The Continuing Saga of the Pedophile Priests

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Bahamut: That's why I don't go to masses, support Churches and the like.. even without the figures I just now something is just going on.. not just this.. this just got out of hand... but what about the 'others'? Well why can't just people wait anyway.. sometimes it is silly... but if you are going to have sex might as well be sure of it and not just do it with someone you just met... If most people just wait or be monogamous (which I believe can radically reduce the spread of STDs), then the whole world would be a better place, there may be less room for their whims but then it is worth it

Mate, I know of some good churches in the Philipines. I met some lovely guys last year while I was in Singapore. They weren't Roman Catholic, they were Pentecostal Protestant. Many, many ex-Catholics end up checking out Pentecostal Churches, and find their freedom, accountability, vibrancy of worship and youthful vigor infectious

Originally posted by Bahamut: That's why I don't go to masses, support Churches and the like.. even without the figures I just now something is just going on.. not just this.. this just got out of hand... but what about the 'others'? Well why can't just people wait anyway.. sometimes it is silly... but if you are going to have sex might as well be sure of it and not just do it with someone you just met... If most people just wait or be monogamous (which I believe can radically reduce the spread of STDs), then the whole world would be a better place, there may be less room for their whims but then it is worth it

That’s rather a deontological thing to say.
Why? Can you prove it?

Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel: Sorry but safe sex and no contraception are not mutually exclusive. I hope you realise that for AIDS to be caught one has to already have it, and since Catholics believe in abstinence before marriage, and no divorce, then it's certain you won't catch one actually, more certain than a condom in fact. No contraception doesn't mean Catholics go around mpregnating anyone and everyone does it. [/QB]

One of the most important tools for Safe Sex is the condom; Condoms by their very nature are also contraceptives. It is very hard to have safe sex without using any form of contraceptive device .The only safe sex is no sex at all and few people would wish that, and indeed to promote such would be a denial of human nature.
Also It is totally unrealistic to expect people to be celibate before marriage, it is also a denial of human nature and serves no real purpose except to act as a method of cementing control over people.

Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel: Also, just in case you didn't know, I am not a Catholic, but I like to play devil's advocate, and besides, you have some fairly ludicrous-sounding idea's about the Catholic's. First, you presume to know exactly what their intents are, then you make it sound as if they are some organisation trying to overtake the world. [/QB]

Back in early mediaeval times the power they wielded was vast, the Catholic Church controlled so many aspects of people’s lives and through Jesuit missionaries they did attempt to cement their temporal power. For example in the conquest of South America, they were effectively responsible for the destruction of much of the native culture.
That age passed away long ago, but its remnants still remain. The Catholic Church still attempts to impose its morals and values upon others. The Catholic Church in an effort to hold what little power remains to it, has tried to re-brand itself as some kind of self appointed moral watchdog.
It has condemned cloning and many other scientific advances, they stand out as a reactionary element in modern society.
It’s stand on marriage is also ridiculous and self-destructive, if they wish for marriage to remain relevant they must extend it to divorced people and Same-sex marriages, for if you leave large sections of society out of marriage you can only expect for it to become less popular and the church is often seen as the embodiment of this discrimination.
And yet for all their moral posturing they are blatant hypocrites. They helped the Nazis in WW2; they were responsible for the inquisition and the Crusades even now many people allege that the Vatican is used for money laundering

Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel: They are a religion! Remember that... however big they get, to do what would be necessary to become a sinlge religion, they would have to against their own rules.[/QB]

The Catholic Church has never followed it’s own rules. For hundreds of years the popes whore mongered and indulged in as much corruption as they could.
It has incited murder and genocide; It has obliterated native cultures and imposed its values and views on others. It has sought to hold back technological advance though condemning change, it is above all reactionary, the catholic churches main body wishes to hold what power remains to it and increase it if possible.
Never mind though since they can interpret the bible so as to get out of hypocrisy, and of course they can justify it all through some higher power and greater cause.

Originally posted by Yorick: I'm not seeing people flocking away from it in Ireland. Do you have figures? What about South America? The last I read, numbers were growing. [/QB]

From RC Statistics-

"In the US, the number of "nominal" Catholics is growing, but very slightly. The growth is entirely due to immigration from latin america. And even there, the news must be depressing to the church. It used to be that more than 90% of latin americans called themselves catholic, today, the number is between 2/3 and 3/4.
In the US, weekly mass attendance by those who call themselves Catholic is 37% (although in cities like Boston is between 25 and 30%). In the mid-sixties, about two thirds attended mass. In the 18-29 year old age group, atttendance is 17%.

