likely to really listen to me if I said it. Someone elses opinion (like yours) would carry more weight.

You seem to limit your consideration of religion to Christianity so I'll do the same. For the past 2000 years, Christianity has constantly anbd consistently retarded the progress of civilisation by clinging desperately to every last outmoded method of thought and sticking its small-minded oar into every last attempt at free thought or progress.

Capitalisation to emphasise: IF you live in ANY country where religion has a controlling interest (I was thinking of my own country, Ireland, but whilst we are slowly breaking free of our religious chains the US is wrapping itself tighter and tighter within them and that is Yahzi declared place of residence) then you HAVE been affected.
And HOW exactly is religon wrapping its chains around the U.S.? I thought more people were converting to atheism, and that the separation of church and state was becoming even clearer. Support your claim.
Again, I assume you're using the word "religion" as a euphamism for "Christianity" since there have been many, many religions in the history of the world that have taught none of these things.

Even so, read the Old Testament some time, not a lot of Love, Happiness, and the joy of helping others in there is there?

Oh, you mean you're not just restricting your understaning of religion to Christianity but to Christianity and the New Testament only? Sorry, for a minute there, I thought you were giving some consideration to a tiny part of the rest of the world - my mistake

The laws of modern states are based on reasonable values. The fact that some religions also happen to believe in some of those principles is coincidence, nothing more. If you can name one religion that agrees with absolutely every law and statue on the books in the US or Canada, I'll be surprised.

Civilisation progresses in spite of religion, Man of Jade, not because of it. "Religion" teaches foolishness, nothing more.
Please get rid of the attitude then maybe I will respond further.

28th March 2003, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by Fade

I don't speak for yahzi, obviously, but a good reason is that people willingly IGNORE these things and just keep trusting the same sexual predators.

Being a preacher, in the past, has shielded you from every imaginable crime. No matter what you did, you could always just be moved. It's time that the catholic church EXPEL these criminals and let them face the US justice system.

One can say that about anyone in a position of power. People who specifically pick on priests have a bone to pick it seems.

28th March 2003, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by ceo_esq

Somewhere south of 1% of U.S. Catholic clergy are even under suspicion of sexual abuse. It's quite a stretch to characterize that as the norm.

Exactly!

Yahzi is suffering from the Shark Attack Syndrome, where he hears one report, another report, and then concludes (ie. extrapolates) that basically all religious people are molesters, etc.

Where are his peer reviewed journal articles?

Where are his scientific studies?

Let us know. ;)

asherah

28th March 2003, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi

And don't forget all the deviant sexual functioning created by those plaid skirts!
:D

plaid skirts ... oh my ;)

c4ts

28th March 2003, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by Whodini

Exactly!

Yahzi is suffering from the Shark Attack Syndrome, where he hears one report, another report, and then concludes (ie. extrapolates) that basically all religious people are molesters, etc.

Where are his peer reviewed journal articles?

Where are his scientific studies?

Let us know. ;)

Although I have never heard of "Shark Attack Syndrome" before, it looks like Whodini's right for a change. However, I do not understand why Whodini thinks Yahzi says all religious people are molesters.

asherah

28th March 2003, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by Man of jade
Graham;

Snide comments? Go look at Yahzi's posts. Snide comments left and right there.

Thank you. Someone needed to say that, but nobody was likely to really listen to me if I said it. Someone elses opinion (like yours) would carry more weight.

And HOW exactly is religon wrapping its chains around the U.S.? I thought more people were converting to atheism, and that the separation of church and state was becoming even clearer. Support your claim.

Please get rid of the attitude then maybe I will respond further.

Respectfully, Man of Jade, I request that you respond to the points made by Graham. Regardless of his attitude, I feel it is important that we hear further you opinions on these matters otherwise a dialogue becomes a monologue, So for my sake and that of the other readers please respond. Thanks much.

Man of jade

28th March 2003, 09:11 PM

Sorry, but I cant respond until the people debating with me show more respect. Otherwise this discussion would most likely turn into who can yell the loudest, and I wont be a part of it.

Yahzi

28th March 2003, 09:15 PM

Man of Jade
Stop putting words in my mouth.
With all due respect, somebody needs to, because you are doing a terrible job.

Let's take a look at some of your whoppers:

Do we necassarily have to follow religon by the letter?
Do you mean "Catholicism" or perhaps even "the Bible" instead of "religion?" Otherwise this sentence does not make any sense.

I found a VERY interesting website with statistics stating that atheists actually had MORE martyrs than any other religon
I don't think you meant to use the word "martyrs."

The radicals that teach otherwise are a vast minority.
Vast minority... is that like jumbo shrimp?

What does religon teach? It teaches the values of Love, Happiness, and the joy of helping others.
Do you understand that "religion" is a generic term, describing a wide subset of supernatural beliefs? Not all of them are founded on principles of love and fluffy bunnies. Once again you obviously meant a different word than "religion," but I am unable to guess what word you wanted to use. Particularly since the specified values don't apply to the obvious choice of Christianity - a religion that teaches obedience to God above all other considerations.

:confused:

But to respond to those statements of yours that are reasonably coherent:

Has the general public been directly affected negatively by religon more than they have been affected positively?
The answer is an emphatic "yes." However, the question reveals two errors of logic:

1. Has the general public been affected positively more than negatively? You have offered no evidence of this, or in fact of any benifit derived from religion. I have at least offered evidence of negative effects.

2. If your neighbor is murdered, are you directly affected? How about if it's a person on the other side of town? Does a random murder of a person you don't know give you the right to complain about murder? Your emphasis on direct harm implies that no matter how many of my neighbors religion burns at the stake, I can't complain until they come for me.

You want a direct effect: go read Foodbunny's post on how she was directly affected by religion during school. Simply reading her post was direct harm to me. Knowing that people were and are treated like that lowers my quality of life. Just like the murder of people you don't know lowers your quality of life.

I used to keep a clipping file of stories that showed how religion was harmful to me. I gave it up when it got too thick. I could regale you with hours of stories of people I knew personally who suffered from religion. I could post newspaper accounts of immediate, ongoing cases of people suffering from.. oh wait, that's what I did.

Tell that to stalin. He was an atheist, and killed millions upon millions of people.
I reject and condemn, in the strongest possible language, the system that allowed Stalin to commit mass murder. I maintain that no matter how psychotic Stalin was, he could never have killed more than a handful of people on his own; and therefore he owes his infamy to a political belief system that allowed him to magnify his evil beyond all nightmare. Note: the system that allowed Stalin to wreak havoc was not athiesm: it was communism. I've made plenty of comments about how stupid communism is; but if I don't seem to be posting a lot of current event stories about how stupid it is, it might be because we all pretty much agree that it's stupid and have mostly eliminated it from our country.

Atheism was not the cause of Stalin's murders, just as vegetarianism is not the cause of Hitler's murders.

The laws and values of Canada and the U.S. are based on religous values.
I can't speak for Canada, but in the case of the U.S., this is simply a factual error. It is not true. Our laws are based on English common law, derived from Roman law, infused with the principals of the Enlightenment.

And HOW exactly is religon wrapping its chains around the U.S.? I thought more people were converting to atheism, and that the separation of church and state was becoming even clearer. Support your claim.
It has been a general trend over the last 60 years that separation of church and state in the US has widened. However, in the last few years, this trend has changed direction. One might notice that from various events such as members of the Supreme Court saying things like "there is too much separation of church and state."

This does not conflict with the notion that more people are converting to atheism: athiests are tiny minority. Even if they doubled every year it would still be a considerable number of years before they influenced public policy.

c4ts
However, I do not understand why Whodini thinks Yahzi says all religious people are molesters.
Then in what sense is Whodini right? I refer you to the post in which I explicitly stated I was condeming the system for failing to live up to its claims.

I don't think all relgious people are molesters, or even evil. I do think that all religion is necessarily evil, simply because it is false. I think a person can be part of an evil system, and do evil thereby, without necessarily earning the label of evil himself. Intention counts.

Most people are religous because they are inherently good, and somebody convinced them that religion was a way to do good. But when evil people practice a religion, they are capable of using the inherent flaws in religion to do great evil. It is my contention that this evil outwieghs the good produced by the good people, who would be doing good in any case because they are good people.

So religion has a whole lotta downside, and not much upside. Kind of like tyranny, or monarchy, or communism. Heck, we could make communism work if we were all good: if everyone was good, we could make anything work. The problem is that not everyone is good, and thus we have to choose systems that limit the harm evil people can do. Religion is not a good system for that.

c4ts

28th March 2003, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by Man of jade
Sorry, but I cant respond until the people debating with me show more respect. Otherwise this discussion would most likely turn into who can yell the loudest, and I wont be a part of it.

I'm afraid the scenario you describe is highly unlikely, considering how long it's been since Muscleman left the forums.

Man of jade

28th March 2003, 09:32 PM

Yahzi;
With all due respect, somebody needs to, because you are doing a terrible job.
With all due respect, show some. Then I'll debate.

asherah

28th March 2003, 09:48 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Man of jade
Sorry, but I cant respond until the people debating with me show more respect. Otherwise this discussion would most likely turn into who can yell the loudest, and I wont be a part of it. [/QUOTE

I for one, Man of Jade, wish to hear what you have to say: additionally I for one agree beforehand not to yell or be disrespectful of what you have to say.]

Man of jade

28th March 2003, 11:29 PM

asherah;
Thank you. Where should we start? Just pick a starting point and I'll be happy to discuss something with you.:)

Graham

29th March 2003, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by Man of jade
Sorry, but I cant respond until the people debating with me show more respect. Otherwise this discussion would most likely turn into who can yell the loudest, and I wont be a part of it.

Please get rid of the attitude then maybe I will respond further

Don't do me any favours. That said, there are plenty of people here who will listen and respond to you with far more patience than I. For their sake, I apologise for offending you and promise to be more respectful in the future.

Let me rephrase and summarise my basic points more respectfully:

1) Your concept of religion seems to be limited to some form of Christianity. If this is a misreading of you on my part then, once again, I apologise. However, if you are in fact a Chiristian and you are arguing from a Christian viewpoint, I submit to you that this merely reflects one of the basic failings of Christianity - a tendency to divide the world into Us and Them, Them being all others to be tarred with the same brush at all times.

Personally, I believe this tendency is a direct result of monotheism, which IMO must be inherently dichotomous (if thats actually a word). Us/Them, God/No God, Right/Wrong, Black/White. There is religion (Christianity) and everyone else (Atheists).

Respectfully, how would you respond to these assertions?

2) Whilst apparently Christian, you do not appear to give any consideration to the Old Testament. In the context of religion as "Love, Happiness, and the joy of helping others", how do you account for the behaviour of your God in earlier times?

3) Religion has had a retarding effect on society and continues to do so. I would back up this by pointing out that, in the modern world, the more heavily religious a country is, the less advanced it tends to be, the less "free" its citizens tend to be, the less wealthy, the less educated and so on.

For the past century, the US has been a beacon for the world, a shining light of reason over dogma. That light has brought prosperity and advancement to her citizens to the point where she is one of the leading, if not the leading power in the world. Now that light is dimming, religion is making a comeback and already they're back to crusading against the infidels and passing laws to make people pray.

Respectfully then, demonstrate to me how religion (your religion or any other) has had a positive effect on society.

Believe it or not, I am genuinely interested to hear your response.

Regards,

Graham

Leif Roar

29th March 2003, 04:39 AM

Originally posted by Graham

3) Religion has had a retarding effect on society and continues to do so. I would back up this by pointing out that, in the modern world, the more heavily religious a country is, the less advanced it tends to be, the less "free" its citizens tend to be, the less wealthy, the less educated and so on.

A correlation doesn't imply cause and effect. I'm not altogether convinced there is any strong, general correlation between the "religiousity" of a country and it's wealth and social or technological development - but assuming there is, wouldn't you agree that it might be just as likely that strong religious feelings tend to thrive in situations of hardship and want, as that it is the religion that causes the hardship and want?

For the past century, the US has been a beacon for the world, a shining light of reason over dogma. That light has brought prosperity and advancement to her citizens to the point where she is one of the leading, if not the leading power in the world. Now that light is dimming, religion is making a comeback and already they're back to crusading against the infidels and passing laws to make people pray.

And for the past century, the US with its freedom of religion has done far better than the nations that attempted to suppress religion within its borders. You might blame this on "communism", but communism isn't a religion any more than capitalism is, and so I maintain that this is an counter-example to your assertion.

Respectfully then, demonstrate to me how religion (your religion or any other) has had a positive effect on society.

I believe it is generally held that it was the influence of the Christian churches that caused the demise of the Roman circus with its gladiatorial games and public massacres. You might also want to look into the history of hospitals, in which religion and religious orders play an important and central part.

Religion has been so tightly interwoven with society througout most of history, that the idea that religion has had no positive effects on society seems to me to be just as ridiculus a notion as the idea that religion has had no negative effects on society.

asherah

29th March 2003, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Man of jade
asherah;
Thank you. Where should we start? Just pick a starting point and I'll be happy to discuss something with you.:)

Okay thanks. First off, Man of Jade, since i'm a newbie what is the origin of or meaning of your handle?

Second, what is your previous and current religious orientation.

Finally ( for now anyway ) do you feel it is possible in debate for either a skeptic or a believer to change the others mind or gain any concessions on points of conflict: and if so, by what process?

P.S. Sorry for the lag in response time, we may be in different time zones. :confused:

Man of jade

29th March 2003, 09:33 PM

How did I come up with my Handle... I think I had jade there because its a color (and stone) that really appeals to me... Man of is there after I remembered a bunch of stone soldiers found underground in china.

Ive been a Catholic my whole life I guess, but I might be looking for a change of pace sometime in the future.

How about you?

c4ts

29th March 2003, 10:18 PM

Graham

30th March 2003, 12:07 AM

Leif Roar:

A correlation doesn't imply cause and effect. I'm not altogether convinced there is any strong, general correlation between the "religiousity" of a country and it's wealth and social or technological development - but assuming there is, wouldn't you agree that it might be just as likely that strong religious feelings tend to thrive in situations of hardship and want, as that it is the religion that causes the hardship and want?

Good point. I think you are right - religion does tend to thrive under such circumstances. However, my point was that religion, rather than contirbuting to the relief of suffering and ignorance, is often a factor in its being prolonged.

And for the past century, the US with its freedom of religion has done far better than the nations that attempted to suppress religion within its borders. You might blame this on "communism", but communism isn't a religion any more than capitalism is, and so I maintain that this is an counter-example to your assertion.

You're right of course, communism is not a religion. However, if we consider communism under Stalin and Mao, I think we can see some importance similarities between their practices and those of religious groups when in power.

For example:

1) Refusal to consider or allow consideration of, alternative systems of belief, politics or practice

2) The encouragement of "Leadership Cults" centered around a "larger than life" figure within the movement (living or dead)

3) Absolute determination amongst the leadership to maintain the status quo at any cost and thus preserve their own position

In the US, freedom of religion has promoted free thought and the discussion and often acceptance of alternative ideas and methods. This has been critical in their development as a state. I don't want to get into a discussion here about the current direction the US is taking, that's a topic for another board!).

Freedom of religion does not promote religion, it promotes free thought which, IMO, is anathema to religion. Freedom of religion may not mean freedom from religion, as some people are so fond of pointing out, however, it does mean that alternative modes of thought are allowed to prosper and that society as a whole is not restricted to one way of doing things.

Stalin's USSR and Mao's China were and are totalitarian states. Religion, IMO, is inherently totalitarian (since, in order to be religious you have to believe that A is right and B is wrong without any grey areas) and thus when the religious come to power they tend to behave in a totalitarian fashion.

Thus I maintain that your reference to commmism is not a valid counter-example.

I believe it is generally held that it was the influence of the Christian churches that caused the demise of the Roman circus with its gladiatorial games and public massacres. You might also want to look into the history of hospitals, in which religion and religious orders play an important and central part.

Christianity, IMO, contributed to the demise of the Roman Empire granted - the first and greatest victory of Christianity over a progressive society. However, I think the ultimate demise of the Roman circus can be more correctly attributed to the "Nika" Revolution in 532 by the blue and green factions of the circus and the subsequent suppression of these factions by the emperor Justinian. I am, however, a very amateur student of Roman history and open to correction on this point.

As for the history of hospitals, I have never denied that there are many well-intentioned and benevolant "persons of religion" in the world. These however, are the people who run hospitals, not the people who run states.

Two types of religious set up hospitals: good people who simply wanted to make a difference and those who saw in the hospitals an opportunity for the promotion of their cause. I will grant, however, that both goups may have had a beneficial net effect.

Finally, IMO, the growth of hospitals was a part of the process of increasing civilisation in society, better understanding of how the human body functioned, coupled with better technology and facilities. The first religious "hospitals" were little more than places for people to die, a natural location for the vultures of Christ to cluster. As medical science progressed, however, the orders who ran the hospitals were dragged (often kicking and screaming, so to speak) along with it.

Religion has been so tightly interwoven with society througout most of history, that the idea that religion has had no positive effects on society seems to me to be just as ridiculus a notion as the idea that religion has had no negative effects on society.

Again, granted. Again, however. IMO the net effect of religion has been negative.

Graham

Yahzi

30th March 2003, 09:19 AM

Man of Jade
With all due respect, show some. Then I'll debate.
I do believe I have shown you all the respect you deserve.

Your positions are riddled with factual and logical errors, when they are coherent enough to understand. The problem is not in the amount of respect you have recieved, but rather in the amount you think you should get: your ego is not in accordance with reality.

I, for one, have no interest in indulging the emotional whims of an egotistical juvenile when that person has nothing interesting to say. Start saying interesting, meaningful things, and I warrant you'll see a change in my attitude. But to demand respect when you can't even grasp the notion that "religion" and "my particular brand of Xianity which ignores parts of the Bible I don't like" are different concepts is premature.

Man of jade

30th March 2003, 10:26 AM

Yahzi;
Your positions are riddled with factual and logical errors, when they are coherent enough to understand.

Your posts arent exactly perfect either at times. Like this one, actually.

But to demand respect when you can't even grasp the notion that "religion" and "my particular brand of Xianity which ignores parts of the Bible I don't like" are different concepts is premature.

I did not demand respect. I asked for it. If you arent courteous enough to show some, then thats your problem. Unless you can prove it of course.
I certainly know the difference between Christianity and my own philosophy. Can you prove otherwise?

