The Hazards of Belief

Lurkio

recedite wrote: »

Lots of people believe in a deity, but don't insist on signing up their infants for full RCC membership.
I don't accept accept that a sane person would want to sign up to a doctrine that opposes their deepest feelings, their "self" in fact.
You don't see a black person insisting on membership of the KKK, or a Jew insisting on joining ISIS. It can only be for mischievous reasons.

While I have no idea what goes on in their heads, I accept that many people see far more to the RC than its teaching on sexuality and related matters.

PopePalpatine

Vice News got their hands on some headcam footage filmed by a Da'esh fighter. It's not a pretty sight...unless, of course, you find jihadi incompetence entertaining.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM3ElTvF52I

Lurkio

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Vice News got their hands on some headcam footage filmed by a Da'esh fighter. It's not a pretty sight...unless, of course, you find jihadi incompetence entertaining.

Theres a sequel to "four lions" in there.

PopePalpatine

Coming soon to a Da'esh propaganda video: rubber dinghy rapids.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

Rules is rules.
If you don't agree with the club rules, why would you try to join the club?
Being abusive towards the priest is not helping their case either.

As I understand it, they are already members of 'the club' and want their child to be also. The only reason being presented to not permit this is because they happen to be gay.
If you were a believing parent who wished your child to partake in a religious ritual, and said ritual was denied through no fault of your child, I think you'd be annoyed too.

Further hypocrisy is exposed by the priest's reasoning that non-biological parents are not permitted - but adoptive parents neither of whom have a biological relationship with the child are.

recedite wrote: »

Lots of people believe in a deity, but don't insist on signing up their infants for full RCC membership.
I don't accept accept that a sane person would want to sign up to a doctrine that opposes their deepest feelings, their "self" in fact.
You don't see a black person insisting on membership of the KKK, or a Jew insisting on joining ISIS. It can only be for mischievous reasons.

False dichotomy, we are not talking about ideologies chosen as an adult but doctrines imposed since childhood.

recedite

I'm no fan of RCC, and I'm not defending their rules. But atheist's complaints about RCC are usually based on the interference of that church with secular and public affairs, such as schools and civil same sex marriage.

If you want the RCC to mind their own business, you can hardly complain when they are doing exactly that.

smokingman

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/music/prince-s-last-days-gathering-clues-to-star-s-untimely-death-1.2631019

Knew he was a bit out-there with his beliefs but are jehovahs OK with painkiller drugs?
Still going to miss him though...

cowboyBuilder

https://twitter.com/BasimaFaysal/status/726784798224601088

recedite

Prince. Had a religious-based resistance to medical intervention - killed himself with drugs

fran17

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Chances are he was ordained when Franco was still around, and after all, Spain IS the birthplace of Opus Dei.

The anti Franco leftists being responsible for the rape and murder of some 7000 Catholic clergy of course.Opus Dei being responsible for hundreds of hospitals,schools and charities throughout the world.

It's when scallywags like you get together that rumours start :pac:

MrPudding

fran17 wrote: »

The anti Franco leftists being responsible for the rape and murder of some 7000 Catholic clergy of course.Opus Dei being responsible for hundreds of hospitals,schools and charities throughout the world.

It's when scallywags like you get together that rumours start :pac:

Saddam Hussein was responsible for free access to primary, secondary and university education. He also gave free basic healthcare to pretty much the entire population, and that which was not free was heavily subsidised. So, what's your point? Doing some good stuff makes up for the bad? So Saddam was actually alright and should have been left alone, I mean, he seems to have been doing a good job, you know, unless you were a kurd. The RCC does a good job unless you are a cute underage boy, gay or a woman, so let's leave it alone?

MrP

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

I'm no fan of RCC, and I'm not defending their rules. But atheist's complaints about RCC are usually based on the interference of that church with secular and public affairs, such as schools and civil same sex marriage.

If you want the RCC to mind their own business, you can hardly complain when they are doing exactly that.