In 1965, the church operated about 13,000 schools, today, that number is under 9,000.

In 1965, over one half of Catholic children attended catholic school, now it's less than a quarter.

In 1982, there were 58,085 priests, 7880 brothers and 121,370 nuns. In 1994, there were 49,438 priests, 6470 brothers and 93,106 nuns. This is despite the fact that in that time, the number of Catholics grew from 51 million to 58 million. In 1965 there were 181,000 nuns. The median age of the nuns is over 65.

In 1965, both Catholics and Protestants gave 2.2% of their income to the church, today Protestants give at the same rate, Catholics at half that.

Worldwide, over 110,000 married priests left because of the celibacy law. 157,000 out of 365,000 Catholic parishes have no resident priest. In Peru, Phillippines, Brazil and Africa, the majority of priests are married or have common law wives.

One study found 200,000 priests worldwide, 'failing to observe celibacy.'"

As the figures show The infrastructure of the churuch is crumbeling as its employees flock away from it.

Originally posted by Yorick: Don't misunderstand my position. I'm a Protestant. Protestantism was founded on PROTESTS against the Roman Catholic Church. However, I don't support unfactual generalised attacks, on a body of people that still do much good in the world, and an organisation that gives people meaning in their lives. [/QB]

Thourghout history, the catholic church's influence has been overwhelmingly one of bane. For example in the conquest of South America, they were effectively responsible for the destruction of much of the native culture. They were responsible for the inquesition and even today some people claim they launder money thorugh the vatican.

Originally posted by Yorick: Catholicism is not for me, but I would never begrudge someone worshipping there. I would embrace them as bretheren. You on the other hand seem determined to sow misery wherever you write. Attacking the church, faith, entertainment. Things that give people joy. Why? Don't just dismiss this as an "ad hominem attack". These are genuine concerns of mine. I have never seen you post constructively, only negatively. Even your apparent 'support' for your Pseudocommunist ideology is based on negative reactionism to Capitalism and failed Marxist/Leninist/Stalinism. Why so? Why be so intent on trying to remove peoples joy? Are you that bitter you cannot stand to see people happy?[/QB]

So just because I have voiced well-deserved criticism of contemporary culture and ideology, you feel concerned?
That feeds my ego, but save your concern for something more important.

Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel: Thanks [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] I just get a bit confuddled when someone assumes that no contraception means having sex with every single woman they come across. Not just by the catholics rules, some people who aren't Catholics don't use them either, and plus, you can't always have safe sex Dramnek. See there's this little problem with that, if everyone had safe sex, guess what, no kids!! It would be a rather odd end to the human race. Exterminated by plastic.

Most sex is had for leisure and recreational purposes and to further cement relationships, if you wish to impregnate someone and you have been both tested for STD’s and you are clear, that is fine.
But all sex not had for impregnating purposes should be as safe as can be, since in these days of AIDS/HIV and so many other STD’s you can never be too careful. the only safe sex is no sex and that would just be a denial of human nature, but you can at least attempt ot make it as safe as possible.

[Talthyr Malkaviel]

Yes, the Catholic church did do those things, so what, old warrior races used to feast on the corpses of the enemies dead, doesn't mean they do it anymore.
And on the matter of safe sex: Yes, some people do choose to be celibate nutil marriage, and since it seems you didn't know, some people choose total celibacy all their life who aren't catholic priests.
Maybe safe sex is the only way to go if you sleep with many people or someone who possibly has AIDS etc, but tht's most definitely not the point, I was saying that since Roman Catholics say you have to abstain before marriage, which logocally means they can't have previously caught an STD, correct, then, the next logical step is that since neither have one, neither will get one, it's not too hard, and that way they don't need contraceptives for safe sex, and also, you said about the cases where they were doing it not to impregnate, but that's the point, essentially Catholics aren't supposed to do that, so that shouldn't have been brought into the equation in the first place.