Nobody's post's are perfect. Yours have some factual and logical errors as well.

Man of jade

30th March 2003, 10:29 AM

C4ts;
Thanks for the avatar! I'll put it in next chance I get.:D

Man of jade

30th March 2003, 10:38 AM

C4ts;
Thanks for the avatar! I'll put it in next chance I get.:D

asherah

30th March 2003, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Man of jade
How did I come up with my Handle... I think I had jade there because its a color (and stone) that really appeals to me... Man of is there after I remembered a bunch of stone soldiers found underground in china.

Ive been a Catholic my whole life I guess, but I might be looking for a change of pace sometime in the future.

How about you?

My handle is in reference to the deity that some biblical scholars believed shared temple space with Yahweh on and off (depending on the ruler at the time). The idea has been proposed that the worship of Asherah was not (in ancient Jewish culture) considered in conflict with Yahweh. Such dieties as Ashtart and Baal were and therefore needed to exsized and villified.
A modern equivalent- pointed out by Tim Callahan and others- might be seen in Mary and the esteem with which she is held by Catholics.

Tell me, why do you feel that you need a religious change of pace in the future? What factors have influenced you?

Man of jade

30th March 2003, 08:20 PM

I feel that I need something a more in tune with nature. Christianity doesnt really have that component. While I might go to a different religon's gathering, or do something in that religon I wouldnt normally do being Catholic I'm not going to drop being a Christian completely. I'll hold on to many of the beliefs associated with it.

c4ts

30th March 2003, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by Man of jade
I feel that I need something a more in tune with nature. Christianity doesnt really have that component. While I might go to a different religon's gathering, or do something in that religon I wouldnt normally do being Catholic I'm not going to drop being a Christian completely. I'll hold on to many of the beliefs associated with it.

If you want a complete change in pace from Catholicism, try its polar opposite, Reform Juddaism. If you want more weird meaningless rituals, there's always Wicca, although you will be heavily ridiculed on this board. If you want to be more in tune with nature, I suggest hippie-Buddhism. If you want to hold on to most of your beliefs, but still want a change in pace, hmmm... try Greek Orthodoxy. You go diving for crosses. If you just don't know there's always Atheism, Agnosticism, Nontheism, Deism, I-made-up-a-relgion-that-makes-sense-to-me-ism (etc)...

If you want a total change of pace in your entire life, you have two options: Scientology, or Logical Deism (not to be confused with actual Deism). However, I suggest you stay away from both of them.

Yahzi

30th March 2003, 09:33 PM

c4ts
If you want more weird meaningless rituals, there's always Wicca, although you will be heavily ridiculed on this board.
Hey now! We don't ridicule Wicca any more than we do Xianity. If anything, we give it more of a pass, mostly because we've never had a Wiccan Muscelman or Stamenflicker.

Man of Jade
If you want a change of pace, you could always try being reasonable.

Nobody's post's are perfect. Yours have some factual and logical errors as well.
Now see, if you would actually point out those logical errors, we would be having what is called a "debate."

If you can distinguish between your relgion and religoin in general, then perhaps you would care to explain this line:
What does religon teach? It teaches the values of Love, Happiness, and the joy of helping others.

Man of jade

30th March 2003, 09:38 PM

Yahzi;
The religon Im currently following, Catholicism, doesnt teach negative things as far as I have seen. It teaches the values of love , joy, happiness... All those "white light" kind of things. In general, does it not teach these things?

Man of jade

30th March 2003, 09:41 PM

P.S.
My philosophy bit...
I believe that while we should follow those things, I also believe that we shouldnt be sheep. Find a reason for following something, and its fine with me.

c4ts

30th March 2003, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by Man of jade
P.S.
My philosophy bit...
I believe that while we should follow those things, I also believe that we shouldnt be sheep. Find a reason for following something, and its fine with me.

If you don't want to be a sheep, you can pretty much forget about Christianity. There is the possible exception of Unitarian Universalism but I have no idea what that's all about, or if it's even supposed to be Christian.

Yahzi

30th March 2003, 11:21 PM

Man of Jade
The religon Im currently following, Catholicism, doesnt teach negative things as far as I have seen.
Tell me... do you consider demanding that a nine-year old rape victim carry her rapists' baby to term, even though it might kill her, is a positive thing?

Do you think asserting that the problem with the world today is not that there are too many people, but rather that people are too rich, is a positive thing?

Do you think that denying rape victims emergency contraception so that they can avoid becoming pregnant from their rapist is a positive thing?

Do you think kidnapping girls off the street and putting them to work in Irish laundrys for years on end without pay is a positive thing?

And this is just the modern teachings of the Catholic Church. Let's just pretend the last 1700 years didn't happen, shall we?

The Church also teaches that obedience to God, and by extension his vicars on Earth, is more important than anything. If God tells you to sacrifice your child, you don't argue, you don't question, you go to the mountain top and do it. If the Pople tells you that God said to do it, that's the same thing, because the Pope is infallible.

The Church teaches that every human being is a worthless, vile sinner who deserves eternal torment merely for the crime of being born human. The Church teaches that no action of man can redeem him, that humanity is so completely soiled that a life of pure altruism and suffering is still insufficient to negate or even ameloriate eternal punishment. The Church teaches that only by groveling to and worshipping a being notable chiefly for its power can man escape torture; that appeasment and abasement, not reason or justice, are the only ways to escape God's wrath.

The Church teaches that the act of love between two people is only to be performed for reproduction. The Church teaches that if those two people happen to be the same sex, then they must die. If one of them was previously married, and the divorcee is still alive, then they must die. If they are not married, then they must die. Now it is true that the Catholic Church no longer executes adulterers or homosexuals or premarital sex partners, but is that because a) their teachings changed, or b) secular society stopped allowing them to?

And as for not being sheep... the Church you profess to follow, that you pretend to find so loving and good, expressly condemns any notion that you can pick and choose which of its doctrines you desire to follow. If the Pope could see your post, he would excommunicate you on the spot, and you wouldn't be a Catholic anymore. Plus, you'd be on your way to Hell, solely for daring to question the orders of a man in a red hat.

You don't think the Catholic Church teaches bad things? Tell me, just what exactly did you think my series of posts was about? What, exactly, are these stories you keep objecting too, if not examples of the Catholic Church behaving badly?

:eek:

I am trying to find a way to express my total amazement at your deep, deep ignorance and naivite without being disrespectful. I don't think it's possible. Allow me to suggest this possiblity: the fantastic entity you refer to as the "Catholic religion" is an idealized version that exists solely in your mind, with no concievable cognate in the real world. Given this caveat, your posts are at least rendered coherent, if not particularly relevant.

c4ts

30th March 2003, 11:48 PM

Why do you keep calling it "Xianity?" It looks like it's pronounced "Zianity," and if you call Christians "Xians," what are you going to call the people from Planet-X?

Back on the subject, from what I can tell, Catholicism teaches these things:

1. War is peace.
2. Freedom is slavery.
3. Ignorance is strength.
4. You must be peaceful, free, and strong.
5. For everything else, there's de Popa. And CS Lewis, if you have problems dealing with reality. Also, Aquinas wrote a bunch of arguments about doing what we say, so if you ever still doubt you faith, read his arguments.

Of course, most people skip the first 3.

BillyTK

31st March 2003, 05:18 AM

Originally posted by ceo_esq

Somewhere south of 1% of U.S. Catholic clergy are even under suspicion of sexual abuse. It's quite a stretch to characterize that as the norm.

Good point. I retract my claim.

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
This is a skeptic's board. Lots of people here are either atheists or at least very critical to religion. Now when some non-atheist claims that atheism leads to bad things and supports it with examples like Stalin, wer'e all over him/her, but some of the same people seem to find it perfectly OK to call the entire Catholic church suspect, just because it turns out to harbour some criminals.

Does being a lapsed Catholic give me special dispensation to do so? ;)

Originally posted by Yahzi
What is normal for human beings is normal regardless of culture.

All normal human beings are sexual creatures, equipped with hormones and genitalia. The mere prescence of culture does not change that.

Sorry, have to disagree on this one. Culture is normative. Whilst culture doesn't change the "fact" of our biology, it does give meaning to it in terms of who can do what with whom, how, where and when. All humans are sexual creatures but the actual expression of that is cultural determined-hence why we have such ridiculous polarities as male vs female, straight vs gay, when the biological "truth" is way more complex.

BillyTK

31st March 2003, 06:02 AM

Originally posted by c4ts
Why do you keep calling it "Xianity?" It looks like it's pronounced "Zianity," and if you call Christians "Xians," what are you going to call the people from Planet-X?

It's part of the pc'lib (;)) conspiracy! Seriously, xian is hort for christian in the same way xmas is short for christmas.

Its use goes back 100s of years (see the Atheist web (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#xian) for an explanation), but there's at least a couple of reasons its usage has been popularised that I know of;
one is from "radical" christians who believe that christianity has become detached from the teachings of Christ and want to de-emphasise the "christ"-ness in christianity; the other is to detach it from the significance it has in Western society so it can be understood as *another* religion rather than *the* religion.

Back on the subject, from what I can tell, Catholicism teaches these things:

1. War is peace.
2. Freedom is slavery.
3. Ignorance is strength.
4. You must be peaceful, free, and strong.
5. For everything else, there's de Popa. And CS Lewis, if you have problems dealing with reality. Also, Aquinas wrote a bunch of arguments about doing what we say, so if you ever still doubt you faith, read his arguments.

Of course, most people skip the first 3.

You forgot happiness is shame and guilt is happiness, that the ideal man had to suffer and the ideal woman was ideal because she was never touched by a man...

Man of jade

31st March 2003, 09:45 AM

Yahzi;
Well and the respect goes out the airlock.
Irregardless...
The Church teaches that every human being is a worthless, vile sinner who deserves eternal torment merely for the crime of being born human. The Church teaches that no action of man can redeem him, that humanity is so completely soiled that a life of pure altruism and suffering is still insufficient to negate or even ameloriate eternal punishment. The Church teaches that only by groveling to and worshipping a being notable chiefly for its power can man escape torture; that appeasment and abasement, not reason or justice, are the only ways to escape God's wrath.
First...

The Church teaches that every human being is a worthless, vile sinner who deserves eternal torment merely for the crime of being born human.

This is the fundamentalist point of view. The fundamentalist view also says that pokemon is the devil. They ignored the moral lessons and imagination in pokemon and focused on the negative things. Much like you are doing.

The Church teaches that no action of man can redeem him, that humanity is so completely soiled that a life of pure altruism and suffering is still insufficient to negate or even ameloriate eternal punishment.

Sorry, you must have forgotten that part about Christ. Also, you appear to be using the fundamentalist point of view again. Through Christ all sins are saved, I believe the church says. Where exactly did the Church say what you said it said?

The Church teaches that the act of love between two people is only to be performed for reproduction. The Church teaches that if those two people happen to be the same sex, then they must die. If one of them was previously married, and the divorcee is still alive, then they must die. If they are not married, then they must die. Now it is true that the Catholic Church no longer executes adulterers or homosexuals or premarital sex partners, but is that because a) their teachings changed, or b) secular society stopped allowing them to?
Are these the only two options or could it be both, or even a mix of other options?
I know for sure that the teachings of the church changed, and that society did intervene,but it is not completely one or the other.

You don't think the Catholic Church teaches bad things? Tell me, just what exactly did you think my series of posts was about? What, exactly, are these stories you keep objecting too, if not examples of the Catholic Church behaving badly?
Could itbe possible that these people are taking it to an extreme, PAST what was taught to them?
You are focusing on the negatives. Ive yet to see you say that something in the Catholic Church is good. While bad things commited by people who are religous arent exactly good, this does not represent the whole. Your ignoring the good things about the church. I present a few examples of good things and you ignore them completely.
Lets present a few things the Church values... Do not ignore this again please.
Love. "Love thy neighbour as you would love yourself."
Kindness. See above.
Marriage. Ive actually been to severl Catholic weddings, and everybody said something along the lines of; "This is the happiest day of my life."
If Christian fundamentalists ignore all good points about atheists... And you (being an atheist) are ignoring all the good things about religon...Does that make you a fundamentalist Atheist?
One last thing...
If the Pope could see your post, he would excommunicate you on the spot, and you wouldn't be a Catholic anymore. Plus, you'd be on your way to Hell, solely for daring to question the orders of a man in a red hat.
He wears a white hat, gee I thought you reseached this stuff too. Everyone knows that its the cardinals who wear red hats.:p :rolleyes:

Liamo

31st March 2003, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by Man of jade
The Church teaches that no action of man can redeem him, that humanity is so completely soiled that a life of pure altruism and suffering is still insufficient to negate or even ameloriate eternal punishment.

Sorry, you must have forgotten that part about Christ. Also, you appear to be using the fundamentalist point of view again. Through Christ all sins are saved, I believe the church says. Where exactly did the Church say what you said it said?

Man of jade,

Sorry for interrupting, but here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say on the subject:

(405) Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

Therefore, without baptism, no man can be redeemed even if he were to lead a life of pure altruism, as he would still bear the original sin.

Liam

Yahzi

31st March 2003, 10:38 AM

BillyTK
All humans are sexual creatures but the actual expression of that is cultural determined-hence
To stifle all sexual expression of any kind is abnormal.

Just like eating. We all eat. How we eat, what we eat, where we eat is influenced by culture. But to stop eating alltogether would be biologically abnormal.

c4ts
As Billy said, it's their abbreviation: I just use it because it's shorter.

Man of Jade

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

This is the fundamentalist point of view. The fundamentalist view also says that pokemon is the devil. They ignored the moral lessons and imagination in pokemon and focused on the negative things. Much like you are doing.
Are you asserting that the Church does not teach the doctrine of Original Sin? Or perhaps you are asserting that this is a trivial point that should be overlooked while we focus on the positive aspects of Catholicism - which, btw, you have yet to enumerate.

Discussing Original Sin is not focusing on the negative things - it is focusing on the important, core, basic, fundamentals of the Catholic faith. "Fundamental" was a word before it was a religious sect.

You repeatedly present the opinion that the good of the Catholic Church not only excuses the bad, but that we shouldn't even acknowledge the bad.

Through Christ all sins are saved, I believe the church says.
Do you even read my questions? I asserted that no action of man could save him, and you responded that man could be saved through Christ. How, exactly, is being saved through Christ an action of man? Your response proves the point I originally asserted. Do you understand this?

I know for sure that the teachings of the church changed, and that society did intervene,but it is not completely one or the other.
If society had to intervene at all, doesn't that mean that the Church did not stop these bad practices on its own? Again, doesn't that prove the very point I made?

Lets present a few things the Church values... Do not ignore this again please.
Love. "Love thy neighbour as you would love yourself."
Kindness. See above.

While it is true that the Catholic doctrine praises the values of love and kindess, these are not Xian doctrines. Rather, they are universal doctrines that have been incorporated into the Xian faith. The Golden Rule is a perfect example: it does not originate with Xianity, or even Judeaism, but exists in virtually all cultures ever recorded. In addition, I pointed out the numerous exemptions Xianity provides for these virtues.

Marriage. Ive actually been to severl Catholic weddings, and everybody said something along the lines of; "This is the happiest day of my life."

I've been to several weddings of all kinds. Athiest, Sikh, Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, Fundamentalist. At every single one of them, everybody said something along the lines of; "This is the happiest day of my life." A rational person might conclude that phrase is a feature of weddings.

Your citing this as a feature of Catholicism makes you look stupider than any possible insult I could ever dream of. Seriously.

If Christian fundamentalists ignore all good points about atheists... And you (being an atheist) are ignoring all the good things about religon...Does that make you a fundamentalist Atheist?

Being a fundamentalist has nothing to do with ignoring good points. You don't actually know what constitutes fundamentalism, do you?

He wears a white hat, gee I thought you reseached this stuff too. Everyone knows that its the cardinals who wear red hats.
A crushing rebuttal. However, you remain excommunicated.

You have yet to respond to any of my points, save for citing Love and Kindess as a teaching of the Catholic Church. Do you have anything else to say?

Man of jade

31st March 2003, 12:17 PM

Yahzi;
Are you asserting that the Church does not teach the doctrine of Original Sin? Or perhaps you are asserting that this is a trivial point that should be overlooked while we focus on the positive aspects of Catholicism - which, btw, you have yet to enumerate.
Ive "enumerated" a few. Maybe you werent listening.

You repeatedly present the opinion that the good of the Catholic Church not only excuses the bad, but that we shouldn't even acknowledge the bad. :mad:
I said NO such thing. I never said ONCE that the good excuses the bad.
In fact I said this earlier in THIS thread;
Yahzi, did I say it was ok? No. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Your posts have as much flawed logic as mine. You cant even read the freakin' thread. I acknowledged your points more than you did mine.

Do you even read my questions? I asserted that no action of man could save him, and you responded that man could be saved through Christ. How, exactly, is being saved through Christ an action of man? Your response proves the point I originally asserted. Do you understand this?
Can YOU read? I said something about baptism, and Liamo cleared that up. (Thanks Liamo:))
Isnt baptism an action of man? Really, learn to read Yahzi.
I also believe that the bible says something along the lines of "All who believe in god are saved." At least thats what the priest was preaching in church the other day.
I've been to several weddings of all kinds. Athiest, Sikh, Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, Fundamentalist. At every single one of them, everybody said something along the lines of; "This is the happiest day of my life." A rational person might conclude that phrase is a feature of weddings.
Did I say that phrase is a feature exclusive to only Catholic weddings?
NO.
Sorry, as much as you, your ego, and your flawed logic want to believe that, it isnt true. Learn some logic. This really makes you look stupid, saying I said something and then saying thats wrong. It was your words, really.
While it is true that the Catholic doctrine praises the values of love and kindess, these are not Xian doctrines. Rather, they are universal doctrines that have been incorporated into the Xian faith. The Golden Rule is a perfect example: it does not originate with Xianity, or even Judeaism, but exists in virtually all cultures ever recorded. In addition, I pointed out the numerous exemptions Xianity provides for these virtues.
Where did I mention Xianity in that last post? Nowhere. I was talking about the Catholic church. What planet did you wander off to?

Darat

31st March 2003, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Man of jade
...snip...

I also believe that the bible says something along the lines of "All who believe in god are saved." At least thats what the priest was preaching in church the other day.
...snip...