They are perfectly entitled to do so and we are perfectly entitled to point out their hypocrisy and the hurt their rules cause to people.

recedite wrote: »

Prince. Had a religious-based resistance to medical intervention - killed himself with drugs

Albeit accidentally. It was rumoured for years that he required hip surgery but couldn't have it as a JW as it would require blood transfusions. Certainly not the first or last person to die as a result of refusing treatment due to belief

JPNelsforearm

MrPudding wrote: »

Saddam Hussein was responsible for free access to primary, secondary and university education. He also gave free basic healthcare to pretty much the entire population, and that which was not free was heavily subsidised. So, what's your point? Doing some good stuff makes up for the bad? So Saddam was actually alright and should have been left alone, I mean, he seems to have been doing a good job, you know, unless you were a kurd. The RCC does a good job unless you are a cute underage boy, gay or a woman, so let's leave it alone?

MrP

Well Saddam should have been left alone, its no one elses business how Iraq is/was run. The issue with the RCC is that they are a subversive foreign entity doing bad stuff and wielding undue influence in Ireland.

PopePalpatine

fran17 wrote: »

The anti Franco leftists being responsible for the rape and murder of some 7000 Catholic clergy of course.Opus Dei being responsible for hundreds of hospitals,schools and charities throughout the world.

It's when scallywags like you get together that rumours start :pac:

Whereas pro-Franco rightists were responsible for up to 300,000 forced adoptions against "enemies of the state", and as for rape, I'd hazard a guess pro-Francoists saw asking for a woman's consent as "cultural Marxism" or some mad conspiracy theory like that.

anothernight

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'd hazard a guess pro-Francoists saw asking for a woman's consent as "cultural Marxism" or some mad conspiracy theory like that.

The official terminology for pro-Francoists is "Judeo-Masonic conspiracy". That's what you get if you follow a dictator whose power apparently comes from St Therese's incorrupt arm. :rolleyes:

Incidentally, women under Franco couldn't give consent for most things. Want to open a bank account? Ask your husband. Working, sex, signing a contract, getting a passport, even spending money was legally up to her husband. The new rights women got in the constitution of 1931 were wiped out by Franco in the name of National Catholicism. It wasn't until 1978, when a new constitution was prepared after Franco's death, that women got autonomy again.

Both sides of the war killed people (it was a war. That's what happens in a war). But only one side actively pushed the country back into that retrograde morality that removed basic rights from half of the country's population. And that's before we mention homosexuals and people with different cultural and religious backgrounds.

fran17

MrPudding wrote: »

Saddam Hussein was responsible for free access to primary, secondary and university education. He also gave free basic healthcare to pretty much the entire population, and that which was not free was heavily subsidised. So, what's your point? Doing some good stuff makes up for the bad? So Saddam was actually alright and should have been left alone, I mean, he seems to have been doing a good job, you know, unless you were a kurd. The RCC does a good job unless you are a cute underage boy, gay or a woman, so let's leave it alone?

MrP

Maybe that's because Saddam Hussein was the leader of a country and a government with the responsibility for its peoples education,healthcare etc.You know,what all governments are responsible for.I'm struggling to find the comparison between him and a charitable religious based organisation such as Opus Dei on any level.Being a Christian under him was no barrel of laughs either,thousands were ethnically cleansed.
Your remarks on the RCC are nothing more than an ill founded generalisation laced with insidious stereotyping.If the RCC was such a haven for anti gay sentiment why did a large minority of gay men reside in the church for decades?
Seems to me that the only hazard of Christian belief is persecution for your beliefs.This thread is nothing more than a poorly constructed set of fables

Custardpi

To be honest I'd be reluctant to ascribe moral superiority to either side of the Spanish civil war. While the 1931 government certainly did their best to implement worthwhile reforms the Republican forces which ended up fighting the war on their behalf quickly became the pawns of Soviet interests. Read Orwell's Homage To Catalonia for an inside account of a movement which was essentially run by a bunch of fanatical Stalinists, more focused on carrying out the kind of ideological purges then in full swing in the Soviet Union than in actually fighting the war. If they had won (it's questionable whether Stalin would have even wanted them to, given the greater difficulty in controlling a Spanish socialist government versus those in his backyard of Eastern Europe) I'm not sure the overall human rights situation for Spain would have been vastly better.

