Comments on A response to Melody

Go to Religion in the Modern World - Add a comment - Go to A response to Melody

Melody - any large institution will have rogue elements

But  if you examine what I have said closely, you will see that I made no reference to holding the leader of the monolithic catholic church responsible for the crimes of either individuals or the local archdiocese. As the leader of this institution, he is complicit in two other distinct areas.  The flight from prosecution was orchestrated to a degree that it was extensively planned and worldwide in nature. This is criminal in itself and there is no way on earth that he was not aware of it. The second area of complicity is found within the responsibilities of his leadership in eliminating the precursive conditions that contribute to the criminal activity in the first place. In this case ...and I hate to say it again but the main factor is celibacy. Child molestation is virtually a non issue in all other religious organizations but has a disproportionately large number of occurances in the catholic church by comparison.

 

posted by gomedome on July 30, 2006 at 12:30 PM | link to this | reply

Gome - don't take my comments personal.

CL and I are two different people. Like I mentioned before, I'm a visiting guest. I very much enjoy our discussions and differences. The fact that I focus on the celibate contention is because your other points have basis. Those being: contraception and women in the priesthood. Those are issues being debated within the church that you touched upon that are valid. I do not agree with you that he should be held accountable for the acts of the local Archdioceses; though, some critics do judge a father for the sins of their sons and sons for the sins of their mothers.."son of a bitch." [joke] No pun intended. You fell apart when you brought out celibacy and his lack of understanding of women. His devotion to Mary is evident of his love for women and Mary as Co-redemptrix is also. In fact, his devotion to Mary is a bit controversial among Catholics, going out on a limb sort of risk. As I am sure you know, he had a girlfriend during his university years. Check out excerpts from his book Love and Responsibility published in 1960. He advises a husband to consider the different sexual arousal rate of his wife and the ability for simultaneous climax.  I suppose this subject has run its course... Do not be offended.. this is just a discussion of different views.   Take care, Melody 

posted by CunningLinguist on July 30, 2006 at 12:02 PM | link to this | reply

CunningLinguist - that's just a stupid and immature remark

With each exchange we are getting further away from the point. You seem caught up in mentioning the sexual apect of human life because of my reference to celibacy as one of the pope's failing points. There is a lot more to celibacy than simply suppressing one's own sexuality. It is denying one's self the full range of human experience. Simply stating that I have contradicted myself (or whatever it is that you are attempting to say?) ..is not enough. Make you case.  

If you can make a solid contention, make it, or go bother someone else.

posted by gomedome on July 30, 2006 at 11:43 AM | link to this | reply

How can you speak of children when you've never been pregnant?

If the only way to know women is through sexual intercourse, you better hold onto that snake, pal.  I think you've put your foot in your mouth in your attempt to go out of your way to be a feminist.

CL

posted by CunningLinguist on July 30, 2006 at 11:00 AM | link to this | reply

Melody - now I see what you are trying to do

There is a lot more implied by what I have said than the angle of attack that you are attempting. Being celibate also precludes having children, yet the pope speaks of child rearing issues on a regular basis. How can he possibly know anything about this issue? The same goes for his views towards women which both he and the current pope have clearly demonstrated are perspectives from the middle centuries. Yet again they both have commented at length about issues pertaining to marriage and relationships from a position of absolutely no personal experience.  Your attempt to bring homosexuality into this discussion and your claim that my views are inconsistent, have no basis other than you not being able to find another means of offering contention.  

posted by gomedome on July 30, 2006 at 9:37 AM | link to this | reply

Good morning Gome and Sunny - What I am referring to is obviously clear...

posted by CunningLinguist on July 30, 2006 at 7:19 AM | link to this | reply

Sunnybeach7 - I think it is just a weak attempt at refutation by making a

connection that doesn't exist.

 

posted by gomedome on July 29, 2006 at 10:17 PM | link to this | reply

Gome

Maybe she was referring to what you said about the priests?  But then still....there's a big difference between homosexuality and sexual molestation.

posted by Afzal_Sunny7 on July 29, 2006 at 10:02 PM | link to this | reply

Melody - you didn't strike a nerve, you simply made a meaningless point

Celibacy and homosexuality are completely unrelated and there is no connection here in this post.  

posted by gomedome on July 29, 2006 at 9:57 PM | link to this | reply

Gome

I think it has to be a form of denial.  How could one read the Bible and not see that?
I even have known women to actually play out these roles with their husbands. Sick.

posted by Afzal_Sunny7 on July 29, 2006 at 9:23 PM | link to this | reply

Gome - Actually,

I wonder if you really understand what you have written.... This totally contradicts your past views on homosexuals and their contributions to our society.  I didn't mean to strike a nerve.   Have a pleasant evening,  Your "pal," Melody

posted by CunningLinguist on July 29, 2006 at 6:14 PM | link to this | reply

Sunnybeach7 - yeah -- no kidding - what is wrong with this picture?

I am constantly amazed at how many women defend religions that depict them in subserviant roles.

posted by gomedome on July 29, 2006 at 9:18 AM | link to this | reply

gome

This is one of the main points about Christian religions that I can't stand.  I have a daughter, and I don't want her growing up feeling like she's inferior, or "bad" in some way, because that's what these religions teach.

Yet another reason that if such a God existed, as depicted in the Bible,  I'd much rather burn in hell thanks.  I can't be worse than living with a God for all eternity who is discriminating against half the population.
Or shall we just assume that most women will go to hell anyway, for the mere fact of the sex they were given by HIM?

What really gets me is in the "story" of Adam and Eve.......A snake tempts Eve...she bites, snake and eve are bad, snake for tempting, and Eve for giving in.  Yet when this same scenerio happens with Eve giving the apple to Adam, and he bites...he's not bad, it's Eve's fault...making her twice as sinful?
What's wrong with this picture?

posted by Afzal_Sunny7 on July 29, 2006 at 7:53 AM | link to this | reply

Melody - I wonder if you really understand what I have written here

Of course the pope did not condone sexual abuse, no one said that he did. What he did do however was preside over an enormous coverup and a systematic flight from prosecution perpetrated by the institution that he represents.. The effort of transferring priests out of jurisdictions where they had commited their crimes took place in ernest during his term. As for his understanding of women, a man who is celibate can never fully know the needs of the modern day woman. It is much more than the absence of sex from his life, it is the absence of any form of relationship or female companionship that makes a celibate man ill qualified to be a community leader.   

posted by gomedome on July 28, 2006 at 10:16 PM | link to this | reply

Gome, I want to thank you for acknowledging my comment.

posted by CunningLinguist on July 28, 2006 at 9:46 PM | link to this | reply