The Glade 4.0

Talya has made a good start, and I agree with all her comments.

However, I think one of the best arguments I've seen is from the IQ Squared debates.

Whatever. It's really easy to make it seem like there's some problem if you just got a beef with Catholics and organized religion in general. Just play up anything negative as much as possible and downplay or ignore anything positive.

The Mother Teresa example is perfect. Sure, wildly overemphasize sexual matters at the expense of everything else. While we're at it, lets look at what passed for family planning in India before that.. wait I don't think there was any. Or maybe we could lok at Africa where we have such quaint local customs as raping virgins to get rid of AIDS and the like. Even 2 Presidents of South Africa have publicly spouted this and other idiocy.

By comparison, abstinence education is merely ineffective. But by all means, lets pretend its some sort of horrendous evil because we just can't stop obsessing over the beliefs of a religion we don't belong to.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Well, considering that Mr. Fry starts with an outright lie:Why should I continue listening? The appalling thing about this thread isn't that you dislike the Catholic Church; it's that you're too busy couching your opinion in verifiable falsehoods and ignorance. For instance, do you even know why Priests have to take a Vow of Celibacy? Do you know when that came about? Did you know that prior to St. Francis of Assisi, that Catholic Priests were actually expected to be married or that the Church provided for their families? Probably not. After all, it's rather inconvenient to confuse a position of practicality (Celibacy among the Clergy) with one of dogma (Celibacy among the Nunnery).

_________________

Stephen Fry's speech is bloody brilliant. And Khross, the only way that that statement is an "outright lie" is that there are other good things the Church likes to attack more.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Heh, ironic that Stephen Fry was a self imposed celibate for 16 years. I wonder how many "wrong headed" thoughts he had...

That is ironic.

I suspect many.

Point of order. Define "good".

Well, considering he is gay, it was also a dig at your position regarding celibacy causes molestation.

Yeah, I figured.

He was gay before he was celibate.

As are assertions that celibacy causes "wrongheaded thinking about most things sexual in nature", unless, of course, one assumes celibacy is in itself an example of wrongheaded thinking.

Which is possible as an opinion, but it's logically indefensible.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

So to make sure I understand the playing field here, he was gay before he was celibate, but for priests, its being celibate that makes them gay/molest boys?

Things that make you go "hmmmmmmm."

That would be nonsense. It's more an indication of what sorts of people the nature of the priesthood attracts.

Most humans won't go near a profession that requires celibacy. Celibacy is not the natural state for humans. Humans have a healthy and strong sex drive. We have a desire for romantic attachments. So we reject celibacy. While there are several legitimate reasons a person might do so (and certainly the majority of priests are not pedophiles) -- to deliberately choose Celibacy is an odd thing -- unless one's desires run along different avenues. The Priest has traditionally been above reproach, an authority figure, a confidante, and an unassailable good person who can teach the proper love and fear of God into you and your children. This gives them everything they need in order to gain access to and trust. The position is one that is not just a shelter, but a bunker for the pedophile, from which they can launch their attacks on innocent children.

So no, I do not believe celibacy itself turns priests into boy-buggerers. I believe that any intelligent boy-buggerer would have seen the priesthood as an opportunity, and be drawn to it.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

So by that logic, celibacy is irrelevant as a factor in child molestation by priests.

Then question wasn't directed to you.


Or, alternatively, just as "bloody brilliant" commentator decided, the priesthood draws those confused by their own sexuality and the societal stigmas associated in specific cultures, and incorrectly think that training will prevent them from succumbing to the urges, or at least help them deal with their nature. If they can ignore, it will go away!

I have a hard time thinking people actively go through the process of becoming a priest because it gives them access to young boys, and think it much more likely that segment is attracted to the profession in some attempt to suppress their nature, which obviously has a high chance of failure.

Moreso that people get cause and effect backwards. Celibacy doesn't cause pedophiles. Celibacy just discourages those who are not pedophiles from joining a job that is very appealling to begin with for a pedophile.

Anyway, I find the greatest condemnation of the enforced celibacy of Catholic Clergy comes from St. Paul's 1st Epistle to Timothy. When condemned by one's own holy book, it's hard to avoid the appearance of hipocrisy.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

There isn't really a substantitive difference between this and my assertion, except possibly one of conscious intent. I wouldn't argue this sentence on its own though, I'd agree with it.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I'm surprised there's such a strong pushback against the idea that institutionally- and spiritually-required celibacy might increase the likelihood of "unhealthy" sexual proclivities and/or actions. Seems pretty plausible to me that attempting to repress a powerful human urge will increase the likelihood of that urge finding expression in destructive ways. For instance, if you establish a strict belief that any overeating or indulgence in junk food is a major sin, I wouldn't be at all surprised if you end up with higher rates of binge eating and bulimia. Likewise, if you establish a strict belief that any sexual activity is a major sin, I wouldn't be shocked if it led to a higher rate of "deviant" and/or destructive behavior.

Also, whether the foregoing hypothesis pans out or not, I don't see how it's in any way anti-Catholic. It's just a general statement about how long-term celibacy in a population might impact the sexual behavior of that population.

ETA that I think Ladas' assessment, below, is a huge part of what goes into it too:

I don't doubt the vast majority of priests fail at being celibate. However, I don't see an attempt at celibacy being a likely cause of whatever sociopathy that causes a person to be attracted to and willing to victimize children. But, I'm not a psychologist.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Is this in the same vein as arguments that partaking in "unhealthy" (subjective) activities leads to increased experimentation and further off the norm? Of course, take your comment and consider the point behind reasoning, to which Khross earlier alluded. Celibacy was a solution to solve a pattern of abuse.

That comment aside, I don't believe the push is strictly to that notion, but to the notion that being a catholic priest turns men into gay pedophiles, which is what was claimed by a poster here.


So if we were to make reliance on government programs a sin, we would in fact be sowing the seeds of a greater dependency on hand outs? Who knew.

How can you suggest that a lifestyle that eschews any sexual contact at all is an opportunity for any particular sexual behavior, deviant or otherwise?

By that logic, one should fish in the middle of the desert.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Of course, you know I'd agree wholeheartedly with you both.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I suspect it goes the other way - i.e., that allowing for some degree of experimentation probably reduces the percentage of people who veer off into the fringes; whereas requiring strict adherence to a narrow mean encourages those who do experiment to more thoroughly reject the consensus and get truly freaky.


Yeah, I don't get the relevance of this point, actually. I know the origins of the celibacy requirement, but I don't see what it has to do with the question of whether or not it leads to higher levels of sexual deviancy.


Heh. I must have missed that comment.


Actually, I think that's quite plausible. It might reduce the number of people accepting temporary hand-outs, but I wouldn't be surprised if it made it harder for people who are chronic dependents to get off the dole by fostering depression and/or resentment. It's like fat people who can't stop eating because they're so depressed about being fat and resentful of all the people shaming them for it. They're like, "F*ck you! Mind your own business! Ima eat this donut and enjoy it!" *cry* *sob* *nom nom nom* *sniffle*

You have to admit, you would have the element of surprise on your side.

There is that.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.