MrPudding

fran17 wrote: »

Maybe that's because Saddam Hussein was the leader of a country and a government with the responsibility for its peoples education,healthcare etc.You know,what all governments are responsible for.I'm struggling to find the comparison between him and a charitable religious based organisation such as Opus Dei on any level.Being a Christian under him was no barrel of laughs either,thousands were ethnically cleansed.
Your remarks on the RCC are nothing more than an ill founded generalisation laced with insidious stereotyping.If the RCC was such a haven for anti gay sentiment why did a large minority of gay men reside in the church for decades?
Seems to me that the only hazard of Christian belief is persecution for your beliefs.This thread is nothing more than a poorly constructed set of fables

The main point was that, irrespective of one being a dictator, a benevolent-ish leader or a charity that some of one's actions are good does not necessarily counter-balance the bad. I believe this is particularly the case when the 'charity' is arguably not so much for charitable and altruistic reasons, but more for the furtherance and survival of the organisation. Were it not for the fact that the RCC was poisoning the minds of school children that don't know any better whilst operating a virtual monopoly in primary education it would have died out years ago in Ireland.

And yeah, maybe i have used some generalisation and insidious stereotypes, but am I not allowed to? Are only priests and bishops allowed to do that when they are talking about gay people or atheists?

Are you seriously trying to argue that the RCC is a good place for gay men because so many of them resided in the church? Really?

MrP

anothernight

Custardpi wrote: »

To be honest I'd be reluctant to ascribe moral superiority to either side of the Spanish civil war. While the 1931 government certainly did their best to implement worthwhile reforms the Republican forces which ended up fighting the war on their behalf quickly became the pawns of Soviet interests. Read Orwell's Homage To Catalonia for an inside account of a movement which was essentially run by a bunch of fanatical Stalinists, more focused on carrying out the kind of ideological purges then in full swing in the Soviet Union than in actually fighting the war. If they had won (it's questionable whether Stalin would have even wanted them to, given the greater difficulty in controlling a Spanish socialist government versus those in his backyard of Eastern Europe) I'm not sure the overall human rights situation for Spain would have been vastly better.

Both sides did horrific things. The difference is that one side was a bunch of different groups with barely any organisation, and the other side was an organised military faction (with subsections, mind you) with an experienced military leader.

Things got incredibly messy with the civil war and I don't think either possible outcome would have helped the country at all. But the third option was: Franco doesn't try to seize power, and the country tries to find its own footing through democracy. Spain had only just had a previous dictatorship and I doubt they would have been able to cope well for a few decades after the start of the second republic (the short republic was very unstable), but eventually they would have figured it out, just like Ireland took a while to figure out some things. (Having said that, at least Franco's death became the catalyst for sudden change. Ireland hasn't had that "luxury".)


I've read and liked Homage to Catalonia, but it's not a very good source for this time period in that he didn't really know what was going on, and even though he attempts to only state what he sees, he's a little too biased at times. He seems to think that a lot of of the republicans were only interested in revolution, rather than defence. That's true for some of the groups, but certainly not all of them. Ultimately this is all off topic, however, as what the war did and didn't do is completely unrelated to religious belief, whereas what Franco did and didn't do is absolutely linked to it.


EDIT: Off topic as it may be, for anyone who understands written Spanish, the National Library has the newspapers and magazines of the era digitised and available online. It's very interesting and eye-opening to see the publications from both sides, before and during the civil war. Though it's also very sad.

fran17

MrPudding wrote: »

The main point was that, irrespective of one being a dictator, a benevolent-ish leader or a charity that some of one's actions are good does not necessarily counter-balance the bad. I believe this is particularly the case when the 'charity' is arguably not so much for charitable and altruistic reasons, but more for the furtherance and survival of the organisation. Were it not for the fact that the RCC was poisoning the minds of school children that don't know any better whilst operating a virtual monopoly in primary education it would have died out years ago in Ireland.

And yeah, maybe i have used some generalisation and insidious stereotypes, but am I not allowed to? Are only priests and bishops allowed to do that when they are talking about gay people or atheists?

Are you seriously trying to argue that the RCC is a good place for gay men because so many of them resided in the church? Really?

MrP

Generalise and stereotype at will,it wont make it true though.
Ah,no I don't believe I made the argument for the RCC being a good,bad or indifferent place for gay men to reside.While there may be no conclusive evidence regarding this matter there is a number of studies which very much conclude that the percentage of gay men in the RCC is vastly higher than in the general population as a whole.A US study in the 1990's estimated it to be as high as 33% while another ranged it anywhere from 15-58%.
Why,baring in mind religious teachings on the matter,would such a disproportionate amount enter the priesthood?What is the net gain?

