The Glade 4.0

*shrug* I just don't see it. The view Aizle and I are espousing - that institutionally-required celibacy may be a contributing factor in the sexual abuse committed by some priests - isn't inherently anti-Catholic or even anti-celibacy; it's just a plausible (in my opinion) explanatory hypothesis. And it's worth noting that there are plenty of reform-minded Catholics who think the same thing and advocate a change in Church doctrine partly as a result.

RangerDave:

... You really aren't reading this thread very carefully then.

_________________

Ah, I gotcha, having strong opinions on something is a bad thing. Riiiight.

You're right, there are many Catholic beliefs and practices that I don't like and feel are harmful.

There is nothing unhealthy in the viewpoint of celibacy. The church doesn't condemn sex. It espouses that sex should occur in marriage and that priests, who like all men have these urges, choose to abstain as a special sacrafice to God. Further if sex occurs outside marriage it is a sin, but it is emminently forgiveable. The core tenet of the Church itself is that man is not perfect but God is and will forgive us anything we are truly sorry for.

_________________

Having strong opinions is one thing; asserting your opinions are correct with no evidential support for their veracity is another. You think the Church is harmful; yet, as usual, refuse to support your beliefs with anything subject to critique. The only evidence you've provided is a speech full of glaring falsehoods and misinformation. More to the point, you're propagating a media bias about the "propensity" of abuse within the Priesthood without abandon. You have an agenda to push that has nothing to do with facts or history. Consequently, your bigotry is rather obvious.

_________________

Ah I see, so now it's the "liberal" media who's conspiring to attack the Church.

I have supported my position, the fact is you don't like it and have your undies in a bunch. Tough.

As for your historical reasoning behind why there is a vow of celibacy, I didn't address it because it's irrelevant to the concept that we've been discussing. Why they have the vow doesn't matter for this discussion, what matters is what affect it has on it's participants. Now, if you want to argue that it's the lesser of two evils, that would be at least germain.

Aizle:

You've presented facts? Your argument is that Celibacy exacerbates or creates a propensity for pedophilia; yet, you've no proof or even evidence that pedophilia occurs in greater numbers among the clergy than it does the general population. The only basis for your supposition is the popularity of pedophile Priests in the the media. It's a bias created by the very real truth that the media spends an unequal and undue amount of time addressing the issue. But, perhaps you'd actually like to substantiate your position instead of presenting an argument based on your beliefs instead of reality.

Statistically speaking, by the way, the prevalence rate for pedophilia among the general population is between 3 and 9%. Only 1161 of the 4300 priests named in the allegations were found guilty and substantiated, which puts the prevalence rate at around 1.1% for the period covered.

_________________

Nah, having strong opinions isn't a bad thing. Having strong opinions and espousing a cause and effect relationship based wholly on opinions rooted in ignorance is (in intellectual terms) a bad thing. A tiny bit of research would have disabused you of these opinions if you were interested in actually having an informed opinion rather than an opinion based on ignorance and bias.

As the whole idea that celibacy has anything to do with pedophilia rests on the premise that celibacy:
(1) enables a greater degree of pedophilia in Catholic priests than in the population at-large
(2) enables a greater degree of pedophilia in Catholic priests than in other religious leaders akin to Catholic priests
one would think that a bit of research in these two areas would either dismiss these opinions as pure fallacy, or show that further discussion has merit.

My research indicates that the rate of pedophilia in the general population is 3-9% [How Unusual are the Contents of Paraphilias? Paraphilia-Associated Sexual Arousal Patterns in a Community-Based Sample of Men. The Journal of Sexual Medicine.], while the rate of pedophilia among Catholic Priests is .03% [Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis, Jenkins.] The rate of allegations - unsubstantiated and substantiated, credible and and not credible, inclusive, of sexual abuse of a minor is 4% of priests [The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States, John Jay College of Criminal Justice.].
I guess based on the fact that the rate of pedophilia in the general population is far greater than that of Catholic priests I would think it pedophilia probably has nothing to do with the Church's doctrine about priestly celibacy; then again, I don't have an ax to grind. I won't even bother to look into the second plank of the premise.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

That the church (catholic and otherwise) is a harmful force for human society now as it has been throughout history is undeniable to any logical and rational thinker. Any argument otherwise is nothing more than apologism at best. Being "bigoted against the church" is said like it's a bad thing. The church is a murdering, book-burning, child-abusing, rapist, tyrant and villain. I happen to be bigotted against murderers, book burners, child abusers, rapists, tyrants, and villains, I will freely admit--but such a statement is absurd. Everyone should be bigoted against such things. So don't expect any concessions in regard to the diabolical human organizations known as "religions."