Man of jade - Can I ask you are you talking about a "generic" Christianity or about the Roman Catholic version?

The only reason I am asking is that according to the Roman Catholic faith no-one but Roman Catholics alive today will have eternal life! That means that out of the total population today of what 5 billion over 4 billion will either suffer eternal torment or have no eternal life.

It doesn't matter if all the 4000,000,000 people never committed one "sin" as defined by the RCs - merely being born and not being a Roman Catholic is enough to ensure their eternal damnation.

Is this really a religion that promotes "love" and "happiness" for all?

No it is a religion that determines by it's doctrines that the vast majority of people who have ever lived on this planet will suffer eternal damnation....

And in case you believe this is just “my opinion” I suggest you read the official Roman Catholic words.

Good place to start for the official Roman Catholic line is:

www.vatican.net

and

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

Thanz

31st March 2003, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi

Most people are religous because they are inherently good, and somebody convinced them that religion was a way to do good. But when evil people practice a religion, they are capable of using the inherent flaws in religion to do great evil. It is my contention that this evil outwieghs the good produced by the good people, who would be doing good in any case because they are good people.

Yahzi, dude, what terrible reasoning. Good people would be doing good anyway, because they are good people, but evil people somehow need the church to do great evil? Evil people would not find a way to do evil if they could not exploit the church?

If you look at a typical church in Canada or the US I would venture that the vast majority have a net positive effect on their communities, with charitable work and a simple sense of cummunity. You may say that secular organizations could do the same things, but they simply don't - at least not to the same degree. Even many service organiztions are based (at least in part) on religion.

So, yes, evil people do sometimes abuse the church, much as they abuse any other position of power.

On a different note, some personal experience with Catholicism. I was raised Catholic, and went to Catholic schools through my undergraduate degree (although the Catholic college I went to was simply a part of a larger University). We had people of different religions attend, and not once did I see or hear of anything remotely similar to Foodbunny's horrific experience.

More importantly, however, for this thread is the moral instruction we were given. We were told the Catholic view on all the hot button issues, but were also told that the most important thing was to develop your own moral conscience. The teachings of the church were to be part of that, of course, but the emphasis was definately on having one's own moral conscience and personal responsibility.

As an adult, I switched to Anglican (Catholic lite) mainly for the Catholic Church's views on women and sexuality. I don't like that women can't be priests, and I don't think that a bunch of celibate men should be preaching about sexual morality. Not that I agree with everything the Anglican church teaches (their stance on homosexuality needs work) but it is at least closer to my personal beliefs.

All of which is to say that I believe religion is a positive force in many people's lives, on an individual level. I don't think that you give that enough credit.

Man of jade

31st March 2003, 04:33 PM

Darat;
Its the same in not only the Catholic church, But in the religons along those lines... Like the rest of Christianity. Muslims and Islamic people believe something similar, dont they? Its not exactly exclusive.

Yahzi

31st March 2003, 11:30 PM

Thanz
Evil people would not find a way to do evil if they could not exploit the church?
They could not find a way to do such world-shaking quantities of evil.

If you do not understand how systems can be exploited by unscroupulous people to accomplish vastly more wickedness then they could ever hope to achieve from their own devices, then I can't explain it to you.

Now you could argue that systems also allow good people to multiply the amount of good they can do, and this would be correct. However, my contention is that religion in particular is not this kind of system.

You may say that secular organizations could do the same things, but they simply don't - at least not to the same degree.
Do you know where Social Security comes from? When this country had a real wealth distribution problem, the government had to step in and do something - because religious charities were not doing the job. And this was 80 years ago, when the nation was arguably more religous than it is now.

Secular organizations do do the same things - it's called taxes and social programs. And they do vastly more of it than sectarian organizations.

All of which is to say that I believe religion is a positive force in many people's lives, on an individual level. I don't think that you give that enough credit.
No, I give it the credit it is due. It is you that is not giving someone enough credit. You say you left the Catholic Church because their views on sex and women disagreed with your own moral reasoning. Tell me - where did that moral reasoning come from? Why... from you. The entity you are not giving enough credit to is yourself.

And this neatly proves my point: Thanz, who desired to do good, changed his religion because he recognized that the one he started in wasn't good enough. Thanz's goodness does not stem from his religion; rather, his religion stems from his goodness.

Now once you realize you can be and do even more good without the falsehoods of religion holding you down, we'll be on the same page. :)

Man of Jade
I said NO such thing. I never said ONCE that the good excuses the bad.
Then why do you keep objecting to my pointing out wicked acts of the church?

Isnt baptism an action of man?
No, baptism is not an action of man. Don't take my word for it: ask your priest. Hint: baptism does not constitute merely splashing water on your head.

Did I say that phrase is a feature exclusive to only Catholic weddings?
Yes, you did. The plain text is there, for anyone to judge. Perhaps that is not what you meant to say, but it is what you said. Given that you can't distinguish between the words "martyr" and "murderer," it's no surprise that you didn't say what you mean: but how am I supposed to guess your meaning if you can't say it?

In any case, now is your chance to explain what you really meant to say: how does the fact that marriages are happy events confer any credit to the Catholic church?

Where did I mention Xianity in that last post? Nowhere. I was talking about the Catholic church
On the planet I live on, the Catholic church is a Christian church. Perhaps you would like to tell us what kind of church it is on your planet.

I'm starting to think you are Muscleman's sock puppet - the one that plays with the computer when MM remembers to take his lithium. Your understanding of Catholic doctrine is equally abysmal, your grammar is only marginally better, and your logic shares a certain specious quality than rings familiar. Are you a sock puppet, or is there an entire population of poorly educated simple-minded barely literate Catholics who hang out on message boards?

BillyTK

1st April 2003, 10:06 AM

Yahzi

BillyTK

To stifle all sexual expression of any kind is abnormal.

Just like eating. We all eat. How we eat, what we eat, where we eat is influenced by culture. But to stop eating alltogether would be biologically abnormal.

I don't know if eating is comparable; there's certainly the similar cultural mores, but without food, we die. I'm not too sure if we'd die without sex. Or maybe not as quickly... ;)

Anyway, sexual mores require the repression of sexual desire; imo it's only a gap between such repression and complete repression; but maybe it's the adjective we disagree on rather than the idea? Unhealthy is a more appropriate description than abnormal?

Yahzi

1st April 2003, 10:38 AM

BillyTK
Well, since the point was the Church practices sexual abuse, "unhealthy" works just as well as "abnormal."

I agree that cultures have a wide latitude in regulating sexual expression; but I also think it's obvious that cultures can regulate expression to the point where it becomes unhealthy. Like, for instance, Xian attitudes towards homosexuality, and Catholic attitudes towards priests and sex.

ceo_esq

1st April 2003, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by Yahzi
BillyTK
Well, since the point was the Church practices sexual abuse, "unhealthy" works just as well as "abnormal."

Even given that it's not clear who you mean precisely by "the Church" or how far you mean to extend the ambit of "sexual abuse", it's pretty clear that there's no support for the claim that the Church practices sexual abuse. Even BillyTK backed away, sensibly, from that stance.

Yahzi

1st April 2003, 11:54 AM

ceo_esq
Even given that it's not clear who you mean precisely by "the Church" or how far you mean to extend the ambit of "sexual abuse", it's pretty clear that there's no support for the claim that the Church practices sexual abuse
What do you mean it is not clear who I mean by "the Church?" I mean exactly the same people you refer to in your very next sentence as "the Church."

And I think there is support for the claim. Do you think that teaching children to be terrified of masturbating - teaching that it can send them to eternal torture - qualifies as sexual abuse?

I think that teaching a person to hate and fear their own natural sexual impulses qualifes as abuse. I think extolling as an exemplar a clearly abnormal situation such as celibacy is abuse. (Not to say there is anything wrong with being celibate: just to say that most people aren't, and there should be nothing wrong with that, either.)

I suppose if you restrict abuse to "forcible sexual conduct against another person's will," you could argue that the Church does not endorse sexual abuse - however much it actually practices it, which is currently being investigated. But I thought the original poster made it clear that he was discussing a psychological form of abuse, and I think it's pretty clear that the Church does endorse that.

Man of jade

1st April 2003, 12:18 PM

Yahzi;
Then why do you keep objecting to my pointing out wicked acts of the church?
Because if someone insulted my religon over and over again, after a few weeks I'd get kinda fed up. Your logic is horrible Yahzi, really. If I object to something that doesnt mean I think its ok that they do something bad. Thats like saying "Well Bob might have murdered his wife, but hes gone to jail so its just fine that he killed her." Hypothetically, if someone repeatadly insulted Atheists, wouldnt you object after a while?
Yes, you did. The plain text is there, for anyone to judge. Perhaps that is not what you meant to say, but it is what you said. Given that you can't distinguish between the words "martyr" and "murderer," it's no surprise that you didn't say what you mean: but how am I supposed to guess your meaning if you can't say it?

In any case, now is your chance to explain what you really meant to say: how does the fact that marriages are happy events confer any credit to the Catholic church?
Alright, If the plain text is there for everyone to judge, I ask everyone, After I quote the text I wrote (speling erors and all,)
Marriage. Ive actually been to severl Catholic weddings, and everybody said something along the lines of; "This is the happiest day of my life."
Compared to some tribes where women are considered little mor than property, I think its ahead of that by some.
Where in my statement did I say Happiness In weddings is exclusive to only Catholic weddings? Or is Yahzi merely making up his claims about what I said?
I'm starting to think you are Muscleman's sock puppet - the one that plays with the computer when MM remembers to take his lithium. Your understanding of Catholic doctrine is equally abysmal, your grammar is only marginally better, and your logic shares a certain specious quality than rings familiar. Are you a sock puppet, or is there an entire population of poorly educated simple-minded barely literate Catholics who hang out on message boards?
Well we've all seen how you cant distinguish "Logic" from "Making things up," I could conclude that you are the entire population of Illogical desperate-for-attention atheists. You need to learn something called Logic.
L-O-G-I-K. It would really help you to not embarrass yorself in front of everyone on the forums.

Sock puppet? Nah. Im not his sock puppet, but heres what I have to say to that;
http://images.usatoday.com/life/cyber/photos/usatpetscom1.jpg:p

Skeptical Greg

1st April 2003, 12:43 PM

Because if someone insulted my religon over and over again, after a few weeks I'd get kinda fed up.

Forbid that you should take a closer look at your religion..:rolleyes:

Leif Roar

1st April 2003, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi
ceo_esq

What do you mean it is not clear who I mean by "the Church?" I mean exactly the same people you refer to in your very next sentence as "the Church."

Did you mean the Roman-Catholic church as an institution, did you mean a particular other church, did you mean Christian churches in general, did you mean the clergy within a particular church or even christian clergy in general, or did you mean the sum of the clergy and the congregration of a church? There's also of course the spiritual meaning of "church", as well as the concrete meaning of a church building - but I think we can safely see away from those meanings.

And I think there is support for the claim. Do you think that teaching children to be terrified of masturbating - teaching that it can send them to eternal torture - qualifies as sexual abuse?

I can't think of any common-sensish use of the term "sexual abuse" that would allow you to stretch the term that far.

I think that teaching a person to hate and fear their own natural sexual impulses qualifes as abuse. I think extolling as an exemplar a clearly abnormal situation such as celibacy is abuse. (Not to say there is anything wrong with being celibate: just to say that most people aren't, and there should be nothing wrong with that, either.)

As far as I know, no Christian sect or church holds sexual abstinence or celibacy as a virtue or an ideal. The fact that you seem to believe so, would suggest you are not really well versed in the subject.

I suppose if you restrict abuse to "forcible sexual conduct against another person's will," you could argue that the Church does not endorse sexual abuse - however much it actually practices it, which is currently being investigated.

"However much officials of the church actually practices it" would be a less ambigious way of phrasing it, I think. To say that the Church practices sexual abuse is a bit like saying the Government practices police brutality.

<SNIP>

Darat

1st April 2003, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Man of jade
Darat;
Its the same in not only the Catholic church, But in the religons along those lines... Like the rest of Christianity. Muslims and Islamic people believe something similar, dont they? Its not exactly exclusive.

I never said it was exclusive to Roman Catholicism - that was not my point.

My point was that you were claiming that "Christianity" was about love, happiness etc. I was pointing out that the evidence is quite clear that the religion that claims the most members who label themselves Christian condemns the cast majority of humanity to eternal damnation, even those that also claim to be “Christians".

The RC version of Christianity cannot be described as a religion that is about love and happiness, since one of the central tenants condemns people to eternal damnation – no matter whether they are good or evil.

Skeptical Greg

1st April 2003, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by Leif Roar
As far as I know, no Christian sect or church holds sexual abstinence or celibacy as a virtue or an ideal. The fact that you seem to believe so, would suggest you are not really well versed in the subject.

According to: (http://217.19.224.165/mi/celib01.htm)

"The promise of celibacy is made by the future priest during the ceremony of ordination as a deacon - this is the stage before priesthood. The bishops says to the candidate: "Celibacy is both a sign and a motive of pastoral charity, and a special source of spiritual fruitfulness in the world. By living in this state with total dedication, moved by a sincere love for Christ the Lord, you are consecrated to him in a new and special way. By this consecration you will adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart; you will be more freely at the service of God and mankind. By your life and character you will give witness to your brothers and sisters in faith that God must be loved above all else, and that it is he whom you serve in others."

It would seem to me, that the spirit of ' virtue ' or 'idealism' might be contained in some of the linked information.

Darat

1st April 2003, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Leif Roar

...snip....

As far as I know, no Christian sect or church holds sexual abstinence or celibacy as a virtue or an ideal. The fact that you seem to believe so, would suggest you are not really well versed in the subject.

...snip...

Leif are you saying that the Catholic church doesn't hold celibacy as a virtue for non-married people? I can't see how you can say this since the Church considers it a sin for sex to occur outside of marriage.

Surely if it is a sin to have sex outside of marriage that is the same as saying it is a virtue not to indulge in sex outside of marriage?

What about this from the Catechism?

2337 Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man's belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.

The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift.

and more directly relating to Chasity as a virtue:

2341 The virtue of chastity comes under the cardinal virtue of temperance, which seeks to permeate the passions and appetites of the senses with reason.

and then finally (and I can quote quite a few more examples):

2349 "People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life. Some profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God alone with an undivided heart in a remarkable manner. Others live in the way prescribed for all by the moral law, whether they are married or single. Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence:

There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins. We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others. . . . This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church.

Lucifuge Rofocale

1st April 2003, 03:38 PM

Is there any catholic who knows what exactly their church teach?
It seems to me thay they are in complete denial......you can have the pope talking to them directly and they won't believe what is their real religion. What a brainwash!!!!

Man of jade

1st April 2003, 03:46 PM

Diogenes;
Are you going to be sarcastic or say something of substance?

Darat;
Theres actually something in the bible somewhere that contradicts that. Im not sure where, and dont exactly have the time to find it right now though.

Skeptical Greg

1st April 2003, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Man of jade
Diogenes;
Are you going to be sarcastic or say something of substance?

In this instance, I'm going to stay with sarcastic..

Yahzi seems to be holding up in the substance department..:)

Man of jade

1st April 2003, 05:27 PM

Made up substance a good part of it, might I add.

Skeptical Greg

1st April 2003, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Man of jade
Made up substance a good part of it, might I add.

Just so you will have a head start before he returns, you might have a short list ready.. ( of stuff he made up )...

P.S.
Made up stuff counts too. Or so it would seem, based on the billions of people who would have you believe, this or that...

Man of jade

1st April 2003, 06:25 PM

I think I'll wait till he returns.

Made up stuff counts too. Or so it would seem, based on the billions of people who would have you believe, this or that...
I agree. This pokemon craze has gone too far!

Yahzi

1st April 2003, 07:37 PM

Man of Jade
Because if someone insulted my religon over and over again, after a few weeks I'd get kinda fed up.
So you consider pointing out true, factual accounts of misdeeds of the Church to be insulting?

I think this objection speaks volumes. You are insulted by truth.

Once again, nothing I could say could possibly demean you more than your own words.

Compared to some tribes where women are considered little mor than property, I think its ahead of that by some.
You are doing it again. As evidence that the Catholic Church does good, you are citing practices that are not exclusive to, or originated by, the Catholic Church. If I dare to respond with the observation that Sikhs, Protestants, and Athiests don't treat women like property, you will exclaim, "I didn't say that!"

Can you cite a postive virtue of the Catholic Church that actually stems from the Catholic Church, and not from the culture in which it is embedded? Do you understand why you need to?

Lief Roar
Did you mean the Roman-Catholic church as an institution, did you mean a particular other church, did you mean Christian churches in general, did you mean the clergy within a particular church or even christian clergy in general, or did you mean the sum of the clergy and the congregration of a church? There's also of course the spiritual meaning of "church", as well as the concrete meaning of a church building - but I think we can safely see away from those meanings.
Ceo_esq used the phrase "the Church" in the very next sentence of his post. I mean exactly the same thing he means.

As far as I know, no Christian sect or church holds sexual abstinence or celibacy as a virtue or an ideal. The fact that you seem to believe so, would suggest you are not really well versed in the subject.
:eek:

Where do you people come from? What planet do you live on? What version of the Bible do you read? Why do I have to explain Xian doctrine to so many people?

Darat already more than answered this bizarre comment, but here are my two bits:

Matthew: 5-29

There be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

1 Corinthians:

7.:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

What do you think those passages mean? BTW, in case you don't recognize it, these passages are from the Bible. The Christian Bible. Which the Catholic Church endorses as the Word of God.

"However much officials of the church actually practices it" would be a less ambigious way of phrasing it, I think. To say that the Church practices sexual abuse is a bit like saying the Government practices police brutality.
Fine. Whatever. :rolleyes:

ceo_esq

2nd April 2003, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by Darat
Leif are you saying that the Catholic church doesn't hold celibacy as a virtue for non-married people?
For the sake of accuracy, let me point out that this is redundant, as celibacy technically refers in this context (as in clerical vows) simply to remaining unmarried. Thus, celibacy is the state of all unmarried people, whether or not they practice sexual abstinence.

When I have a chance to review some of the more recent posts, I expect I'll have some more substantive comments.

Darat

2nd April 2003, 05:20 AM

Originally posted by Man of jade
Diogenes;
Are you going to be sarcastic or say something of substance?

Darat;
Theres actually something in the bible somewhere that contradicts that. Im not sure where, and dont exactly have the time to find it right now though.