Lurkio

fran17 wrote: »

Generalise and stereotype at will,it wont make it true though.
Ah,no I don't believe I made the argument for the RCC being a good,bad or indifferent place for gay men to reside.While there may be no conclusive evidence regarding this matter there is a number of studies which very much conclude that the percentage of gay men in the RCC is vastly higher than in the general population as a whole.A US study in the 1990's estimated it to be as high as 33% while another ranged it anywhere from 15-58%.
Why,baring in mind religious teachings on the matter,would such a disproportionate amount enter the priesthood?What is the net gain?

Yet again the gay community can rest assured that once they're convenient for whatever argument you're trying to win, you sort of support them.

Custardpi

Assuming those figures are accurate could it be possible (just wildly speculating here, could be wrong) that in previous eras men who for some strange reason showed a reluctance/inability to settle down with a nice girl would be likely candidates to be gently (or perhaps not so gently) nudged towards a vocation by their family as a "respectable" alternative?

One eyed Jack

Custardpi wrote: »

Assuming those figures are accurate could it be possible (just wildly speculating here, could be wrong) that in previous eras men who for some strange reason showed a reluctance/inability to settle down with a nice girl would be likely candidates to be gently (or perhaps not so gently) nudged towards a vocation by their family as a "respectable" alternative?

I imagine a more likely explanation is that there wouldn't be any suspicions about their sexuality if a man joined the priesthood, plus of course there was the added advantage that the priesthood is a sausage fest!

fran17

Custardpi wrote: »

Assuming those figures are accurate could it be possible (just wildly speculating here, could be wrong) that in previous eras men who for some strange reason showed a reluctance/inability to settle down with a nice girl would be likely candidates to be gently (or perhaps not so gently) nudged towards a vocation by their family as a "respectable" alternative?

Yes I agree,this would seem to be the most logical explanation.I can recall a priest on Joe Duffy in the recent past claiming that half of his class in Maynooth were gay men.This of course was decades past.The RCC were very much unprepared or informed at the time,as I think most of society were,on how the repression of ones sexuality and desires would ultimately manifest itself.
Thankfully nowadays most people can,in general,be who they are and live the lives they wish to live.

One eyed Jack

fran17 wrote: »

Yes I agree,this would seem to be the most logical explanation.I can recall a priest on Joe Duffy in the recent past claiming that half of his class in Maynooth were gay men.This of course was decades past. The RCC were very much unprepared or informed at the time,as I think most of society were,on how the repression of ones sexuality and desires would ultimately manifest itself.
Thankfully nowadays most people can,in general,be who they are and live the lives they wish to live.

You didn't surely type that with a straight face? :pac:

Society, religious organisations, and indeed governments were very much aware of how repressing sexuality would manifest itself in society. That's how they were able to justify the continued existence of the laundries and keep the rampant child sexual abuse covered up for so long!!

Custardpi

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You didn't surely type that with a straight face? :pac:

Society, religious organisations, and indeed governments were very much aware of how repressing sexuality would manifest itself in society.

Actually I'm not sure that's completely true. Obviously not to excuse the behaviour of the Church & wider society in this matter too much but the fact is that there was a wide level of genuine misunderstanding regarding sexuality up to a few decades ago. The concept of "curing" gayness was, well within living memory a perfectly reasonable idea & not just in wacky Evangelical Christian circles. In the field of Psychiatry the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders listed homosexuality as a disorder up to the 1970s.

One of the most famous victims of this flawed belief on the part of supposedly learned people was of course Alan Turing but there must have been thousands of others over the years. Strange as it seems to our eyes today there were once many well meaning people to whom either hiding LGBT people away or attempting to "cure" them with highly invasive & humiliating treatments was not "repressing" them in any way but rather doing the right thing to humanely help them. Thankfully we have to a great extent (though by no means universally sadly) moved on from such beliefs & practices.

One eyed Jack

Custardpi wrote: »

Actually I'm not sure that's completely true. Obviously not to excuse the behaviour of the Church & wider society in this matter too much but the fact is that there was a wide level of genuine misunderstanding regarding sexuality up to a few decades ago. The concept of "curing" gayness was, well within living memory a perfectly reasonable idea & not just in wacky Evangelical Christian circles. In the field of Psychiatry the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders listed homosexuality as a disorder up to the 1970s.