I don't agree with all of Aizle's points here, but to make vague claims of bigotry or dishonesty is intellectually shameful of you and betrays a gross lack of willingness to engage in legitimate discourse. Aizle has said nothing that isn't worth thinking about, at the very least.

_________________
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
█ ♣ █

Too bad he hasn't, at least not as much as, say, Khross or Vindi, who with a cursory amount of thought and objectivism, have produced readily available evidence that summarily disputes what thoughts Aizle has provided.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Vindi is the only one who's presented any information that was relevant and counter to my assertion.

One of my handicaps for posting here is that I only post typically at work. The last thing I'm going to google or research at work is pedophilia rates and their connection to the Church.

I'll maybe try and do some digging to check Vindi's comments over the weekend.

Aizle:

You really aren't reading carefully are you?

_________________

Yet you have not offered a single credible reason as to how they are harmful. In fact, you don't even say what they are harmful to, to what degree, or anything. It's a meaningless claim allowing you to move the goalposts to wherever you like.

No, having strong opinions is not bad. The problem is in trying to imply some causal relationship exists without any evidence to that effect and in the face of good reason to think the causal relationship does not exist. Causal relationships are not matters of opinion.

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

We have an example of a liberal media video doing precisely that in this thread.



No, you have not. You have explained why you hold your position. That is not the same as supporting it.



You haven't yet proven that it's an evil at all. Your entire idea that it can cause some sort of unpredictable sexual deviancy is utterly unsupported with any facts whatsoever. It is entirely based on your overblown estimation of how hard it is to be celibate.

I didn't get to have sex for a solid year when I was deployed and neither did any of the rest of us. Masturbation wasn't all that easy either since you're in clsoe quarters and no one else wants to see or hear that ****. Yet astoundingly, we all managed to survive it with our sexuality intact.

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

I'm glad to hear that maybe you'll make some effort to educate yourself at some point in the future, about the opinions you hold, Aizle.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

In the 5 & 1/2 pages prior to Khross & Vindi's posts at 2:00 and 2:15 today, what evidence or support did anyone provide for their views on the topic at hand or any of the other claims that were made (e.g. media bias, liberal agendas, anti-Catholic bigotry, etc.)? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? ...

Where is the burden of proof in this argument, RD? You think it's on the folks that carry on with accusations of sexual "wrongheaded"ness and pedophilia or is it with those who challenge those assertions?

The whole argument that priests are driven to the sexual extreme of pedophilia because they snap from the impossible attempt to suppress their appetites is an exercise in anti-catholic bigotry.

Do you think that such an argument, supplied without evidence, should obligate those who would challenge it or those that promote it?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I presented the facts I did because of Aizle's claim to have "supported his position".

It seems to me that the proponent of the causal link would feel obligated to support it with facts rather than those who doubt it feeling such an obligation, especially in the face of such a link supported by mere ignorant "opinionating".

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I just love how folks here are changing what I've posted and said as this thread goes on. It's quite telling actually.

You get that a lot, don't you.

Ever stop to wonder why?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Aizle:

Care to be specify, or is that too much to ask as well?

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I prefer to reply to vague accusations with vague accusations in return. It's just much easier.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Personally, I don't think there needs to be a "burden of proof" on anyone. I really don't get why it's become so difficult to just have a conversation in the realm of reasonable hypothesis and opinion. That said, if there is to be a burden of proof required, I'd say it should be on whoever asserts their opinion as fact rather than conjecture. If Bob says, "It seems plausible that X might lead to Y," and Carl responds, "Absolutely not. There is no connection between X and Y," Carl is the one who's made a statement of certain fact that necessitates proof. Bob just raised a seemingly plausible idea for consideration.

...From a law student, I find this to be incredibly foolish.

A considerable part of your profession is the burden of proof, or demonstrating that the other side has not met theirs.

A conjecture requires supporting proof, as well, or else it deserves to be disregarded as completely as the one who isn't backing up his declarations.

_________________


Grenade 3 Sports Drink. It's fire in the hole.. Your hole!

Then why did you ask what evidence or support was provided for the views expressed in the 5 & 1/2 pages prior to Khross & Vindi's posts?

You asked where the evidence was, I asked you who should have provided it, now you say nobody should....?

I think this merits a:

...

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.