[Talthyr Malkaviel]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: quote: Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel: Thanks [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] I just get a bit confuddled when someone assumes that no contraception means having sex with every single woman they come across. Not just by the catholics rules, some people who aren't Catholics don't use them either, and plus, you can't always have safe sex Dramnek. See there's this little problem with that, if everyone had safe sex, guess what, no kids!! It would be a rather odd end to the human race. Exterminated by plastic.

Most sex is had for leisure and recreational purposes and to further cement relationships, if you wish to impregnate someone and you have been both tested for STD’s and you are clear, that is fine.
But all sex not had for impregnating purposes should be as safe as can be, since in these days of AIDS/HIV and so many other STD’s you can never be too careful. the only safe sex is no sex and that would just be a denial of human nature, but you can at least attempt ot make it as safe as possible.[/QUOTE]Yes, good point, in those cases you should ensure as much safety as you can, but we were talking specifically about Catholic policies, so this doesn't even come into the argument.
Good point though.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: One of the most important tools for Safe Sex is the condom; Condoms by their very nature are also contraceptives. It is very hard to have safe sex without using any form of contraceptive device .The only safe sex is no sex at all and few people would wish that, and indeed to promote such would be a denial of human nature. Also It is totally unrealistic to expect people to be celibate before marriage, it is also a denial of human nature and serves no real purpose except to act as a method of cementing control over people.

Is it unrealistic? No. People do it. You are in error to suggest something is unrealistic when it is practiced by millions. Either you don't understand the term 'unrealistic', or you have no awareness of the different value systems people hold.

As far as cementing control goes, I wonder what reality you're living in? If sex cements anything it is the physical and spiritual union between two people. The ultimate manefestation of love. Giving yourself to another human with abandon and totality.

When it's reduced to mere "leisure activities" as you so blithely put it, and given away to whoever you have a relationship with, or meet in a club, or give dollars to; that union and gift are of lesser significance, value and impact. By promoting one life partner, the Church seek to enhance the experience of oneness with another person.

Have you ever been married Dramnek or are you talking from outside your sphere of experience yet again?

Let me tell you that sex with a condom is a rip off. It's faux sex. Like eating a meal with a balloon over your tounge. Is this what God wants us to experience? Diluted pleasure?

No.

What the Church teaches is that God wants the ultimate experience for humans. Truly experienced sex in a SAFE environment, where trust is fostered, health issues are not a concern, where intimate sensual communication is engaged in to unite, give joy and create new life from an act of love.

Every human born is the result of two humans making love. Think about it. Love - a positive - creating life, more positive.

It's beautiful.

The Church seeks to protect that beauty, to encourage people to live life to it's maximum potential, not throw away things willy nilly, getting shortchanged in the process.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: Back in early mediaeval times the power they wielded was vast, the Catholic Church controlled so many aspects of people’s lives and through Jesuit missionaries they did attempt to cement their temporal power. For example in the conquest of South America, they were effectively responsible for the destruction of much of the native culture..

The vast amounts of Gold and Silver had nothing to do with this I suppose? Neither did introduced diseases? I suppose the Kings of Spain and Portugal didn't want the new territorial Empires and the related power either

Read your history Dramnek. You're covering over vast amounts with your misinformation.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: So just because I have voiced well-deserved criticism of contemporary culture and ideology, you feel concerned? That feeds my ego, but save your concern for something more important.

You belittle yourself. My concern is for you as an individual. Your own happiness and wellbeing. If you truly see the world as you describe, and only desire the removal of joy from others lives, I shudder to think what a bleak state of mind you're in.

Nobody is perfect. Culture is a collection of imperfect people. That imperfection is part of what gives uniqueness and beauty though.

Criticising culture does nothing. People will do what they want. If you want to be an impetus for change you need to do it with constructive positivity. Positive impetus is so much stronger than negative.

You need to create an alternative, instead of trying to remove that which already exists. If films are shallow, create deeper ones. If food is of poor qualitiy, make a better product. Don't tell people not to eat, or not to be entertained. That's unrealistic and doomed to failure.

By definition, people gravitate towards the magnetic (positive), not the repellent (negative).

You also need to show why a person should change. In none of your posts have you given any indication as to what your ideology has done for you.

I've asked you directly, yet you refuse to answer, hiding behind an automated "that's an ad hominem attack" response.

That is my concern. You are clearly an intelligent human being who chooses to see darkness where I see light, or at least a light speckled shadow. THAT is what concerns me. YOU. [img]smile.gif[/img]

*hugs Dramnek*