One of the most famous victims of this flawed belief on the part of supposedly learned people was of course Alan Turing but there must have been thousands of others over the years. Strange as it seems to our eyes today there were once many well meaning people to whom either hiding LGBT people away or attempting to "cure" them with highly invasive & humiliating treatments was not "repressing" them in any way but rather doing the right thing to humanely help them. Thankfully we have to a great extent (though by no means universally sadly) moved on from such beliefs & practices.

The concept of "curing" what were considered mental disorders is itself a relatively recent idea in terms of human history. Homosexuality wasn't always considered immoral behaviour, and wasn't always classed as a mental disorder.

Repressing people's sexuality on the other hand, is a concept as old as the existence of human civilisation itself.

Lurkio

Custardpi wrote: »

Assuming those figures are accurate could it be possible (just wildly speculating here, could be wrong) that in previous eras men who for some strange reason showed a reluctance/inability to settle down with a nice girl would be likely candidates to be gently (or perhaps not so gently) nudged towards a vocation by their family as a "respectable" alternative?

Quite possible. Certainly here it was traditional to try and send the youngest son to the priesthood.

Custardpi

Lurkio wrote: »

Quite possible. Certainly here it was traditional to try and send the youngest son to the priesthood.

While the older & more intelligent son would be encouraged to go into medical school.

One eyed Jack

Custardpi wrote: »

While the older & more intelligent son would be encouraged to go into medical school.

That certainly explains why my mother wanted me to either be a priest or a doctor - I was the middle child, and she wanted a priest or a doctor in the family as both were seen as a vocation and would increase the family's social standing!

I was considering the priesthood when all the scandals about the priests having relationships came out (seemed like a great way to get the ladies!). I reconsidered however when all the scandals about the priests abusing children came out...

fran17

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That certainly explains why my mother wanted me to either be a priest or a doctor - I was the middle child, and she wanted a priest or a doctor in the family as both were seen as a vocation and would increase the family's social standing!

I was considering the priesthood when all the scandals about the priests having relationships came out (seemed like a great way to get the ladies!). I reconsidered however when all the scandals about the priests abusing children came out...

Wise choice Dr.Jack,pays better too.

Hotblack Desiato

fran17 wrote: »

Yes I agree,this would seem to be the most logical explanation.I can recall a priest on Joe Duffy in the recent past claiming that half of his class in Maynooth were gay men.This of course was decades past.The RCC were very much unprepared or informed at the time,as I think most of society were,on how the repression of ones sexuality and desires would ultimately manifest itself.
Thankfully nowadays most people can,in general,be who they are and live the lives they wish to live.

Are you implying that homosexuality causes paedophilia? That's a common tactic now among the catholic child-rape apologists.

looksee

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Are you implying that homosexuality causes paedophilia? That's a common tactic now among the catholic child-rape apologists.

I didn't think he said that at all? He was discussing homosexuality, he made no reference to children, I think two separate lines of thought are being conflated.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Are you implying that homosexuality causes paedophilia?

The only person implying that was yourself HD. Fran implied no such thing. That's a bit like suggesting being religious causes paedophilia. It shows a poor understanding of paedophilia, let alone a poor and sensationalist understanding of people who molest and abuse children.

That's a common tactic now among the catholic child-rape apologists.

Among... who?

oscarBravo

I guess fran can quickly clear up any misunderstanding by explaining exactly what was meant by: "The RCC were very much unprepared or informed at the time,as I think most of society were,on how the repression of ones sexuality and desires would ultimately manifest itself."

How would such repression ultimately manifest itself, fran?

MrPudding

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The only person implying that was yourself HD. Fran implied no such thing. That's a bit like suggesting being religious causes paedophilia. It shows a poor understanding of paedophilia, let alone a poor and sensationalist understanding of people who molest and abuse children.





Among... who?

There have been a number of posters, mostly on the other forum and to be perfectly honest catholic child rape apologists would be a generous way of describing them. They also, quite frequently, sought to connect homosexuality with paedophilia, often quite directly.

Honestly that is exactly the meaning I took from fran17's comment too, simply because I have heard it before from people with similar views to him.

MrP

One eyed Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

I guess fran can quickly clear up any misunderstanding by explaining exactly what was meant by: "The RCC were very much unprepared or informed at the time,as I think most of society were,on how the repression of ones sexuality and desires would ultimately manifest itself."

How would such repression ultimately manifest itself, fran?