There are many things that people interpret from Biblical passages however the RC church is very clear on what it’s doctrines are – what I have stated to you is the RC position -not my interpretation or my view on what the Bible says.

In other words you are again missing my point. What I quoted was the official words and doctrine of the Catholic church. What your interpretation of the bible has no reckoning on this matter – we are talking about what a RC believes and lives by.

The Catholic Church is very clear on the question of Baptism and the route to salvation. To put it simply - follow all the Catholic teachings and doctrines undertake the rituals they prescribe and you will be saved - otherwise you won't.

Good deeds, good heart, and your actions do not count.

Darat

2nd April 2003, 05:25 AM

Originally posted by ceo_esq

For the sake of accuracy, let me point out that this is redundant, as celibacy technically refers in this context (as in clerical vows) simply to remaining unmarried. Thus, celibacy is the state of all unmarried people, whether or not they practice sexual abstinence.

When I have a chance to review some of the more recent posts, I expect I'll have some more substantive comments.

You are correct in the RC strict definition of "celibacy" however I would hold that the common use of celibacy in this debate is actually synonmounous with the concept of "no-sex" or chastity as the Church referes to it.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm

Thanz

2nd April 2003, 06:23 AM

Originally posted by Yahzi
Thanz

They could not find a way to do such world-shaking quantities of evil.

Really? That's a shocker. What about Stalin or Hitler? They managed to do pretty world-shaking quantities of evil by taking advantage of systems other than religion.

If you do not understand how systems can be exploited by unscroupulous people to accomplish vastly more wickedness then they could ever hope to achieve from their own devices, then I can't explain it to you.

If you do not understand how systems other than religion can be exploited by unscroupulous people to accomplish vastly more wickedness then they could ever hope to achieve from their own devices, then I can't explain it to you.

No, I give it the credit it is due. It is you that is not giving someone enough credit. You say you left the Catholic Church because their views on sex and women disagreed with your own moral reasoning. Tell me - where did that moral reasoning come from? Why... from you. The entity you are not giving enough credit to is yourself.

And this neatly proves my point: Thanz, who desired to do good, changed his religion because he recognized that the one he started in wasn't good enough. Thanz's goodness does not stem from his religion; rather, his religion stems from his goodness.

Sorry, Yahzi, you cannot separate me from my religious upbringing and instruction that easily. You seem to forget that my religion taught me that the most important thing was to think for myself.

You can chicken and egg all you like, but the fact is we don't know how I would have turned out without the religion in my life. Before you jump on me for that, let me make it perfectly clear that I am not saying that you cannot be a good person without a religious upbringing. I am just saying that I cannot abstract myself from MY religious upbringing to try and assess how I would have been without it.

ceo_esq

2nd April 2003, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by Yahzi
What do you mean it is not clear who I mean by "the Church?" I mean exactly the same people you refer to in your very next sentence as "the Church."
But I was merely restating your claim, partly in an effort to show that it was formulated in a manner far too general to be supported.

As Leif Roar pointed out, the nature (and plausibility) of such a claim varies widely depending upon whether you mean "the Church" to refer to Catholicism as a doctrine or as institution (probably the most sensible interpretation of that broad term in this context), particular subdivisions thereof, its individual adherents or clergy in general, or something else.

I think you have a tendency to slip into this sort of rhetorical pitfall. For example, when asked earlier in this thread if you were biased against religion, you responded "Um... ya... for the various reasons that appear in my posts... like them being pedophiles, theives, and what not" (emphasis mine).

By the unspecified pronoun “them”, it’s not clear whether you meant religions per se (a reasonable interpretation in light of the question, though nonsensical in light of your response), religious believers generally, Catholics more particularly or Catholic clergy specifically. But although such imprecision renders your arguments very problematic, I sense that you don't really care, perhaps because your intent is to indict as broadly as possible "all of the above."
Originally posted by Yahzi
And I think there is support for the claim. Do you think that teaching children to be terrified of masturbating - teaching that it can send them to eternal torture - qualifies as sexual abuse?

I think that teaching a person to hate and fear their own natural sexual impulses qualifes as abuse. I think extolling as an exemplar a clearly abnormal situation such as celibacy is abuse. (Not to say there is anything wrong with being celibate: just to say that most people aren't, and there should be nothing wrong with that, either.)
I'd probably be willing to accept a definition of "sexual abuse" that is arguably broader than "forcible sexual conduct against another person's will" (as you commented), if a good, clearly expressed one were offered. However, I would submit that (as, again, Leif Roar suggested) no definition of "sexual abuse" that retains the ordinary and commonly understood sense of the term could be said to include the types of situations to which you refer above.

I grant that your original claim makes more sense if one accords a an unusual, inventive definition to "sexual abuse". But ought we to do that? In the 80s and 90s, you may recall, there was a movement in certain feminist academic circles to broaden the definition of "rape" to the point where some social science researchers were advocating a definition of rape that included many acts the average person would describe as consensual sexual intercourse. Although arguably some good came of the effort, there was, inevitably, a justifiable backlash against such research, partly on the grounds that an unrigorous, diluted definition of "rape" (even if the lesser conduct was still objectionable) detracted from the uniqueness and seriousness of the conduct in relation to which the traditional definition developed. "Sexual abuse", like "rape", is an incendiary term, and I daresay the average thinking person would intuitively reject your attempt to tar the institutional/doctrinal Church with that brush simply because you find Catholic teaching on sexuality repressive.

That said, I note in passing that here you have (not for the first time) overstated or misstated the Catholic doctrine, not to mention its effect. Take masturbation: it's true that the Church condemns masturbation as "a gravely and instrinsically disordered action.... For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved." However, the Catechism (at 2352) goes on to say that in order "[t]o form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility [for masturbation] and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability." Moral culpability reduced to a minimum? This is not not a teaching apt to terrify children, and it certainly doesn't evoke "eternal torture".

Next, while St. Paul (whom you quoted, I believe) clearly takes a favorable view of celibacy (though arguably his favoring it over the married life is attributable to his belief that the Second Coming was coming any day), neither he nor Jesus presumes to impose it on the faithful. The Church also venerates marriage as a state of life and has lots to say on the subject of its dignity, virtue and sanctity. (In the case of clerical celibacy - and here I think you mean abstinence - it is considered virtuous by the Catholics, but the virtue consists in the voluntary sacrifice of something valuable for the sake of God and the demands the priesthood makes on an individual's time and attention). In sum, the Church does not teach that there's anything inherently wrong with being uncelibate, and it does not attempt to coerce celibacy on believers.

Lucifuge Rofocale

2nd April 2003, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
Sorry, Yahzi, you cannot separate me from my religious upbringing and instruction that easily. You seem to forget that my religion taught me that the most important thing was to think for myself.

Excuse me, what wonderful religion was that?

ceo_esq

2nd April 2003, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by Darat
You are correct in the RC strict definition of "celibacy" however I would hold that the common use of celibacy in this debate is actually synonmounous with the concept of "no-sex" or chastity as the Church referes to it.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm I think you may have misunderstood the meaning of the term "chastity". It does not refer to "no-sex", strictly speaking. It refers to the proper (from the Church's perspective) integration of human sexuality within an individual's life according to his or her circumstances. "Conjugal chastity", for example, a term you quoted earlier from the Catechism, actually includes normal marital sexual relations (but things like committing adultery would violate it).

ceo_esq

2nd April 2003, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by Darat
The Catholic Church is very clear on the question of Baptism and the route to salvation. To put it simply - follow all the Catholic teachings and doctrines undertake the rituals they prescribe and you will be saved - otherwise you won't.

Good deeds, good heart, and your actions do not count.
Regarding baptism and salvation, this is not exactly true of the Catholic Church. Loki and I kicked this issue around (with some useful source references) in this old thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8351).

Good actions, incidentally, are viewed by the Church to be "meritorious" in the context of salvation - one of the things that separates Catholicism from certain strands of Protestantism, I believe.

Thanz

2nd April 2003, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale

Excuse me, what wonderful religion was that?

In Catholic high school religion classes I was taught to have my own well-informed moral conscience.

Lucifuge Rofocale

2nd April 2003, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by Thanz

In Catholic high school religion classes I was taught to have my own well-informed moral conscience.

Is it the same of thinking for yourself? And only in moral issues? Did they told you to think critically about dogma and revelation? And about the pope infalibillity? Did they told you to critically look at the modern miracles endorsed by the church?

Thanz

2nd April 2003, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale

Is it the same of thinking for yourself? And only in moral issues?

No, it is not exactly the same thing. I guess that it is a subset of thinking for yourself. We were not told not to think for ourselves in other areas, however. And we were taught evolution, not creationism, in science classes.

Did they told you to think critically about dogma and revelation? And about the pope infalibillity?

We certainly did think critically about, and debate, these topics. We also learned about and discussed other faiths.

Did they told you to critically look at the modern miracles endorsed by the church?

I honestly don't remember talking about modern miracles endorsed by the church.

Man of jade

2nd April 2003, 10:19 AM

Yahzi;
So you consider pointing out true, factual accounts of misdeeds of the Church to be insulting?

I think this objection speaks volumes. You are insulted by truth.

Once again, nothing I could say could possibly demean you more than your own words.
Yahzi... Learn some logic, here we go again... The fact that it is a true and factual account is not why I am offended by it. I am offended by the fact that you repeatadly post these negative things, and ignore completely all postive things presented.(which arent sarcastic)

You are doing it again. As evidence that the Catholic Church does good, you are citing practices that are not exclusive to, or originated by, the Catholic Church. If I dare to respond with the observation that Sikhs, Protestants, and Athiests don't treat women like property, you will exclaim, "I didn't say that!"

Can you cite a postive virtue of the Catholic Church that actually stems from the Catholic Church, and not from the culture in which it is embedded? Do you understand why you need to?
Sorry Yahzi, Im not that predictable. Ill get back to this after you answer a point that you ignored.

Yahzi, you have yet to explain your logic behind your claim that I said Happiness in marriage is exclusive to Catholic weddings. Lets quote this text again...
Marriage. Ive actually been to severl Catholic weddings, and everybody said something along the lines of; "This is the happiest day of my life."
From my statement here, explain your logic as to how I said it is exclusive.
I ask everybody looking at this text here, to say whether they think Yahzi is correct in his wild, unsupported assumption which he has yet to support.

Yahzi

2nd April 2003, 01:29 PM

Thanz
Arguing with you people is like herding cats.

They managed to do pretty world-shaking quantities of evil by taking advantage of systems other than religion.
I never said otherwise. In the context of the discussion at that particular time, we were discussing whether systems allowed people to magnify the good or evil they would be capable of on their own. You have now conceded the original point, morphed your objection to that original claim into an objection to a claim I never made, and are merrily proceeding with the argument, eager to prove the atheist wrong, and blissfully unaware of any logical consistency.

You can chicken and egg all you like, but the fact is we don't know how I would have turned out without the religion in my life.
(sigh) Back to the "you can't prove it's false" defense. Is that the only argument you people can muster?

Nonetheless, I will respond: Given that billions of people grow up to be moral without the benefit of your particular religion, and given that you are more moral than your original religion, doesn't that rather strongly imply that morality is not intrisnic to religion?

Sorry, Yahzi, you cannot separate me from my religious upbringing and instruction that easily.
I don't have to. You've already done it. If your religious upbringing was so important, then why did you abandon it? Surely you realize the difficulties in promoting religion for teaching you to "think for yourself." Shades of Jade - lots of systems do that. Do you think the Church teaches you to think for yourself as a core religious value, or as a culturally imbedded value? Given that they would excommunicate you for thinking for yourself about homosexuality, what does that say about their priorities?

ceo_esq
(probably the most sensible interpretation of that broad term in this context)
Here's an thought: instead of raising tedious semantic objections, why not just assume I mean the most sensible thing, until proven otherwise? If you can extract my meaning from context, then what is the point in demanding that I explicitly state it, except to show off how ineffabley clever your debating skills are?

In sum, the Church does not teach that there's anything inherently wrong with being uncelibate, and it does not attempt to coerce celibacy on believers.
Double-talk worthy of a Jesuit. If you will recall, the original claim was that the Church promotes celibacy as a virtue, an ideal to be emulated. Your entire post concedes that point. One then has to wonder what relevance your conclusion has to the discussion at hand.

Furthermore, your conclusion is wrong. They do coerece celibacy on unmarried believers. And they discourage sexual relations amongst married believers by compelling them to undergo the risk of pregnancy. I don't know about you, but in general I've noticed that women are less likely to have sex if they are afraid of becoming pregnant when they don't want to be pregnant. But of course, in your world of "nothing wrong with failing to live up to the highest ideals," this won't count as coercion.

Man of Jade
The fact that it is a true and factual account is not why I am offended by it. I am offended by the fact that you repeatadly post these negative things, and ignore completely all postive things presented.(which arent sarcastic)
All of the positives you have presented are features of the culture the Catholic Church exists in. They do not exist because of, but rather, in spite of Catholic teaching. Catholicism was forced to relent on its harsher teachings by society at large - as you have already conceded. Therefore, citing virtues that the Church has had thrust upon it does not count as citing virtues of the Church's doctrine.

I begin to suspect that you truly don't understand.

I ask everybody looking at this text here, to say whether they think Yahzi is correct in his wild, unsupported assumption which he has yet to support
I asked you to cite a positive feature of Catholic doctrine.

You responded by saying Catholic weddings were happy events.

This automaticaly implies that you think happy weddings are a feature of Catholic doctrine. Since we are debating the Catholic church vs no Catholic church, this implies that you think happy weddings are an exclusive feature of the Catholic church, and would not exist if there were no Catholic church.

For you to demonstrate that Catholic doctrine offers positive benefits, you have to show that it offers benefits that would not be available without the existance of Catholic doctrine. Otherwise you're just showing that Catholic dcotrine is no worse than having no doctrine at all.

The other alternative is that you weren't actually answering my question, but just making comments at random. You could have just as easily said that the Nazis put people to work, or that cannibals don't set forest fires. Any of these statements would have been just as relevant.

I also appeal to the audience to explain to Jade how the English language works. Although I suspect the problem is logical in nature, and hence beyond our powers to repair.

Thanz

2nd April 2003, 02:43 PM

This post is an example of why arguing with you is so f***ing annoying. You take quotes out of context, claim that they say something that they don't, and then argue against that. If there is something that you have no answer for, you simply ignore it and hope it will go away. You're arguing style reminds me of Franko. But anyway....

Originally posted by Yahzi
Thanz

I never said otherwise. In the context of the discussion at that particular time, we were discussing whether systems allowed people to magnify the good or evil they would be capable of on their own. You have now conceded the original point, morphed your objection to that original claim into an objection to a claim I never made, and are merrily proceeding with the argument, eager to prove the atheist wrong, and blissfully unaware of any logical consistency.

Hold it there buddy. Let's recap, shall we?

I asked Evil people would not find a way to do evil if they could not exploit the church?

and you responded thusly:

They could not find a way to do such world-shaking quantities of evil.

The question I asked was specifically directed to the Church and whether evil people could find a way to do evil without it. You directly responded that they could not. I gave you the examples of Hitler and Stalin as examples of people (perhaps the two greatest examples) who did great evil without the Church.

So don't give me any song and dance about how we were discussing "systems" because we were not. We were discussing the church specifically, and I challenged your reasoning that good people would go good anyway but evil people would somehow be stymied without the church.

Back to the "you can't prove it's false" defense. Is that the only argument you people can muster?

I am not making this claim at all. It is you who claimed "Thanz's goodness does not stem from his religion; rather, his religion stems from his goodness." I merely pointed out that this is impossible to know, as the rest of the paragraph you took this from makes clear. If you have some sort of crystal ball that tells you otherwise, I'd like to see it.

Given that billions of people grow up to be moral without the benefit of your particular religion, and given that you are more moral than your original religion, doesn't that rather strongly imply that morality is not intrisnic to religion?

I'm not sure I get what you are saying here. I never claimed that morality was exclusive to religion. But moral teaching is an intrinsic part of religion.

I don't have to. You've already done it. If your religious upbringing was so important, then why did you abandon it?

I did not "abandon" my religious upbringing - I merely shifted it a little. I am still Christian. Anglicanism is very close to Catholicism - this is why I referred to it as "Catholic Lite". All the Jesus, half the guilt.

Surely you realize the difficulties in promoting religion for teaching you to "think for yourself." Shades of Jade - lots of systems do that.

sigh. Did I ever say that they didn't? You have been criticising the Catholic Church. I pointed out from my experience, it was not as bad as you believe.

Do you think the Church teaches you to think for yourself as a core religious value, or as a culturally imbedded value? Given that they would excommunicate you for thinking for yourself about homosexuality, what does that say about their priorities?

You really are off base here, especially with the example you gave. In my last year of high school religion class, one of my major projects was on the topic of homosexuality. In that project I did indeed "think for myself" and was critical of the Church's stance on the issue. Was I excommunicated? No. In fact, I was awarded the theology academic award at graduation.

Man of jade

2nd April 2003, 02:53 PM

Yahzi;
All of the positives you have presented are features of the culture the Catholic Church exists in. They do not exist because of, but rather, in spite of Catholic teaching. Catholicism was forced to relent on its harsher teachings by society at large - as you have already conceded.
Wha? I seemed to have missed this part. Where was this again?
asked you to cite a positive feature of Catholic doctrine.

You responded by saying Catholic weddings were happy events.

This automaticaly implies that you think happy weddings are a feature of Catholic doctrine. Since we are debating the Catholic church vs no Catholic church, this implies that you think happy weddings are an exclusive feature of the Catholic church, and would not exist if there were no Catholic church.
You're mostly right.
Up until "this implies" anyway. Then you start making a mountain out of a molehill.

Since we are debating the Catholic church vs no Catholic church, this implies that you think happy weddings are an exclusive feature of the Catholic church,

That is nothing more than a wild assumption and an unruly intrepretation. We are debating about catholic church vs. no church, but just because I say Catholic Churches have happy weddings doesnt automaticly mean I think that theres no other way a wedding can be happy.
Also, try saying instead of "this implies" say "this may imply." The way that you are saying it implies that there can be no other interpretation, that only you know what I said. If I said "only" before that statement, you would have been right. But your not. You just had a blatent misinterpretation.