Fran explained in the first part of the same post:

fran17 wrote: »

Yes I agree,this would seem to be the most logical explanation.I can recall a priest on Joe Duffy in the recent past claiming that half of his class in Maynooth were gay men.This of course was decades past. The RCC were very much unprepared or informed at the time,as I think most of society were,on how the repression of ones sexuality and desires would ultimately manifest itself.
Thankfully nowadays most people can,in general,be who they are and live the lives they wish to live.

It manifested itself in the fact that a significant number of men in the priesthood were homosexual men.

oscarBravo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Fran explained in the first part of the same post:





It manifested itself in the fact that a significant number of men in the priesthood were homosexual men.

That's a convoluted reading, but fair enough, I suppose.

One eyed Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a convoluted reading, but fair enough, I suppose.

Ah fairness Oscar, convoluted reading is implying there was anything in that post about paedophilia, let alone the implications that fran is an apologist for child rapists!!

Look I don't like the idea of anyone making excuses for paedophiles or child molesters, but all too often in this thread I've seen misguided associations being made between people who are religious and paedophilia and child molestation.

The same posters get a whiff of an association between the priesthood and gay men and suddenly it's a case of "Ooh no, we can't be having that!". Honestly, it seems like another case of a refusal to acknowledge the fact that the priesthood is the most logical place for gay men who couldn't be open about their sexuality in a society where being gay was, by the RCC's own standards at the time - intrinsically disordered.

The last place gay men were likely to be persecuted was right under the noses of the RCC itself!!

That is a completely and totally separate issue from the numbers of paedophiles who joined the priesthood because they would have unquestioned access to children, and also the numbers of child molesters and abusers within the clergy who took advantage of their position to inflict intolerable cruelty and suffering upon children.

Anyone who apologises or excuses that behaviour, is an idiot.

Anyone who uses that behaviour to score points in a discussion, is an idiot.

Anyone who appropriates and uses the suffering of anyone in their anti-religious rants, well, they're an idiot and all.

This thread is supposed to be about the hazards of belief, and there are plenty to choose from, without appropriating the suffering of human beings to score points. It's undignifying tbh, both to those who have suffered, and indeed to those who continue to suffer, because of their religious beliefs.

fran17

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Are you implying that homosexuality causes paedophilia? That's a common tactic now among the catholic child-rape apologists.

Wow,no such thing did I imply and I'm struggling to even comprehend your post.I clearly stated how society at the time,and the state,contributed to create this environment which manifested itself in gay men being forced into religious institutions in large numbers from fear of being exposed.The very institutions which deemed them sinners.
To cast aspersions that a culture exists in any section of society which either defends or apologises for child abuse is dramatic at best but considering the vileness of the subject it's down right sickening.

Hotblack Desiato

Can you give us the correct interpretation of the following, then, please?

fran17 wrote: »

The RCC were very much unprepared or informed at the time,as I think most of society were,on how the repression of ones sexuality and desires would ultimately manifest itself.

What precisely are you referring to as 'the repression of sexuality and desires manifesting itself' ?

Is this 'manifestation' different for a heterosexual priest or a homosexual priest?

fran17

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Can you give us the correct interpretation of the following, then, please?



What precisely are you referring to as 'the repression of sexuality and desires manifesting itself' ?

Is this 'manifestation' different for a heterosexual priest or a homosexual priest?

Again,I made it quite clear regarding how the repressing of ones sexuality by society at the time resulted in gay men being ushered or forced into the priesthood.It did happen,in numbers well above the social norm,whether you wish to accept it or not.Your introduction of paedophilia into the conversation is not something I'm going to contribute to.

silverharp

The CC must have known that mammies all over the Catholic world were sending their gay sons off to be priests, there was a certain logic to it. Was there a "don't ask don't tell" attitude? a few whacky catholics Ive come across put in terms of a "gay infiltration" but that makes it sound like a conspiracy theory and doesn't really hold up to any inspection.

MrPudding

fran17 wrote: »

Again,I made it quite clear regarding how the repressing of ones sexuality by society at the time resulted in gay men being ushered or forced into the priesthood.It did happen,in numbers well above the social norm,whether you wish to accept it or not.Your introduction of paedophilia into the conversation is not something I'm going to contribute to.

I have to admist to having some trouble seeing the connection here... I'm sorry, but it really doesn't add up. When you speak about the consequences of repressing one's sexuality...

fran17 wrote:

The RCC were very much unprepared or informed at the time,as I think most of society were,on how the repression of ones sexuality and desires would ultimately manifest itself.

...that sounds like you are implying a serious negative consequence. Usually when you say "X organisation or society weren't prepared Y" Y is usually bad. To use a silly analogy, which of these make more sense "I was unprepared for £2000 being taken out of my bank account unexpectedly" or "I was unprepared for £2000 being unexpectly lodged in my bank account"?

Then, if the unexpected consequence was gay people signing up to be priests I am struggling to see hy that would require preraration, or indeed why the RCC or society would have an issue with preparedness for that. That simply does not make sense.

Then another point is how does sexual repression impact homosexual preist diferently to heterosexual priests? Sexual repression has been a part of life a a catholic priests for hundres of years, ever since they got worried about priest's kids taking a slice of their wealth, so again, what exactly is the effect of sexual repression for gay men as opposed to straight?

Ah... Here we go...

fran17 wrote:

I myself will also be voting no in the upcoming referendum.Firstly from a religious standpoint as marriage is,has and always will be first and foremost a religious ceremony.As Pope Francis declared yesterday anything else is simply "an attempt to redefine the very institution of marriage".All attempts to dilute and redefine with whatever mutated version of marriage is as the pope said "disfiguring Gods plan for creation".I believe its very sad and regrettable that,if passed,society will be forcefully legislated to recognise this redefined abomination.
As for the link between homosexual men and paedophilia,well of course there is unfortunately paedophilia in all sections of society,both straight and gay.However,as much of the gay society is still by and large in the shadows then we can only take public gay figures into consideration.So when you take characters such as Terry Bean,David Norris,Elton John,Michael Barrymore,George Michael and the as yet unnamed director of lgbtq Dublin and look at there individual points of view on issues such as drugs,monogamy,pederasty and age of consent then definite question must arise.
There may be many good members of the gay community but as of yet due to either disinterest,shame or lack of strength they refuse to acknowledge what is a very sinister undercurrent in the lifestyle of the sexually active gay man.As the debate intensifies over the coming months these issues must be addressed.

See OEJ, this is why we sometimes take a certain meaning form certain words, particulalry when the words are form certain posters. It's because we have seen it before, not necessarily from the same poster, but sometimes from the same type of poster. Or perhaps you would like to explain how the quote above does not say what it appears to say and means something else...?

MrP

One eyed Jack

MrPudding wrote: »

I have to admist to having some trouble seeing the connection here... I'm sorry, but it really doesn't add up. When you speak about the consequences of repressing one's sexuality...

...that sounds like you are implying a serious negative consequence. Usually when you say "X organisation or society weren't prepared Y" Y is usually bad. To use a silly analogy, which of these make more sense "I was unprepared for £2000 being taken out of my bank account unexpectedly" or "I was unprepared for £2000 being unexpectly lodged in my bank account"?

Then, if the unexpected consequence was gay people signing up to be priests I am struggling to see hy that would require preraration, or indeed why the RCC or society would have an issue with preparedness for that. That simply does not make sense.

It absolutely makes sense because the RCC were not prepared for the idea of having homosexual men among their ranks when they condemned homosexuality as intrinsically disordered. It would seem completely illogical then that gay men would sign up to a vocation such as the priesthood, but if you think about it, given the time, and how homosexuality was viewed in society, it made perfect sense for a gay man to enter the priesthood.

MrPudding wrote: »

Then another point is how does sexual repression impact homosexual preist diferently to heterosexual priests? Sexual repression has been a part of life a a catholic priests for hundres of years, ever since they got worried about priest's kids taking a slice of their wealth, so again, what exactly is the effect of sexual repression for gay men as opposed to straight?

But fran didn't say anything about whether repression of their sexuality affected homosexual/heterosexual men differently. As I understood the context of his post, it was referring to the effect of repression of sexuality on society as a whole, which is why I said:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You didn't surely type that with a straight face? :pac:


Society, religious organisations, and indeed governments were very much aware of how repressing sexuality would manifest itself in society. That's how they were able to justify the continued existence of the laundries and keep the rampant child sexual abuse covered up for so long!!

MrPudding wrote: »

See OEJ, this is why we sometimes take a certain meaning form certain words, particulalry when the words are form certain posters. It's because we have seen it before, not necessarily from the same poster, but sometimes from the same type of poster. Or perhaps you would like to explain how the quote above does not say what it appears to say and means something else...?