Arguing with you is like eating a chocolate bar, theres no real nutrition in it.
Double-talk worthy of a Jesuit.
Gee, Racist too?

citing virtues that the Church has had thrust upon it does not count as citing virtues of the Church's doctrine.
First... Do you have proof that values were "thrust upon" the church? If so, by whom, and why? Even then, could it be that these values werent actually thrust upon, but adopted by the church?
Your basically saying that if you were taught something by the church, that its not something the church teaches.

I begin to suspect that you truly don't understand.
Ive been a Catholic my whole life, and you havent. Saying that you know more about what it is to be "truly catholic" because you made a few analogies is seriously illogical. Imagine me saying "Ive been a catholic all my life, but I know exactly what it means to be truly atheist. And you arent, because I said so."

I also appeal to the audience to explain to Jade how the English language works. Although I suspect the problem is logical in nature, and hence beyond our powers to repair.
Sorry. I should have put "but just because Catholic weddings are happy, that doesnt mean that a wedding of any other religon cannot be the same way." Then maybe you wouldnt have taken the most opposing interpretation there was.

c4ts

2nd April 2003, 03:10 PM

I went to a Jewish wedding once. The bride and groom both said it was the happiest day in their lives.

shecky

2nd April 2003, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by Man of jade

Double-talk worthy of a Jesuit.

Gee, Racist too?

Racist?!?

Man of jade

2nd April 2003, 05:12 PM

Yes, he made a racist comment towards Jesuits there.

Leif Roar

2nd April 2003, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Man of jade
Yes, he made a racist comment towards Jesuits there.

I've heard about the three sexes of male, female and clergy, but I don't really think you can consider Jesuits their own ethnic group.

ceo_esq

3rd April 2003, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by Yahzi
Here's an thought: instead of raising tedious semantic objections, why not just assume I mean the most sensible thing, until proven otherwise? If you can extract my meaning from context, then what is the point in demanding that I explicitly state it, except to show off how ineffabley clever your debating skills are?
Wait a second. I said that construing “the Church” to mean the RCC writ large – the institutional/doctrinal Church – was, all things being equal, the most reasonable ordinary interpretation of that term. However, it also happens to be the interpretation that renders the claim (that “the Church practices sexual abuse”) least reasonable – hence the dilemma for your readers. Would you prefer that they conclude (1) that you are making a ludicrously broad assertion, or (2) that you are making an allegation that might be defensible but only if you clarify its object? I’m willing to assume that you intend for your words to be taken in their usual and ordinary sense, but I’d also like to assume that you intend to convey claims that, read in their entirety, are plausible. In this case, those two assumptions are at cross-purposes. The implications for your argument, I think it can fairly be said, are not merely semantic. I apologize if I came across as a pedant, however.
Originally posted by Yahzi
Double-talk worthy of a Jesuit. If you will recall, the original claim was that the Church promotes celibacy as a virtue, an ideal to be emulated. Your entire post concedes that point. One then has to wonder what relevance your conclusion has to the discussion at hand.
The relevance, I think, is this: the original claim implied that the Church promoted the celibate state of life at the expense of its opposite (the married state and its attendant sexual aspect), when in fact, the Church also promotes marriage. In my view, this is an important qualification to be made to the original claim.

The actual “virtue” the Church seeks to promote here is chastity (http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm) – whether in the context of sexually active life or of sexual abstinence.
Originally posted by Yahzi
Furthermore, your conclusion is wrong. They do coerece celibacy on unmarried believers. And they discourage sexual relations amongst married believers by compelling them to undergo the risk of pregnancy. I don't know about you, but in general I've noticed that women are less likely to have sex if they are afraid of becoming pregnant when they don't want to be pregnant. But of course, in your world of "nothing wrong with failing to live up to the highest ideals," this won't count as coercion.
The Church exhorts unmarried persons to practice sexual abstinence for the reasons described in the link I provided above. However, at the same time the Church greatly commends and celebrates the virtues of marriage (and sexuality), and most believers, of course, do marry, making my conclusion at least less wrong than yours was. In addition, with a few qualifications, the Church does not discourage sexual relations between married persons. You may have noticed that, more often than not, Catholic couples aspire to good-sized families and, in fact, there do seem to be a lot of them. All of this is a lot different from a general policy of forced sexual abstinence, and it’s certainly a far cry from teaching people to hate and fear their sexuality, or whatever your earlier statement was. You appear to imply that any regulation or moderation of human sexual impulses – on whatever basis – is an unwarranted coercion. Is that the case?

By the way, can anyone in ordinary circumstances properly be said to be “compelled to undergo the risk of pregnancy”?
Originally posted by Yahzi
All of the positives you have presented are features of the culture the Catholic Church exists in. They do not exist because of, but rather, in spite of Catholic teaching. Catholicism was forced to relent on its harsher teachings by society at large - as you have already conceded. Therefore, citing virtues that the Church has had thrust upon it does not count as citing virtues of the Church's doctrine.
Not to interject myself into your side discussion with Man of Jade, but some perspective is in order here. It’s useful to recall that the Catholic Church has been over the long term, for better or for worse, the single most formative influence upon the culture in which it exists, making the culture arguably more a product of the Church than vice versa. Obviously, there are aspects of Western culture that diverge from Catholic ideology, but nonetheless it’s difficult to identify many cultural elements in the West that exist entirely “in spite of” the Church.

Recall also the discussion in the thread “The evolution of secular and religious morality” (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9763), wherein I think it was effectively shown that the Church having moral virtue thrust upon it by secular society is, historically, by no means the rule.

BillyTK

3rd April 2003, 09:31 AM

Hi Ceo (and Yahzi), I've been following your conversation with great interest and have found both your positions illuminating. But I've got some questions...

The relevance, I think, is this: the original claim implied that the Church promoted the celibate state of life at the expense of its opposite (the married state and its attendant sexual aspect), when in fact, the Church also promotes marriage. In my view, this is an important qualification to be made to the original claim.
But the church promotes celibacy at the expense of marriage for the clergy, who were the focus of this thread. Admittedly, the Catholic church is not a special case wrt the prevalence of sexual abuse in society, but the authoritarian nature of the Church heirarchy in combination with enforced celibacy means that those with abusive tendencies are more likely to express those tendencies.

The actual “virtue” the Church seeks to promote here is chastity (http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm) – whether in the context of sexually active life or of sexual abstinence.

The Church exhorts unmarried persons to practice sexual abstinence for the reasons described in the link I provided above. However, at the same time the Church greatly commends and celebrates the virtues of marriage (and sexuality), and most believers, of course, do marry, making my conclusion at least less wrong than yours was. In addition, with a few qualifications, the Church does not discourage sexual relations between married persons. You may have noticed that, more often than not, Catholic couples aspire to good-sized families and, in fact, there do seem to be a lot of them. All of this is a lot different from a general policy of forced sexual abstinence, and it’s certainly a far cry from teaching people to hate and fear their sexuality, or whatever your earlier statement was. You appear to imply that any regulation or moderation of human sexual impulses – on whatever basis – is an unwarranted coercion. Is that the case?

By the way, can anyone in ordinary circumstances properly be said to be “compelled to undergo the risk of pregnancy”?
Well yes, if the alternate is the denial of sexual feelings which outside of the Church you would be able to express without risk of sanction. Catechism 2370 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#2370) states quite clearly that anything which prevents conception is intrinsically evil. So the Church doesn't explicitly discourage marital sexual relations, but the suggestion is that such relations should be for the purpose of procreation, at least by implication in that no attempt should be made to avoid the risk of procreation.

It's true that Catholic doctrines don't explicitly teach fear of sexuality (unless it's of homosexuality (http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#2357)) but it does advocate the repression of sexual feelings other than for very particular circumstances. Regulation and moderation of human impulses is one thing, but denial is something else entirely.

Edited to fix links

shecky

3rd April 2003, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Man of jade
Yes, he made a racist comment towards Jesuits there.

Help me out here. I missed the racist Jesuit reference.

Man of jade

3rd April 2003, 10:36 AM

The racist comment was the one I quoted back there. At least it may be percieved as racist. He assumes in it that all Jesuits are double talkers. A negative comment towards a group of people is racism, at least in my eyes.

marxist2

3rd April 2003, 10:44 AM

35% of the population of the United States died in the Triangle Shirtwaist Company Fire. This fire was supported the Devil Herbert Spencer, who falsely quoted the Great MONKIE supporter Darwin in that, "Survival of the Richest!"

He is evil! All of his works are EVIL! He is the leader of the Undersea Water Tofu armies, that have aligned themselves with him and the other anti-MONKIES to take over the world! Repent to the great HOLY monkies who will save you from the evil of those who follow the tofu EMPIRE! REPENT AND SPANK THE EVIL FROM THE WORLD!

BillyTK

3rd April 2003, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by Man of jade
The racist comment was the one I quoted back there. At least it may be percieved as racist. He assumes in it that all Jesuits are double talkers. A negative comment towards a group of people is racism, at least in my eyes.

But only if that group have a common ethnicity, which the Jesuits don't.

Man of jade

3rd April 2003, 11:13 AM

From Dictionary.com;
racist

adj 1: based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks" 2: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion [syn: antiblack, anti-Semitic, anti-Semite(a)] n : a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others [syn: racialist]

Sorry, doesnt seem to be the case.

ceo_esq

3rd April 2003, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK
But the church promotes celibacy at the expense of marriage for the clergy, who were the focus of this thread. Admittedly, the Catholic church is not a special case wrt the prevalence of sexual abuse in society, but the authoritarian nature of the Church heirarchy in combination with enforced celibacy means that those with abusive tendencies are more likely to express those tendencies.
Fair point. It’s true that for the tiny minority of Catholics who are already priests, the promotion of celibacy is not balanced by the promotion of marriage. But does that observation really bolster, in any meaningful way, the earlier sweeping allegation that the Church as a rule forcibly represses its adherents’ sexuality to the point of constituting a form of abuse? The Church doesn’t coerce anyone into becoming a priest, nun or monk; I imagine those vocations are only available to believers who express a knowing and voluntary desire to make the associated sacrifices.

On the topic of clerical celibacy, I would also point out that the rule imposing celibacy upon priests is not a doctrinal teaching of Catholicism; it’s an administrative policy adopted by the Church. For Catholic priests, there’s obviously a theological dimension to celibacy that links the practice to venerable traditions of asceticism, but primarily it’s a matter of discipline and practicality in view of the demands the priesthood places on individuals and their personal lives. By way of analogy, consider the various restrictions on marriage that historically have been associated with military service in certain contexts. (Here I’m restating my observation from the "Celibacy for priests" (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14515) thread.)

I'm not aware of any evidence of a causal link between the priestly celibacy requirement and sexual abuse. Given that the typical child sexual abuser is a married man, I query whether any such evidence is likely to be forthcoming.

shecky

3rd April 2003, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by Man of jade
From Dictionary.com;

Sorry, doesnt seem to be the case.

I contend that you and dictionary.com are incorrect. However, their example of "anti-Semite" as racist is correct, since it can (and often does in real life) refer to ethnicity and not specifically religion. The key with this example is that Judaism is often linked closely with ethnicity. This is not the case with the Jesuit order.

FWIW, my Webster's hard copy dictionary makes no mention of religion in any definition of racism or related words.

Yahzi

3rd April 2003, 12:41 PM

Thanz
I challenged your reasoning that good people would go good anyway but evil people would somehow be stymied without the church.
But this doesn't make any sense. I never implied that the church was the only way to do evil. Why did you spend three posts proving to me that there are other systems that allow people to do evil when I never, in any way, suggested otherwise?

We were talking about good and evil people within the church. Did you miss that?

My claim is that evil people can use badly flawed systems to commit more evil than they could on their own individually. I maintain that the church is an example of a badly flawed system, because it is based on falsehood and faith.

Is this clear now? Mind you, I'm not even trying to prove anything here, I'm just trying to make it clear what we are talking about. Since some people seem so confused.

I merely pointed out that this is impossible to know
It is impossible to know either way. So the ancedote can serve neither of our positions. So why the hell did you bring it up in the first place?

I did not "abandon" my religious upbringing - I merely shifted it a little.
The Pope says you are going to Hell, right next to me. Seems like a pretty big difference for such a little shift.

Was I excommunicated?
It is not my job to explain why Catholic doctrine and Catholic practice in America are inconsistent.

Man of Jade
Wha? I seemed to have missed this part. Where was this again?
I know for sure that the teachings of the church changed, and that society did intervene,but it is not completely one or the other.
This is the last time I look up your own quotes for you.

We are debating about catholic church vs. no church, but just because I say Catholic Churches have happy weddings doesnt automaticly mean I think that theres no other way a wedding can be happy
Do you understaned what the word "relevance" means? Your point seems to be that a positive feature of the CC is that it has happy weddings, despite the fact that if the CC never existed, people would still have happy weddings. So how, exactly, does this reflect well on the CC? Weddings would be just as happy without the CC. So why bring it up in the first place?

You just had a blatent misinterpretation.
I provided another interpretation - that you were not answering my question, but simply making irrelvant comments. We see now that was the case.

In the future, please limit your posts to me to actual responses. I don't have the time or inclination to read your random comments.

Yahzi "Double-talk worthy of a Jesuit."

Man of Jade: "Gee, Racist too?"
:eek:

A negative comment towards a group of people is racism, at least in my eyes.
Oh, you mean "prejudice."

Dude, it's way hard to have a conversation with someone who uses the wrong word so frequently. I can't dispute your answers if you can't even formulate them correctly. This is a polite way of saying you might be too stupid for me to talk to.

And accusing Jesuits of double-talk isn't a prejudice, it's a fact. Do you know nothing of Catholic history?

Sorry, doesnt seem to be the case.
What doesn't seem to be the case? A logical inference would be that you think my comment qualified as racist since it was directed against a religion. But Jesuits aren't a religion, they are a particular organization within a religion (like the Accounting office or the Warehouse division of a company.) Thus, while my term can be construed as prejudiced, there is no way in which it qualifies as racist. Futhermore, I dispute the entire definition that racism can be based on religion, or that Semitism is a religion.

But all that assumes a logical inference to guess what you meant to say. Why am I even bothering? If you can't make it clear what you mean, I am going to stop responding.

Your basically saying that if you were taught something by the church, that its not something the church teaches.
Not that there is any chance you'll understand, but here goes anyway: What I am saying is that if you are taught something by the church that does not stem from the church's doctrines, but rather from the cultural the church is imbedded in, then the church cannot claim credit for the teaching.

If you buy a cool computer game, and then give it to your friend, you can't tell your friend you wrote the game. See?

Sorry. I should have put "but just because Catholic weddings are happy, that doesnt mean that a wedding of any other religon cannot be the same way." Then maybe you wouldnt have taken the most opposing interpretation there was.
But then it would have been obvious that you weren't answering the original question. I only made my mistaken interpretation because I assumed you were actually trying to answer my question. Once I surrender that forlorn hope, then yes, it becomes clear I attached excess assumptions to your random comment.

ceo_esq
Ok. You win. THe RC's stance on sexuality is unhealthy and immoral, but doesn't qualify as sexual abuse given the normally understood meaning of the term.

And teaching children that after they die they will be tortured for eternity doesn't qualify as child abuse.

Seriously. It doesn't. But maybe it should.

By the way, can anyone in ordinary circumstances properly be said to be “compelled to undergo the risk of pregnancy”?
I think that threatening eternal torment for using birth control qualifies a compulsion. Don't you?

All of this is a lot different from a general policy of forced sexual abstinence, and it’s certainly a far cry from teaching people to hate and fear their sexuality, or whatever your earlier statement was
You cite a link describing masturbation as "a grave and serious error," but because they then bend over backward to make excuses that might or might not apply to any individual, that makes it ok. Except of course for the individual to whom they choose not to apply excuses.

You acknowledge that unmarried people are compelled to abstinence, but since married people can have sex, that makes it not compulsion. Except of course for people who aren't married.

I will acknowledge this much: the RC is not nearly as harsh on sexuality as the Christian fundamentalism. But I don't really consider 1,700 years of double-talk to create wiggle room as exculpatory.

The fact remains that the Xian faith, and by extension the RC, uphold celibacy as a virtue, an ideal, a goal to be strived for, a mark of special distinction. It is this celebration of the patently abnormal that I object to.

You appear to imply that any regulation or moderation of human sexual impulses – on whatever basis – is an unwarranted coercion
No. I only object to regulation on a non-rational basis.

It’s useful to recall that the Catholic Church has been over the long term, for better or for worse, the single most formative influence upon the culture in which it exists, making the culture arguably more a product of the Church than vice versa.
This is a different argument. There was acutally a thread on it around here somewhere. I agree that there are difficulties in extracting the two, but luckily for my purposes, I don't need to bother. I can simply focus on homosexuality and abortion for nine-year old rape victims, since society by and large accepts these and the RC does not.

Yahzi

3rd April 2003, 12:55 PM

Shecky

Merriam-Webster Online
http://www.m-w.com/home.htm

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
Date: 1936
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

Neither does MW. Apparently there is a special dictionary for internet trolls, that contains exactly the definition you need to confound those intellectual types!

I tried reporting this error to Dictionary.com... and guess what, their error reporting feature does not work. Why am I not surprised?

:D

Man of jade

3rd April 2003, 04:20 PM

Yahzi;
What doesn't seem to be the case? A logical inference would be that you think my comment qualified as racist since it was directed against a religion. But Jesuits aren't a religion, they are a particular organization within a religion (like the Accounting office or the Warehouse division of a company.) Thus, while my term can be construed as prejudiced, there is no way in which it qualifies as racist. Futhermore, I dispute the entire definition that racism can be based on religion, or that Semitism is a religion.

But all that assumes a logical inference to guess what you meant to say. Why am I even bothering? If you can't make it clear what you mean, I am going to stop responding.
Using your accounting analogy, accounting is still part of a company. In the same way, Jesuits are still (gasp!) part of the Catholic Church, and you are therefore still discriminating against the church.
Oh, you looked up Racism. Not Racist. Try looking up racist in the link below.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=racist

You say that Anti-Semitic isnt racist. Lets look up dictionary.com again...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anti-semitic

Everybody makes mistakes. Sorry Yahzi, but you arent the king of the world, and you are wrong sometimes. So dont immediatly say "I AM right and you arent" because you can never be sure.