MrP

You pull a post from a post up from an old thread in a different forum to undermine fran's opinion in this thread that he gave only a few days ago...

I won't be explaining anything about that post as it is completely irrelevant to the flow of conversation that preceded posters taking one line out of a post and ignoring context to construe an entirely different point from the one that was made in context if anyone had read what was written in the first sentence of the post itself.

MrPudding

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I won't be explaining anything about that post as it is completely irrelevant to the flow of conversation that preceded posters taking one line out of a post and ignoring context to construe an entirely different point from the one that was made in context if anyone had read what was written in the first sentence of the post itself.

LOL. OK. Let me see if I undertand you correctly here... fran17 posts something which a number of poster, myself included, took to mean a certain thing. I then find a post where fran17 has said EXACTLY THAT THING, and you think that found post is irrelevant to whether or not fran17 actually meant what he seemed to be implying... Is that about it?

Even for you that is pretty astonishing.

MrP

One eyed Jack

MrPudding wrote: »

LOL. OK. Let me see if I undertand you correctly here... fran17 posts something which a number of poster, myself included, took to mean a certain thing. I then find a post where fran17 has said EXACTLY THAT THING, and you think that found post is irrelevant to whether or not fran17 actually meant what he seemed to be implying... Is that about it?

The reason that post you pulled from a year ago is irrelevant now, is because it's over a year old, and I for one anyway allow for the fact that people's opinions change over time. I know mine does, does yours? What he seemed to be implying was interpreted that way by a couple of posters here, but I personally don't keep scores on people's opinions. Their opinion is only relevant for the time in which we are now. Pulling their opinion from a year ago to undermine their opinion now is just underhanded and unnecessary IMO.

MrPudding wrote: »

Even for you that is pretty astonishing.

MrP

That must be quite the little dossier on posters you have there

Seriously Mr P, let it go, you'll feel better for it. I'd tell you myself that I'm often inconsistent depending upon how well a person can argue their case without descending to having to use underhanded tactics to undermine another person's opinion. Once they engage in that sort of behaviour, they've lost their case as far as I'm concerned, personally.

You may of course have a different view that says once a person expresses an opinion, they are never allowed to change their opinion, and must always be reminded of the opinion they once held. I'm just not sure how useful a strategy that is, beyond mere mud slinging.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The reason that post you pulled from a year ago is irrelevant now, is because it's over a year old, and I for one anyway allow for the fact that people's opinions change over time. I know mine does, does yours? What he seemed to be implying was interpreted that way by a couple of posters here, but I personally don't keep scores on people's opinions. Their opinion is only relevant for the time in which we are now. Pulling their opinion from a year ago to undermine their opinion now is just underhanded and unnecessary IMO.





That must be quite the little dossier on posters you have there

Seriously Mr P, let it go, you'll feel better for it. I'd tell you myself that I'm often inconsistent depending upon how well a person can argue their case without descending to having to use underhanded tactics to undermine another person's opinion. Once they engage in that sort of behaviour, they've lost their case as far as I'm concerned, personally.

You may of course have a different view that says once a person expresses an opinion, they are never allowed to change their opinion, and must always be reminded of the opinion they once held. I'm just not sure how useful a strategy that is, beyond mere mud slinging.

Certain opinions are not time specific unless one retracts them . Has the poster in question retracted that opinion ?

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

Certain opinions are not time specific unless one retracts them . Has the poster in question retracted that opinion ?

That might work for some people who demand that people retract their previous opinions and statements they made in the past, but I'm more than willing to work with the opinion someone expresses in the here and now rather than trudge over old ground with them. I don't see the purpose in it other than an attempt to humiliate a person, and seeing as I wouldn't like it done to me, I'm sure as hell not going to try and do it to someone else.

That's just me though, I'm more interested in someone's argument, than being interested in lording it over them. I don't believe that evet contributes very constructively to a discussion.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That might work for some people who demand that people retract their previous opinions and statements they made in the past, but I'm more than willing to work with the opinion someone expresses in the here and now rather than trudge over old ground with them. I don't see the purpose in it other than an attempt to humiliate a person, and seeing as I wouldn't like it done to me, I'm sure as hell not going to try and do it to someone else.

That's just me though, I'm more interested in someone's argument, than being interested in lording it over them. I don't believe that evet contributes very constructively to a discussion.

That is all very nice but it has zero relevance to the discussion