Next point... You havent offered any proof for this claim.
Catholicism was forced to relent on its harsher teachings by society at large - as you have already conceded.
Where did I concede that Catholicism was forced to relent on its teachings by society? I havent found that in my posts, or can you point it out by again making something up.
Do you understaned what the word "relevance" means? Your point seems to be that a positive feature of the CC is that it has happy weddings, despite the fact that if the CC never existed, people would still have happy weddings. So how, exactly, does this reflect well on the CC? Weddings would be just as happy without the CC. So why bring it up in the first place?
My point here is that the CC has a more advanced culture than others. I brought up the fact earlier about other cultures not having equality for women. In those cultures a wedding might not be happy/as happy. Take a look at Some of the muslim countries in the middle east, where women are forced to marry. Would you think theyd be happy as happy then?

Yahzi

3rd April 2003, 11:27 PM

you are therefore still discriminating against the church
Actually, my comment was meant mostly as a jest. Unfortunately, you don't know enough about the Catholic Church to get the joke. Instead, you went winging off about racism, much to everyone's surprise. Go tell a Jesuit I accused him of double-talk, and see what his reaction is. It's a long standing issue. I do believe the first person to accuse a Jesuit of double-talk was another Catholic.

You say that Anti-Semitic isnt racist.
No, I said that Semitism is not a religion. Your literacy skills are quite handicapped, aren't they?

Where did I concede that Catholicism was forced to relent on its teachings by society?
Earlier in this very thread. I quoted you. The second page of this thread, 19th post down from the top.

You don't even recognize your own words? Do you even read the crap you type?

My point here is that the CC has a more advanced culture than others. I brought up the fact earlier about other cultures not having equality for women. In those cultures a wedding might not be happy/as happy. Take a look at Some of the muslim countries in the middle east, where women are forced to marry. Would you think theyd be happy as happy then?
Spoken like a true child of God. Well, a child anyway.

But let's try to focus on the point. Are you asserting that the our society has a more advanced treatment of women because of Catholic doctrine?

Oh, and here's a hint: women are generally happy on their wedding day in all cultures. Even in those places where the parents chose the husband, most parents love their daughters, and try to choose a husband that will make them happy. I agree that women are better off in our society, but the happiness of wedding days has probably not changed for several thousand years. If you want to talk about the way women's lives have been improved by Western culture, you should talk about things like equality and birth control. Oh wait. The CC rejects both of those.

Tell me why women can't become priests. Go on, I want to see if you know.

***

Seriously, this guy sounds more and more like Muscleman every day. Has anybody else noticed that?

BillyTK

4th April 2003, 01:39 AM

ceo_esq, thanks for your comments.

Fair point. It’s true that for the tiny minority of Catholics who are already priests, the promotion of celibacy is not balanced by the promotion of marriage. But does that observation really bolster, in any meaningful way, the earlier sweeping allegation that the Church as a rule forcibly represses its adherents’ sexuality to the point of constituting a form of abuse? The Church doesn’t coerce anyone into becoming a priest, nun or monk; I imagine those vocations are only available to believers who express a knowing and voluntary desire to make the associated sacrifices.
I'm happy to concede that at least priests, nuns and monks in the Catholic church consent to celibacy as part of assuming there clerical role. But as far as believers go, whilst I'm sure there are Catholics who chose the faith in full awareness of the Church's requirements, but I'd hazard the majority are brought up within the Church with no consent on their part, and often no ability to pass consent on their part, and are exposed to these excessively repressive doctrines regarding sexuality at an impressionable age. Because of that imo it's not simply a case of being a Catholic vs stop being a Catholic as much as it's time to change the doctrine.

But does the Church's regulation of its adherents' sexuality constitute abuse? The problem seems to be that understanding of abuse focuses on the on the pathology of the abuser. Because of this, the Church cannot be an abuser because it's an institution not a person. It would require a redefinition how abuse can be perpetrated before this could happen, but I'm not confident that such a thing could happen.

On the topic of clerical celibacy, I would also point out that the rule imposing celibacy upon priests is not a doctrinal teaching of Catholicism; it’s an administrative policy adopted by the Church. For Catholic priests, there’s obviously a theological dimension to celibacy that links the practice to venerable traditions of asceticism, but primarily it’s a matter of discipline and practicality in view of the demands the priesthood places on individuals and their personal lives. By way of analogy, consider the various restrictions on marriage that historically have been associated with military service in certain contexts. (Here I’m restating my observation from the "Celibacy for priests" (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14515) thread.)
I admit I equivocate on the issue of celibacy because as a lapsed Catholic I understand the significance of celibacy for the clergy and to the congregation. But...

I'm not aware of any evidence of a causal link between the priestly celibacy requirement and sexual abuse. Given that the typical child sexual abuser is a married man, I query whether any such evidence is likely to be forthcoming.

I'd never claim that celibacy is causal, but rather a correlate in combination with the pathology of the priest (tendencies towards abuse) and the Church institution (authority, secrecy and trust of the congregation). Fundamentally it seems to be about power and the willingness to abuse that power--hence the significance of marital status amongst abusers. I doubt too that any evidence will be forthcoming on the relationship between celibacy and abuse, simply because I don't imagine the Church would allow it.

Man of jade

4th April 2003, 11:31 AM

Yahzi;
Actually, my comment was meant mostly as a jest. Unfortunately, you don't know enough about the Catholic Church to get the joke. Instead, you went winging off about racism, much to everyone's surprise. Go tell a Jesuit I accused him of double-talk, and see what his reaction is. It's a long standing issue. I do believe the first person to accuse a Jesuit of double-talk was another Catholic.
Tell that to the six million Jews that were killed in germany. It started off with "did you hear the one about the two jews" and then thats pretty much all that was left. Regardless of whether it was a joke or not, racism is still racism. Racist words may eventually spawn into actions, just like what happened in the Nazi regime.

Sorry, I made a mistake in my last post, so im going to go back a step.
I dispute the entire definition that racism can be based on religion, or that Semitism is a religion.
Racism cannot be based on religon? What happened in WWII?
Semitism isnt a religon. How is this relavent?

Are these the only two options or could it be both, or even a mix of other options?
I know for sure that the teachings of the church changed, and that society did intervene,but it is not completely one or the other.
This is what I said that you would most likely percieve to be me admitting that the church relented on its harsher teachings. I never said once in here that the church relented on its harsher teachings. Can you please specify the word "harsher" there?
(If you meant "well we were talking about this and this word implies this which implies this" then its only one interpretation. I almost never post something and take its meaning to be implied. So if you take it to mean something, thats most likely not what I meant.)

Yahzi, please grow up and stop insulting me or I will leave the thread. If you cant have any more maturity than a high school bully then I'll just leave the thread.

Yahzi

4th April 2003, 12:02 PM

ceo_esq
Given that the Church condemns masturbation for adult, married men, and given that everything we know about sexuality tells us it is normal and healthy for adult, married men to masturbate, does that count as abuse or just oppression?

Man of Jade
Regardless of whether it was a joke or not, racism is still racism.
Except that accusing Jesuits of double-talk is not racism. Jesuits are not a race. Ergo, being prejudiced against them cannot be racism. Catholics are not a race, and being prejudiced against them is not racism.

Racism cannot be based on religon? What happened in WWII?
Judeaism is both a religion and a race. I realize this is a complicated concept, and will be a perpetual source of confusion for you. Also, the Nazis weren't exactly rational, so I don't think they are the best choice for your word definitions. The Nazis didn't think Jesus was a Jew, ok? Not rational.

Semitism isnt a religon. How is this relavent?
You now want me to explain my corrections of your mis-understandings? Are you purposefully being difficult, or are you truly just that stupid?

Can you please specify the word "harsher" there?
How about you just explain what you meant in the first place? When you conceded that the Church had been changed by society, exactly what were you referring to?

Everytime I make a logical assumption about what you must have meant, you get annoyed. So now I will assume that the comments you make don't have any particular relevance to the conversation at all. You are like a parrot; you utter phrases that seem like well-constructed English sentences, but actually contain no semantic content at all.

You don't understand this conversation, you don't understand Catholic doctrine, you don't understand logic. Honestly, I am surprised that you can operate a computer.

Yahzi, please grow up and stop insulting me or I will leave the thread.
I have come to the conclusion that either a) you are a troll, and are playing stupid just to frustrate people, or b) you are mentally handicapped. Either way this conversation has become utterly pointless, and the suspicion that you might actually be mentally handicapped has eliminated the joy of watching you make a fool of yourself.

Regretfully, I am putting you on /ignore.

Regretfully, because my list is probably full, and some other dweeb will now appear on my screen.

Man of jade

4th April 2003, 12:11 PM

It appears that Yahzi cant rise above petty insult. I pity him. Oh well.:(

shecky

5th April 2003, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by Man of jade

Yahzi, please grow up and stop insulting me or I will leave the thread. If you cant have any more maturity than a high school bully then I'll just leave the thread.

Seems to me you're being consistently dense at this point. So why don't you just leave already?

Darat

5th April 2003, 02:08 AM

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I think you may have misunderstood the meaning of the term "chastity". It does not refer to "no-sex", strictly speaking. It refers to the proper (from the Church's perspective) integration of human sexuality within an individual's life according to his or her circumstances. "Conjugal chastity", for example, a term you quoted earlier from the Catechism, actually includes normal marital sexual relations (but things like committing adultery would violate it).

ceo_esq quite happy to discuss chastity & celibacy in more detail but it is derailing the central discussion here slightly.

A simple way to get to the point I wanted to make is the following statement.

According to the Catholic Church ANY act of physical sex outside of a marriage (recognised by the Church) is sinful.

Do you disagree with this statement?

Darat

5th April 2003, 02:14 AM

Originally posted by ceo_esq

Regarding baptism and salvation, this is not exactly true of the Catholic Church. Loki and I kicked this issue around (with some useful source references) in this old thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8351).

Good actions, incidentally, are viewed by the Church to be "meritorious" in the context of salvation - one of the things that separates Catholicism from certain strands of Protestantism, I believe.

You pointed to one of my all time favourite threads – thanks. I suggest anyone interested in this point please read the thread ceo_esq has referred to it is very illuminating.

However it's a bit like the celibacy/chastity points - slightly off topic - the over all issue is that the Catholic Church considers the Church itself the path to salvation, not just a belief in Jesus or keeping to the words of the Bible or living a good life, but being a "Catholic" in the sense of the rituals, obeying the Pope and so on.

Man of jade

5th April 2003, 09:57 AM

Shecky;
I asked him to be mature. He couldnt handle it. Thats all there is to it.

ceo_esq

7th April 2003, 05:19 AM

Originally posted by Darat
ceo_esq quite happy to discuss chastity & celibacy in more detail but it is derailing the central discussion here slightly.

A simple way to get to the point I wanted to make is the following statement.

According to the Catholic Church ANY act of physical sex outside of a marriage (recognised by the Church) is sinful.

Do you disagree with this statement?
I suppose I do disagree with it, although any Catholics should feel free to correct my understanding on this point.

I gather from the Catechism that the Church divides acts of physical sex outside of marriage into two broad categories: fornication (where neither party is married) and adultery (where at least one party is married, but not to the other party).

What the Church has to say about fornication: “It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.” (Catechism 2353)

And about adultery: “Adultery is an injustice. He who commits adultery fails in his commitment. He does injury to the sign of the covenant which the marriage bond is, transgresses the rights of the other spouse, and undermines the institution of marriage by breaking the contract on which it is based. He compromises the good of human generation and the welfare of children who need their parents' stable union.” (Catechism 2381)

At one point the Catechism (at 2390) does say that sexual union outside of marriage “always constitutes a grave sin”, although that is in a section specifically addressing so-called free union or concubinage. As a general matter though, though, the Catechism refrains from saying that a certain act is necessarily sinful (or at least mortally sinful) because evaluating the sinfulness of individual acts depends on the prior satisfaction of generally applicable criteria. The Catholics say that in order for an act to constitute a mortal sin, three conditions must be met: (1) the subject matter must be grave or serious in itself; (2) the act must be committed with full knowledge of its moral gravity, (2) and the act must be committed with deliberate and free consent of the will (Catechism 1857-60). (If any one of these conditions is missing, the act can apparently still constitute a “venial sin”, but that seems to be a far different sense of the word “sin”, so let’s stick with mortal sin for the purposes of this discussion.) With respect to the third criterion, the Catechism makes a fairly realistic, even progressive-seeming, observation: “The promptings of feelings and passions can … diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders.” (Catechism 1860)

It’s pretty clear that not all individual cases of extramarital sexual activity reunite all of these conditions, so strictly speaking I can’t agree with your statement above. According to the Catechism, whether something is “contrary to the dignity of persons” or an “injustice” may be an objective determination, but whether something constitutes a sin in Catholicism appears to turn notably on the state of mind of the individual. A case-by-case determination, I suppose, that the Catechism seems to leave up to God.

By the way, I apologize for not linking these citations to the source material, but since the online Catechism has already been linked several times in this thread, I thought I could get away with it without unduly inconveniencing anyone.

ceo_esq

7th April 2003, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by Darat
You pointed to one of my all time favourite threads – thanks. I suggest anyone interested in this point please read the thread ceo_esq has referred to it is very illuminating.

However it's a bit like the celibacy/chastity points - slightly off topic - the over all issue is that the Catholic Church considers the Church itself the path to salvation, not just a belief in Jesus or keeping to the words of the Bible or living a good life, but being a "Catholic" in the sense of the rituals, obeying the Pope and so on.
Just to be accurate though - and this is why I thought part of that other thread was on-topic here - the Catholic Church explicitly declares the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics (again, in the sense of the rituals, as you put it).

From Lumen gentium (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html) (Vatican II):Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.
I gather that the Church reconciles this view in a hazy way with the notion of "no salvation outside the Church" by positing that the persons described in the quotation above do in fact have some mystical relationship to the Church, although an imperfect one formally speaking.

Does this alter in any way your overall point?

ceo_esq

8th April 2003, 09:46 AM

bump

Darat

8th April 2003, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by ceo_esq

I suppose I do disagree with it, although any Catholics should feel free to correct my understanding on this point

....snip...

(Do have to say I think you are trying to split hairs here but that's half the fun of debating Catholic theology! :) )

Seriously though let's try this another way - can you tell me when it is not a sin to have sex outside of a marriage?

All the Catholic priests (3!) I have ever had conversations about this matter have all been adamant that sex outside of marriage is sinful. And as you say the Catechism does say "grave sin".

PS

I hope Yahzi doesn’t mind us hijacking his thread but this is interesting and it is about Catholics theology so I don’t feel too guilty!

Darat

8th April 2003, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by ceo_esq

...snip...

At one point the Catechism (at 2390) does say that sexual union outside of marriage “always constitutes a grave sin”, although that is in a section specifically addressing so-called free union or concubinage.

...snip...

Just wanted to address this particular Catechism 2390

From the Vatican site
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#2390

In a so-called free union, a man and a woman refuse to give juridical and public form to a liaison involving sexual intimacy.

The expression "free union" is fallacious: what can "union" mean when the partners make no commitment to one another, each exhibiting a lack of trust in the other, in himself, or in the future?

The expression covers a number of different situations: concubinage, rejection of marriage as such, or inability to make long-term commitments.[183]

All these situations offend against the dignity of marriage; they destroy the very idea of the family; they weaken the sense of fidelity. They are contrary to the moral law. The sexual act must take place exclusively within marriage. Outside of marriage it always constitutes a grave sin and excludes one from sacramental communion.

This seems pretty clear of what "free union" means i.e. not in a marriage, for any reason.

It also quite clearly states that:

The sexual act must take place exclusively within marriage. Outside of marriage it always constitutes a grave sin and excludes one from sacramental communion.

Pretty clear doctrine here - sexual act must take place exclusively within marriage, outside always a grave sin.

Loki

8th April 2003, 09:46 PM

Darat,

Pretty clear doctrine here - sexual act must take place exclusively within marriage, outside always a grave sin.
My interpretation of the catechism (prompted largely by ceo-esq's past comments) is that the church is happy to try and have it both ways. On the one hand, it happily defines clear and unambiguus rules that *must* be followed. At the same time, there are just enough "sub-clauses" inserted into the fine print to allow just about anything.

For instance, look at this section from ceo-esq's last post :
Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life
What defines "without blame"? Could you argue that a Muslim, taught for his entire life that christianity is an evil nonsense, has no "explicit knowledge" because his society and culture have denied it too him?

My personal opinion - the church wants to both "lay down the law", and to "find a solution" to modern issues. An each way bet.

ceo_esq

9th April 2003, 05:56 AM

Originally posted by Darat
(Do have to say I think you are trying to split hairs here but that's half the fun of debating Catholic theology! :) )
I agree. Debating Catholic theology requires a scalpel rather than a hatchet - partly because some of the cleverest minds in Western history have already been debating it among themselves for the past 2000 years. But, as you say, the challenge makes it more fun. :)
Originally posted by Darat
Seriously though let's try this another way - can you tell me when it is not a sin to have sex outside of a marriage?
Sounds like a riddle, doesn’t it? “When is a sin not a sin?”

I guess I’d have to paraphrase my earlier observation. One who engages in sexual intercourse outside of marriage, insofar as I’m able to ascertain the Catholic view, does not commit a sin if the broader requirements for sin are not present: for example, if the decision to act was not taken knowingly, freely and deliberately. This presents something of a sliding scale of individual culpability: on one extreme you have the rape victim; on the other, I suppose you have the Catholic who subscribes to the Catechism’s position but nonetheless chooses to violate the “rules” in a deliberate attempt to piss off God. In between is a grayer area where such things as ignorance, external pressures, psychological urges and so forth attenuate the sinfulness of the act to a greater or lesser extent. I think the Catechism makes it clear that these subjective factors can never transform extramarital sex into a good thing in and of itself; it remains gravely disordered.

But I’m happy to concede that (in the debatable view of the Catechism), for the subset of people who are aware that extramarital sex is a bad thing (presumably this includes at least all Catholics) and who are not driven to it under duress, psychological impulsion, pathological condition or the like, then yes, the Church says their acts are always sinful. That’s not your view or mine, obviously. What, though, was the larger conclusion you meant to draw from all this again?
Originally posted by Loki
Could you argue that a Muslim, taught for his entire life that christianity is an evil nonsense, has no "explicit knowledge" because his society and culture have denied it too him?I think one could certainly argue this, and most of us would, because the contrary result seems intuitively unfair and not worthy of a supreme being. I’ll note in passing, Loki, that your Muslim example is interesting, or at least apropos, here - the paragraph in question actually does mention Muslims specifically: “But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.” If not a free pass for the Muslims, at least a good letter of recommendation to keep in one's eternal file.
Originally posted by Loki
My personal opinion - the church wants to both "lay down the law", and to "find a solution" to modern issues. An each way bet.
Without expressing an opinion on whether Catholic moral teaching is particularly enlightened, I think the phenomenon you’re describing is a feature of any enlightened moral or legal system. I guess you can characterize this as bet-hedging. But in the context I think one can argue that it's a pretty sensible, even humble, approach.

Based partly on reason and partly on faith, the Church thinks it’s worked out a number of moral precepts for human behavior. At the same time, it knows that it can’t presume to judge any particular individual, and that only an omniscient being could even begin to know and consider all of the circumstances relevant to assessing a person’s blameworthiness for a given act. So it hedges: “Such-and-such seems pretty clearly to be a bad thing, and choosing it deliberately would logically offend God as we conceive him to be. But on the other hand, even human beings can make moral differentiations in assessing culpability – as we do in our personal lives and systems of justice – so we have to assume that a divine being makes even more refined differentiations. Therefore, however sophisticated our moral theology may be in the abstract, it always has to stop short of unqualified categorical assessments in practice.”

Viewed in this light, “having it both ways” is arguably a fitting and realistic approach to the moral arena.

Loki

9th April 2003, 04:11 PM

ceo_esq,

I think one could certainly argue this, and most of us would, because the contrary result seems intuitively unfair and not worthy of a supreme being.
Well, certainly not worthy of a modern, secular humanist supreme being! Apparently, the Old Testament Supreme Being had a slightly different conception of "intuitively unfair".

But in the context I think one can argue that it's a pretty sensible, even humble, approach.
Again, I'd suggest (though not attempt to prove!) that this context is the rise of secular humanism.

Viewed in this light, “having it both ways” is arguably a fitting and realistic approach to the moral arena.
I suppose I can agree that there is often a need to present the "basic rules" in as simple a form as possible, and leave the detailed arguments until specific examples arise. One might have hoped that god could have seen fit to provide just a little more guidance on some of the fringe issues (Abortion? Capitol Punishment? Homosexuality?), rather than to provide a multilayered approach that says"wrong" at one level, and "might be okay" at another.

Yahzi

11th April 2003, 03:33 PM

What, though, was the larger conclusion you meant to draw from all this again?
That the Catholic Church's position on sexuality was immoral and unhealthy.

What a racket - to define the only legal sex as that which occurs in a marriage, and then to set yourself up as the dispenser of marriages.

ceo_esq

15th April 2003, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by Yahzi
That the Catholic Church's position on sexuality was immoral and unhealthy.

What a racket - to define the only legal sex as that which occurs in a marriage, and then to set yourself up as the dispenser of marriages.
My point in asking what the larger point was again is that examination of the Church’s teachings and practices regarding these issues required us to scale back, qualify, refine or outright discard some of the assertions initially offered in support of the proposition that “the Church’s position sexuality was immoral and unhealthy”.

Here were some of the statements made in support of the anti-Church view that did not survive critical examination entirely intact:

- The Church “stifle[s] all sexual expression of any kind”.
- The Church “teach[es] a person to hate and fear their own natural sexual impulses.”
- The Church “teach[es] children to be terrified of masturbating” because it will "send them to eternal torture”.

(Not to mention some of the other, less relevant but equally flawed statements about the Church made in this thread, such as that it teaches that the sole legitimate purpose of sexual relations is reproduction, or that Catholics believe all non-Catholics are hellbound.)

Here’s the point I was making by my remark earlier: Darat and I debated to the point where we agreed that the Church teaches that people who engage in premarital sex or adultery, and who are not excused by ignorance, lack of knowledge of the wrongfulness of their actions, mitigating psychological factors or external pressures, etc., commit a serious sin. However, even if you and I disagree with the Church there, the final statement is so far reduced from the initial claim that (in my view) it no longer serves as a solid basis for broad conclusions about the immorality and unwholesomeness of the Church’s general position on sexuality.

Not surprisingly, I also think that characterizing the situation as a “marriage racket” isn't quite right. The Church recognizes non-Catholic marriages, and its formal role in Catholic marriages is strictly secondary (unlike other Catholic sacraments, from what I understand). Also, among practicing Catholics, I doubt the Church is stingy about “dispensing" marriages. On the other hand, some people complain that the state runs a “driving racket” because it defines what constitute permissible driving practices, and then it dispenses all the driving licenses. If you’re one of those people, I can see how the Catholic sex/marriage arrangement would look fishy to you. That doesn't seem directly relevant to our discussion about abusive sexual attitudes, though.

Yahzi

15th April 2003, 12:01 PM

cew_esq
- The Church “stifle[s] all sexual expression of any kind”.
- The Church “teach[es] a person to hate and fear their own natural sexual impulses.”
- The Church “teach[es] children to be terrified of masturbating” because it will "send them to eternal torture”.

1. The Church would like to stifle all sexual expression. It is a manifest doctrine of Christianity that the ideal is to not have sex at all. The fact that it cannot enforce celibacy in no way excuses its intention to make celibacy a morally superior state.

2. I do not think number two was refuted. It is natural for people to have multiple sexual partners throughout their life. Just look at the numbers: the percentage of people who have sex with exactly one person in their life is exceedingly small. Yet under Church rules it is impossible to have more than one sexual partner without commiting a mortal sin (except for the unusual case of your spouse dying).

3. Nor was number three: the Church definitely has and does teach that masturbation will send you to hell. It makes up some wiggle room to salve your conscience: but that legalese is no comfort to the 14 year old boys that are struggling with puberty.

However, even if you and I disagree with the Church there, the final statement is so far reduced from the initial claim that (in my view) it no longer serves as a solid basis for broad conclusions about the immorality and unwholesomeness of the Church’s general position on sexuality.
Allowing sex only after you have gotten permission from a man (who has never had sex himself) doesn't strike you as unwholesome?

The Church announces a doctrine that condemns most of humanity to Hell. You object on moral grounds. The Church makes up some weasel words allowing for the possibility that maybe not absolutely everybody necessarily goes to Hell in every case. You then trumpet the Church's reasonableness and tolerance.

On the other hand, some people complain that the state runs a “driving racket” because it defines what constitute permissible driving practices, and then it dispenses all the driving licenses.
This analogy is deeply flawed. Why does the state mandate permissible driving practices? Because if it doesn't, I get hurt: if people can't agree to drive on the same side of the road, chances are high that I personally will suffer serious injury. Thus, I vote for driving laws because it is in my best interest.

How does this apply to the Church regulating sexual conduct? If other people are allowed to have whatever kind of sex they want, how does that threaten me with injury? Where is the threat to my rights (via injury) that justifies me surrendering rights?

Finally, the state owes its power to the people. If they don't like the driving laws, they can change them. If they find a new, better way to regulate driving, they can change. The Church, however, imposes its laws from above, without the possibility of change from either new empirical data, the will of the people, or even common sense.

To control my actions is to infringe on my rights. The only justification for infringing my rights is to protect the rights of another. Any limitation of my rights without this justification is an act of tyranny. To unjustifiably limit my rights in matters of importance is a grave moral crime. The Church, by attempting to limit my rights without justification, is commiting an act of unjustice. I think that tyranny qualifies as "immoral," and lauding celibacy qualifies as "unhealthy."

ceo_esq

16th April 2003, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by Yahzi
1. The Church would like to stifle all sexual expression. It is a manifest doctrine of Christianity that the ideal is to not have sex at all. The fact that it cannot enforce celibacy in no way excuses its intention to make celibacy a morally superior state.
I disagree that the Church would like to stifle all sexual expression. If I’m wrong, then the Church is certainly going about the task in a strange way:The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude. Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment.

(Catechism 2361)
And in Catechism 2363:The spouses' [sexual] union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life.
Thus, the Church believes sex is important not only (or even primarily) because it perpetuates the species but also because, to borrow the immortal words of St. Marvin Gaye, “sexual healing is something that’s good for me”.

While Catholicism does propose celibacy as an ideal, it does not do so at the expense of the ideal of marriage. If I haven’t adequately demonstrated this point, please consider the Pope’s take on this:In Christ's words on continence "for the Kingdom of Heaven" there is no reference to the "inferiority" of marriage with regard to the "body", or, in other words, with regard to the essence of marriage, consisting in the fact that man and woman join together in marriage. thus becoming "one flesh" (Gen 2:24: "The two will become one flesh"). Christ's words recorded in Matthew 19:11-12 (as also the words of Paul in his First Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 7) give no reason to assert the "inferiority" of marriage, nor the "superiority" of virginity or celibacy inasmuch as by their nature virginity and celibacy consist in abstinence from the conjugal "union in the body". Christ's words on this point are quite clear. He proposes to his disciples the ideal of continence and the call to it, not by reason of inferiority nor with prejudice against conjugal "union of the body", but only "for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven."

(John Paul II, Theology of the Body (http://www.canapologetics.net/theologybody8.htm), Part 8)

Now, I’m aware that the Church is talking in all these places about marital sexual relations. But there’s no denying that that covers a lot of sexual expression, and I submit that it invalidates the statement “The Church would like to stifle all sexual expression of any kind.” We seem to be turning in circles a bit on this point, so I’d like to propose that if you still stand by your original claim without qualification, please present an argument that not only cites ample textual support from the Catechism or other Church documents, but also adequately explains away the apparent counterexamples I’ve cited.

By the way, purely for the entertainment value, here’s a link (http://www.ccli.org/marriage/johnpaul_sexuality.shtml) to an unusual text I came across while researching this. It’s written by the Pope (when he was still just a cardinal), who argues, among other things, that it is unethical for men not to ensure that their sexual partners reach orgasm. This must be another one of those Catholic ideals that’s more honored in the breach than in the observance.

With respect to claim #2 and claim #3, I don’t think they are necessarily unrelievedly false, just overstated and in need of qualification. You seem to think otherwise, and downplay the significance of the limitations I pointed out (e.g. “maybe not absolutely everybody necessarily goes to Hell in every case”). [Edited to add: I misspoke there - that related to a different claim from #2 and #3.] But when the original claim suggested that absolutely everybody necessarily DOES go to Hell in every case, I submit that there’s a significant strawman problem.
Originally posted by Yahzi
This analogy is deeply flawed. Why does the state mandate permissible driving practices? Because if it doesn't, I get hurt: if people can't agree to drive on the same side of the road, chances are high that I personally will suffer serious injury. Thus, I vote for driving laws because it is in my best interest.

How does this apply to the Church regulating sexual conduct? If other people are allowed to have whatever kind of sex they want, how does that threaten me with injury? Where is the threat to my rights (via injury) that justifies me surrendering rights?
You raise a valid point. But as distasteful as it may seem, put yourself in the Church’s shoes for a moment. The Church believes that extramarital sex is “gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.” (Catechism 2353) (Where such sex takes the form of adultery, prostitution or rape, the Church believes additional harms arise as well.) Thus, in the Church’s eyes, by doing such things the actor does injure himself and the partner (and possibly third parties such as children or cheated-on spouses). Now, the Church is talking in most cases about an intangible, moral injury, but of course we’re in the moral realm here. The Church thinks it perceives a harm to yourself and others even if you don’t, and it doesn’t want to see that harm occur. Not to extend the moral law/civil law analogy much further, but if the state perceives a potential harm, it will enforce the same code of conduct even against those people who don’t share the perception of the harm. (Now that I think of it, a worse flaw in this analogy is that the Church doesn’t, by itself, enforce anything against people who don’t share its perceptions.) I may disagree with the Church’s premises, but I understand that if one were to take those premises as true, the Church’s conclusions would be logical ones.

Why do you take these matters so personally, anyhow? Your insistence on the first person suggests that you yourself are suffering from the Church “controlling your actions” and making significant inroads toward “limiting your rights” (whatever they are and wherever they come from). I hope this isn’t the case.

Yahzi

16th April 2003, 12:08 PM

ceo_esq
I disagree that the Church would like to stifle all sexual expression.
But it says, right in your Bible, that not having sex is a morally superior position. Are you saying the Church is not trying to elevate all of it's members to the morally superior position?

I suppose you could argue that Catholicism has rejected the Bible in favor of their own made-up rules.

But as distasteful as it may seem, put yourself in the Church’s shoes for a moment.
As distaseful as it may seem, put yourself in Hitler's shoes. The Nazis believe that Jews are the cause of all evil. You may disagree with the Nazi's premises, but I understand that if one were to take those premises as true, the Nazi's conclusions would be logical ones.

Which just goes to show you that the truth or falsity of the premises is absolutely crucial.

Why do you take these matters so personally, anyhow? Your insistence on the first person suggests that you yourself are suffering from the Church “controlling your actions” and making significant inroads toward “limiting your rights” (whatever they are and wherever they come from). I hope this isn’t the case.
Same stupid old line - how does religion hurt you? I used to keep a clipping file of all the ways it did, but it got too thick.

If I murder your neighbor, why do you complain? How does my murdering your neighbor hurt you? Don't tell me, I already understand. Figure out the answer for yourself. And when you do, then you will understand how allowing people to oppress my nieghbor also hurts me.

The fact that I even have to suggest this thought expierement dismays me, and reflects quite poorly upoin the quality of your thinking.

While Catholicism does propose celibacy as an ideal, it does not do so at the expense of the ideal of marriage.
Sure sounds like "equal but separate" to me. Hey, that dog ain't never gonna hunt, ok?

ceo_esq

17th April 2003, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by Yahzi
But it says, right in your Bible, that not having sex is a morally superior position. Are you saying the Church is not trying to elevate all of it's members to the morally superior position.

I suppose you could argue that Catholicism has rejected the Bible in favor of their own made-up rules.
I'm not sure what you mean by my Bible, as I don't personally subscribe to any religion. As for whether the Bible says that not having sex is necessarily morally superior to having sex, I think there are some individual statements that could be used to support that view. The Pope gave (above) the reasons for which the Church believes that interpretation is unwarranted. I understand the Pope's argument, but I don't know whether the Church's exegesis is the best possible one. Maybe the Church has rejected the Bible - although it doesn't think so - but I suspect neither you nor I care. It doesn't matter, for the purposes of this discussion. The relevant question is "What is the substance of the Church's teaching on this point?"

Even if the Church did believe that everyone really should be choosing celibacy over marriage (it doesn't seem to), any message to that effect is so bogged down and undermined by conflicting (pro-marriage, pro-big family, etc.) messages in Catholic teaching that it really seems a half-assed, implausible way of going about stifling all sexual expression.

The texts I cited pretty much come out and directly say "Marriage is not inferior to celibacy, and marital sex is not the sort of thing that anyone wants to stifle, just so we're clear." If there's one one thing I would accept the Pope and Catechism as authoritative on, it's the teachings of the Catholic Church. Can we really not agree in this case that that's what the teaching is, and move on to other matters that are more susceptible to dispute?

Perhaps we can agree on a mutually acceptable formulation. Allow me to propose one: "The Church tries to discourage all extramarital sex to the extent its teaching and pastoral capacities permit. However, the Church views marriage in a positive light and encourages the joys of sexuality in that context, both because it's good for the spouses and because it generates children."

I think that's a pretty fair reading of the ensemble of sources. Can we agree that it's considerably more accurate to say the foregoing than to say that the Church's teachings attempt to stifle all sexual expression of any kind?

Originally posted by Yahzi
As distaseful as it may seem, put yourself in Hitler's shoes. The Nazis believe that Jews are the cause of all evil. You may disagree with the Nazi's premises, but I understand that if one were to take those premises as true, the Nazi's conclusions would be logical ones.

Which just goes to show you that the truth or falsity of the premises is absolutely crucial.
Fair enough; point taken. But, like 99% of analogies to Nazism, this is a terrible one. The main gripe people had with Nazism didn't concern whether it was an internally consistent ideology. It was that the Nazis (among other things) went around murdering or enslaving millions of innocent people against their will in an effort to enforce their conclusions in practical terms, both within their own circle and abroad. Which just goes to show that what you are willing and capable of doing about your conclusions (and how toxic the conclusions themselves are) are at least as crucial as the truth or falsity of the premises.

But in constructing a moral philosophy - whether institutional or individual - how is anyone ever sure that the assumptions are correct? Up to what extent are we excused for acting as though our moral premises are true?
Originally posted by Yahzi
Same stupid old line - how does religion hurt you? I used to keep a clipping file of all the ways it did, but it got too thick.

If I murder your neighbor, why do you complain? How does my murdering your neighbor hurt you? Don't tell me, I already understand. Figure out the answer for yourself. And when you do, then you will understand how allowing people to oppress my nieghbor also hurts me.

The fact that I even have to suggest this thought expierement dismays me, and reflects quite poorly upoin the quality of your thinking.
No need to be insulting. If I reported my neighbor's murder to you, you'd surely understand that I felt victimized too, but you might raise an eyebrow if I kept referring, in overwrought terms, to my own murder. It simply wasn't clear whether your expressions of outrage arose from truly first-hand things, or simply an abundance of sympathy and solidarity with the indeterminate persons who, systematically against their will, are having their actions controlled and their legitimate rights stripped by the Catholic Church's teachings against extramarital sex.
Originally posted by Yahzi
Sure sounds like "equal but separate" to me. Hey, that dog ain't never gonna hunt, ok?
Now you've lost me. I think I catch an allusion to Plessy v. Ferguson there, but I honestly can't see why you think it's germane. I gather that you mean to suggest that the Church cannot legitimately take a comparably favorable view of celibacy and marriage as different callings. Or perhaps that the Church segregates married and unmarried Catholics to the detriment of the unmarried (or was it the married?) folks, in such a way that somehow everybody's sexuality is stifled. Not really sure. Please elaborate.

BillyTK

17th April 2003, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Perhaps we can agree on a mutually acceptable formulation. Allow me to propose one: "The Church tries to discourage all extramarital sex to the extent its teaching and pastoral capacities permit. However, the Church views marriage in a positive light and encourages the joys of sexuality in that context, both because it's good for the spouses and because it generates children."

I think that's a pretty fair reading of the ensemble of sources. Can we agree that it's considerably more accurate to say the foregoing than to say that the Church's teachings attempt to stifle all sexual expression of any kind?

Perhaps a simpler formulation would be that the Catholic Church seeks to stifle all sexual expression other than within a very specific set of circumstances, which is heterosexual pairings within the confines of marriage and at least with the potential of resulting in offspring?

Apart from that, I've nothing to add other than it's been enjoyable to read such a civil and illuminating debate.

ceo_esq

17th April 2003, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK
Perhaps a simpler formulation would be that the Catholic Church seeks to stifle all sexual expression other than within a very specific set of circumstances, which is heterosexual pairings within the confines of marriage and at least with the potential of resulting in offspring?

Apart from that, I've nothing to add other than it's been enjoyable to read such a civil and illuminating debate.
I agree that your formulation is more concise, although it raises in addition the homosexuality and birth control issues we haven't really attended to in this thread.

I think the arguable shortcomings of your formulation are:

1. It retains, somewhat gratuitously I think, the notion of "stifling all sexual expression" and defining the Church's position as mere "asterisk" to the general rule the formulation of which I initially objected to. Formally speaking, it's equally accurate to say that the Church promotes all sex (other than those instances outside the bonds of lawful marriage or where the potential of generating children is deliberately rendered impossible). But neither of those approaches strikes me as entirely neutral, which is why I opted for the approach "Here's what the Church discourages. Here's what it encourages."

2. Your formulation does not explicitly reflect that the Church actively promotes and glorifies those forms of sex that it does not expressly discourage. This could be viewed as misleading in the context of allegations that the Church really hates sex and only ever tolerates it grudgingly at best.

3. I thought it was somewhat important to refer to the Church discouraging extramarital sex solely to the extent of its pastoral and educational role, because the Church's precepts carry no more force than what the Church's teaching authority (whatever it is) and the individual conscience will supply - at least not in this life. One lesson of this is that if your ambition is to stifle things in a meaningful way, avoid joining the clergy and go into government instead.

The homosexuality point is well taken, although I think it's probably rendered extraneous in your formulation by the conjunction of the "marriage" and "children" stipulations.

Another thing occurred to me; even the use of the word "stifle" here carries a non-neutral connotation because in one of its well-understood senses "to stifle" means "to kill by cutting off respiration". "Repress" and a handful of other candidates have an inappropriate association with the use of force. I propose sticking with "discourage"; its American Heritage dictionary definition of "to try to prevent by expressing disapproval or raising objections" seems to fit the bill here.

Yahzi

17th April 2003, 01:03 PM

ceo_esq

Perhaps we can agree on a mutually acceptable formulation. Allow me to propose one: "The Church tries to discourage all extramarital sex to the extent its teaching and pastoral capacities permit. However, the Church views marriage in a positive light and encourages the joys of sexuality in that context, both because it's good for the spouses and because it generates children."

There is one huge problem with your fomulation: "to the extent... permits." That language seems to indicate that the Church has no desire or ability to influence behaviour in other means, like legal compulsion by armed servants of the state. While it is true that Americans have won their freedom from the Church, that does not change the fact that the church would like to compel us legally, and in other countrys (such as Ireland) it does compel people legally.

How about this formulation:

The Catholic Church seeks to eliminate all sexual expression that is not directly licensed by the Church and does not directly involve procreation.

Now I agree that's not stifling all sexual expression, but surely you agree it is stifling.

Your formulation does not explicitly reflect that the Church actively promotes and glorifies those forms of sex that it does not expressly discourage.
Come on! Such language! You really mean to say that the Church glorifies the particular form of sex it encourages. It is not an open license to do as you please, as long as you don't do X: it is a license to do Y. Why do you insist on putting such spin on the church's teachings? Nowhere does the Church advocate freedom to invent new forms of sexuality: it only dispenses license to indulge in a specific and particular form of sexual expression.

because the Church's precepts carry no more force than what the Church's teaching authority (whatever it is) and the individual conscience will supply
Again with the "let's ignore the church's history and desire to embue their authority with the force of law."

It simply wasn't clear whether your expressions of outrage arose from truly first-hand things, or simply an abundance of sympathy and solidarity with the indeterminate persons who, systematically against their will, are having their actions controlled and their legitimate rights stripped by the Catholic Church's teachings against extramarital sex.

You and I apparently disagree on how much outrage a person should reasonably express when confronted with the systematic violation of somebody else's rights.

It was that the Nazis (among other things) went around murdering or enslaving millions of innocent people against their will in an effort to enforce their conclusions in practical terms, both within their own circle and abroad.
And this doesn't apply to the Catholic Church how?

ceo_esq

18th April 2003, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by Yahzi
There is one huge problem with your fomulation: "to the extent... permits." That language seems to indicate that the Church has no desire or ability to influence behaviour in other means, like legal compulsion by armed servants of the state. While it is true that Americans have won their freedom from the Church, that does not change the fact that the church would like to compel us legally, and in other countrys (such as Ireland) it does compel people legally.

[snip]

...Again with the "let's ignore the church's history and desire to embue their authority with the force of law."

If the only problem you have with my formulation is that proviso, I’m happy to drop it and we'll have our mutually acceptable statement. However, the case that the Church stifles sexuality is easier to make on paper (i.e. strictly by reference to the teaching documents) than it is to make judging simply by the (non)effectiveness of actual compulsion - that is, it's easier to argue that the Church stifles sexuality in theory than to argue that it forcibly does so in practice. Accordingly, shifting the focus away from the Church’s teaching role strikes me as counterproductive for your position.

Are you aware of some Papist plan to usurp the civil state, or oblige states to accord legal privileges to Catholicism? You’ve alluded to the Church’s “history”, although the worst historical eras of church-state relations (http://www.bartleby.com/65/ch/churchNs.html) have been more a matter of states trying to act like a church (or to control the church) than vice-versa. I admit that I’d probably have to do some more research in this area, and I don’t dispute the huge influence of Christianity on Western law and legal institutions as we know them. But in the meantime, could you link to some sources supporting what you say here about Church policy vis-à-vis the civil law? I would check first with the Vatican II conciliar documents and the Code of Canon Law. If there’s any currency to your idea, you ought to be able to find support there. On a side note, also consider checking the Irish Constitution for references to legal compulsion of Catholic religious observances.
Originally posted by Yahzi
How about this formulation:

The Catholic Church seeks to eliminate all sexual expression that is not directly licensed by the Church and does not directly involve procreation.

[snip]

...It is not an open license to do as you please, as long as you don't do X: it is a license to do Y. Why do you insist on putting such spin on the church's teachings?I’m not sure how you reckon that it’s a license to do everything except X rather than a license to do only Y. We’ve already discussed that it’s possible to formulate a statement about the Church teaching in either form, and both would technically be correct. However, there seems to be no neutral or non-arbitrary basis for preferring one over the other, which is why my original formulation avoided either approach (as I just discussed above).

Hence, my formulation actually represents an effort to avoid spinning. (By the way, you don’t think “the Church attempts to stifle all sexual expression whatsoever” is spun?) At least I’m actually producing the relevant texts and trying to come up with paraphrasings that reflect actual terms and language in those texts.
Originally posted by Yahzi
You and I apparently disagree on how much outrage a person should reasonably express when confronted with the systematic violation of somebody else's rights.
I think what we disagree on is whether we are in fact confronted with that.
Originally posted by Yahzi
And this doesn't apply to the Catholic Church how? Oh dear. I know we live in a violent era. But why don’t you help me out by pointing out a few examples of how the Church’s sex-stifling policy includes murdering millions of Catholics and non-Catholics alike on the strength of the Church’s conclusions about the immorality of extramarital sex?

Yahzi

18th April 2003, 01:17 PM

Are you aware of some Papist plan to usurp the civil state, or oblige states to accord legal privileges to Catholicism?
It's been policy for centuries. In this day and age it is most visible in the abortion debate, wherein the Church is attempting to make its position the legal position. In the USA it is not terrribly effective, but both Ireland and Nicuraga are still struggling to free themselves from Catholic imposed constituitional bans on abortion, even in absurd cases, like for nine year old rape victims.

The Vatican maintains an observer seat on the UN (the only one of its kind, I believe), and attempts to modify World Health Organizations to comply with its stance on birth control and abortion.

And in Boston, the Church recently filed a motion to dismiss all charges against it because it was a religious instituition and thus not bound to civil law.

Given the Church has sought to control the state as a matter of policy for 17 centures, and given examples like the above, can you name any particular reason we should think it has changed that policy?

the case that the Church stifles sexuality is easier to make on paper (i.e. strictly by reference to the teaching documents) than it is to make judging simply by the (non)effectiveness of actual compulsion
In the USA, perhaps, where 90% of Catholics routinely use birth control and deny that the Pope is infallible. But the fact that the US church simply ignores the teachings it doesn't like hardly seems exculpatory for the church's teachings.

You still have not addressed the fact that not allowing the use of birth control is a significant negative pressure on women's sexuality. Compelling people to accept the risk of pregnancy every time they have sex is a pretty good way to stifle sexual expressions of love. Just because your wife loves you doesn't mean she wants to have more kids - but if she can't express her love without risking more children, don't you think that will tend to stifle her expression of love for you?

It's a standard economic principle: raise the price, and less people will buy it.

I’m not sure how you reckon that it’s a license to do everything except X rather than a license to do only Y.
This is nuts. The Church does not encourage sexual invention. The Church obviously and clearly takes the position that only a certain kind of sex is acceptable, and all the rest are not. The only human being on the entire planet that thinks otherwise is you. If it were possible to invent a new kind of sexual interaction, the only person who would expect the church to not automatically disapprove is you.

They allow exactly one kind of interaction - intercourse between married heterosexual couples. They rule out every other known form of sex. You, and you alone, take that to mean that by default they aren't against sex, just against the 900 variations they specifically disallow. Ordinary people understand that they make an exception and allow one kind of sex, not that they make an exception and disallow the other 900.

I think what we disagree on is whether we are in fact confronted with that.
So you don't think that the Church's position on sexuality is oppressive? You don't think that telling young men they will go to hell for masturbating is oppressive? You don't think telling adult married men that they will go to hell for masturbating is oppressive? Despite evidence that clearly shows that masturbation is healthy, normal, and leads to much better sex (particularly for women)? You don't think compelling women to choose between garaunteed hell or the risk of childbirth as a price for sex is oppressive? You don't think telling homosexuals that they can never have sex under any circumstance is oppressive?

The number of people that I have met that actually managed to stay within the Church's guidelines numbers exactly one. The vast majority fail, because they are human and the church's position is inhuman, and then feel guilty about it. A cynic might conclude that the church's improbable standard was in fact designed not to be met, but rather to induce guilt. But even a spin doctor like you must recognize that the church's position on sexuality does not reflect normal or even healthy sexuality. Their failure to recognize the role of masturbation in even adult married relations is sufficient to prove this: and it is only one of many.

I know we live in a violent era.
It's been a while since the Catholics have been allowed to commit mass murder to enforce their policies. But then, it's been a while since the Nazis were allowed the same. Hence, I think my analogy still stands: both instituitions have demonstrated, by past history, that violence is not an instituitionally unnacceptable way of enforcing their policies.

ceo_esq

21st April 2003, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi
It's been policy for centuries. In this day and age it is most visible in the abortion debate, wherein the Church is attempting to make its position the legal position. In the USA it is not terrribly effective, but both Ireland and Nicuraga are still struggling to free themselves from Catholic imposed constituitional bans on abortion, even in absurd cases, like for nine year old rape victims.In a political debate everyone tries to make his or her position the legal position; that’s the idea. If you do it through political discourse in essentially the same way as everyone else (i.e. by convincing a sufficient number of people that your position is the better one and should become legislation), then it’s hardly a plan to usurp the civil state. (The antiabortion position, of course, is not unique to Catholicism or even religion generally.)

Regarding the Irish constitutional ban on abortion, that ban was not imposed by the Church; it was adopted by the Irish people democratically. True, the Irish are mostly Catholic and the ban is consistent with Church teaching, but that’s a completely different thing from the Church imposing itself illegitimately on the state. You can learn more here (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunreacht_na_h%C9ireann).
Originally posted by Yahzi
The Vatican maintains an observer seat on the UN (the only one of its kind, I believe), and attempts to modify World Health Organizations to comply with its stance on birth control and abortion.Switzerland also maintains a non-member state permanent observer seat. Other permanent observer (but non-state) seats are held by the Palestinian Authority, the Red Cross and the European Union, among others.

Every private or public entity that participates in some accredited capacity in UN conferences (whether member states, observers or the numerous NGO participants) attempts to modify UN policy in accordance with its own preferences. Here’s a question for you: the Vatican could have relied on its status as a microstate to take a full UN seat, even eventually rotating onto the Security Council. It deliberately chose not to join the UN as a member, preferring instead to participate only as an observer, a position that carries much less power. Why would it make this decision if it aspired to worldly domination?
Originally posted by Yahzi
And in Boston, the Church recently filed a motion to dismiss all charges against it because it was a religious instituition and thus not bound to civil law.
Nothing of the sort. The archdiocese (or really its lawyers) filed a motion to dismiss the claims (not charges, which are a matter of criminal law) on fairly mundane First Amendment grounds. If you need a refresher course on the legal angle, recall that I already explained it to you here (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14680) in another one of your anti-Catholic threads. I note that the archdiocese's motion was based exclusively on state policy in such matters, rather than Church policy. The Code of Canon Law, at any rate, makes quite clear that the Church believes it is indeed bound by civil authority in temporal matters. Not exactly a smoking gun in support of this conspiracy you’re alleging.
Originally posted by Yahzi
Given the Church has sought to control the state as a matter of policy for 17 centures, and given examples like the above, can you name any particular reason we should think it has changed that policy?Given that history demonstrates that the state has generally sought to absorb the Church rather than the other way around (see my encyclopedia link earlier), and given that your examples are either factually erroneous or else simply do not establish the point in support of which you cited them, can you name a reason we should think such a policy exists today (to the extent it ever did exist)?

If there’s really a policy here, I reiterate, please point us to something in the Catechism, Code of Canon Law or Vatican II constitutions. I do it, when I have a point to make about Church policy. Otherwise, it sounds like so much conspiracy theorizing.
Originally posted by Yahzi
You still have not addressed the fact that not allowing the use of birth control is a significant negative pressure on women's sexuality. Compelling people to accept the risk of pregnancy every time they have sex is a pretty good way to stifle sexual expressions of love. Just because your wife loves you doesn't mean she wants to have more kids - but if she can't express her love without risking more children, don't you think that will tend to stifle her expression of love for you?

It's a standard economic principle: raise the price, and less people will buy it.One would think so as a general rule, I agree. However, even economics shows us that sales of certain commodities (such as cigarettes, among many others) are highly resistant to price hikes. Why does the general rule not seem to hold true among the relevant population (i.e. those Catholic couples who abide by the no-artificial-contraception policy)? By all external indications, they’re scr*wing like rabbits.

Originally posted by Yahzi
This is nuts. The Church does not encourage sexual invention. The Church obviously and clearly takes the position that only a certain kind of sex is acceptable, and all the rest are not. The only human being on the entire planet that thinks otherwise is you. If it were possible to invent a new kind of sexual interaction, the only person who would expect the church to not automatically disapprove is you.

They allow exactly one kind of interaction - intercourse between married heterosexual couples. They rule out every other known form of sex. You, and you alone, take that to mean that by default they aren't against sex, just against the 900 variations they specifically disallow. Ordinary people understand that they make an exception and allow one kind of sex, not that they make an exception and disallow the other 900.Please don’t put words in my mouth. I never characterized it as a licence to do everything except X rather than a license to do only Y. I simply noted that either one was formally accurate, and suggested that my formulation (“Here’s what’s good; here’s what’s not good”) might be preferable to both as it was more strictly descriptive.

That said, I’ll leave it to our married posters to comment on whether the category of marital sexual relations constitutes “exactly one kind of interaction”, as you put it, and contains no variety. But let’s assume, arguendo, that sex between married heterosexual couples constitutes a single sexual form (let’s call it category #1). On that basis, are there really 900 other such forms? There’s sex between unmarried heterosexual couples (category #2), of course, and sex between homosexuals [edit: I meant to say, more accurately, sex between members of the same sex] (#3). Beyond that, one rapidly finds oneself in fringe categories of decreasing statistical significance. Adultery, group sex, sex with animals, rape … the list goes on for a little while but stops pretty far short of 900, I should think. Probably upwards of 95% of all actual instances of sexual intercourse are of the first 3 kinds, and of those I’m inclined to guess (without research) that anywhere between 25%-75% fall into category #1.
Originally posted by Yahzi
So you don't think that the Church's position on sexuality is oppressive?Maybe I’m being callous, but I guess I’m not all that moved by the Church’s teaching on sexuality. You and I don’t feel particularly oppressed by it, of course. But more importantly, Catholics I’ve discussed it with don’t personally seem to find it especially oppressive (many ignore it freely, many others happen to agree with it). Rarely if ever, in any event, have I come across the individual who professed to have both his actions controlled against his will and his legitimate rights overthrown merely by the Church’s teachings on extramarital sex. I don’t deny the possibility that large numbers of such people may be out there, however. I simply don’t find - either in the doctrinal Church texts themselves, in anecdotal experience, or in common sense - a likely basis to suspect that there are.

[Edited to add: Anyhow, Yahzi, I'm not really interested in disputing whether the Church's sexual teachings are oppressive to some extent, especially in theory. If I were a Catholic trying to abide by such teachings, I imagine I'd find them burdensome. My point is that they're not nearly as tyrannical, arbitrary, categorical or malicious as you have generally made them out to be. In my view, you tend to demonize the Church in your threads far more than is actually justified.]
Originally posted by Yahzi
It's been a while since the Catholics have been allowed to commit mass murder to enforce their policies. But then, it's been a while since the Nazis were allowed the same. Hence, I think my analogy still stands: both instituitions have demonstrated, by past history, that violence is not an instituitionally unnacceptable way of enforcing their policies. Not many ancient institutions haven’t, at some time, at least tolerated violence as a way of enforcing their policies. The Church was probably the first truly important institution to renounce this view, and has spent much of the last few centuries trying, with limited success, to put the brakes on state-sponsored violence, which was always a more serious problem at any rate. But even if that weren’t true, (1) you’ve moved away from the particular Church policy under discussion, and (2) it’s simply not feasible to argue that the Church per se shares the same scale or degree of historical culpability as the Third Reich.