Azazello1313 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/25/D8FBPLCG0.html Pope Benedict XVI warned in his first encyclical Wednesday that sex without unconditional love risked turning men and women into merchandise. In the 71-page document "God is Love," Benedict explored the relationship between the erotic love between man and woman, referred to by the term "eros," and the Greek word for the unconditional, self- giving love, "agape" (pronounced AH-gah-pay). He said the two concepts are most unified in marriage between man and woman, in which a covetous love grows into the self-giving love of the other, as well as God's unconditional love for mankind. He acknowledged that Christianity in the past has been criticized "as having been opposed to the body," _ the erotic form of love _ "and it is quite true that tendencies of this sort have always existed." But he says the current way of exalting bodily love is deceptive. "Eros, reduced to pure 'sex' has become a commodity, a mere 'thing' to be bought and sold, or rather, man himself has become a commodity." "Here we are actually dealing with a debasement of the human body: no longer is it integrated into our overall existential freedom; no longer is it a vital expression of our whole being, but it is more or less relegated to the purely biological sphere," he said. i really can't say i disagree with that.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Follows directly from Pope John Paul II's theology of the body. I think it is pretty sound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 (edited) What two (or more) consenting adults do behind closed doors is nobody's business but theirs. Perhaps after the guy in the pointy hat addresses the paedophile sexual habits of the priests he's in charge of I'll give a rat's azz about his views on eros and agape. Edited January 25, 2006 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted January 25, 2006 Author Share Posted January 25, 2006 What two (or more) consenting adults do behind closed doors is nobody's business but theirs. Perhaps after the guy in the pointy hat addresses the paedophile sexual habits of the priests he's in charge of I'll give a rat's azz about his views on eros and agape. 1288378[/snapback] nice childish non sequitur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaumont Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 What two (or more) consenting adults do behind closed doors is nobody's business but theirs. Perhaps after the guy in the pointy hat addresses the paedophile sexual habits of the priests he's in charge of I'll give a rat's azz about his views on eros and agape. 1288378[/snapback] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big F'n Dave Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 (edited) http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/25/D8FBPLCG0.htmli really can't say i disagree with that.. 1288363[/snapback] That's because you're a fag. Edited January 25, 2006 by Big F'n Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 nice childish non sequitur. 1288383[/snapback] Hardly a non sequitur. Flippant perhaps, but when organized religion protects clergy members who molest little kids, they lose all moral high ground when it comes to preaching about society's sexual habits. It would sadden me if you truly found that opinion to be childish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 (edited) That's because you're a fag. 1288389[/snapback] See, now that's a childish non sequitur. Edited January 25, 2006 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 "Whats love got to do, got to do with it' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 nice childish non sequitur. 1288383[/snapback] Try this one: When the hopelessly impractical device of celibacy is abandoned so that the Pope and his cohorts can get a clue about sex and inter-gender relationships in the first place, maybe I'll give him some credence when he pronounces on sex, marriage, divorce and all the rest. Until then, his views are those of one who knows nothing of the subject of which he speaks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted January 25, 2006 Author Share Posted January 25, 2006 Hardly a non sequitur. Flippant perhaps, but when organized religion protects clergy members who molest little kids, they lose all moral high ground when it comes to preaching about society's sexual habits. It would sadden me if you truly found that opinion to be childish. 1288390[/snapback] it's a non sequitur because 1) the church's role in the pedophile scandals really has nothing to do whether these thoughts are apt or not, and 2) the fact that "what 2 people do (sexually) behind closed doors is (legally) nobody's business but theirs" has absolutely nothing to do with the theological/sociological point that is being made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted January 25, 2006 Author Share Posted January 25, 2006 Try this one: When the hopelessly impractical device of celibacy is abandoned so that the Pope and his cohorts can get a clue about sex and inter-gender relationships in the first place, maybe I'll give him some credence when he pronounces on sex, marriage, divorce and all the rest. Until then, his views are those of one who knows nothing of the subject of which he speaks. 1288397[/snapback] well...i agree that the catholic church has got it's doctrine and practice all f*cked up with respect to any number of sexual issues, and that this paints their comments on the topic as a bit hypocritical if nothing else. but again, that doesn't mean the pope's thoughts here are incorrect. as far as the last paragraph, i'm not sure i agree with the implied argument. are fellow drug addicts the only ones qualified to treat and speak about drug addiction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 (edited) it's a non sequitur because 1) the church's role in the pedophile scandals really has nothing to do whether these thoughts are apt or not, and 2) the fact that "what 2 people do (sexually) behind closed doors is (legally) nobody's business but theirs" has absolutely nothing to do with the theological/sociological point that is being made. 1288401[/snapback] Please keep in mind that I'm not saying the Pope's view is right or wrong: I'm saying I don't care what he thinks. Not on this subject, at least. Edited January 25, 2006 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big F'n Dave Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 See, now that's a childish non sequitur. 1288394[/snapback] Thank you. Thank you very much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 it's a non sequitur because 1) the church's role in the pedophile scandals really has nothing to do whether these thoughts are apt or not, and 2) the fact that "what 2 people do (sexually) behind closed doors is (legally) nobody's business but theirs" has absolutely nothing to do with the theological/sociological point that is being made. 1288401[/snapback] it's great that we can debate sequiturs and still be friends. there are many ways to argue this. couldn't one say that every sexual experience they have is "a vital expression of our whole being"? each time certainly felt spiritual for me ... and, from the pope's perspective, the term biological refers to how we were created, which (as far as i can tell) includes a very healthy sexual appetite. so one could say that putting little people down here, giving us insatiable sexual appetites, and then turning us loose with the opposite sex is a given recipe for some biological activity. to argue this, you would say that it was not God, but satan who gave us the uncontrollable urges, but since it happened with the very first two creations (they bit the apple), which started the ball rolling, we didn't exactly stand much of a chance, did we? quite the conundrum ... even if it is not a sequitur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 well...i agree that the catholic church has got it's doctrine and practice all f*cked up with respect to any number of sexual issues, and that this paints their comments on the topic as a bit hypocritical if nothing else. but again, that doesn't mean the pope's thoughts here are incorrect. I honestly cannot see why the celibacy thing persists. It is quite clearly impractical, it may be a driver towards the recent pedophilia cases (or it may not), it gravely reduces the life experience that an adviser of any kind should have and it reduces the numbers of prospective priests. An opinion ventured from a position of "ivory tower" can always be held to be irrelevant to the people the opinion is aimed at. as far as the last paragraph, i'm not sure i agree with the implied argument. are fellow drug addicts the only ones qualified to treat and speak about drug addiction? 1288412[/snapback] Perhaps they are.....certainly anyone who has been an addict and got clean has the experience to help someone who is still an addict. That doesn't mean they are the only ones qualified, nor does it mean they are necessarily suitable as a mentor for other reasons, but it may help. Credibility is bound to be higher, all other things being equal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 i really can't say i disagree with that.. 1288363[/snapback] Hey... whaddaya know? The 35 year old virgin agrees with the 70 year old virgin about Sex! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deacon Bill Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 What two (or more) consenting adults do behind closed doors is nobody's business but theirs. Perhaps after the guy in the pointy hat addresses the paedophile sexual habits of the priests he's in charge of I'll give a rat's azz about his views on eros and agape. 1288378[/snapback] I think the Roman Catholic Church has actually done a pretty fair job, albeit decades late, of addressing the pedophilia scandal that has rocked the church. I think if you do a minimal amount of research, you'll see that other occupations that involve a person in an authoritative or guidance role (IE. police, fireman, teachers, deacons, etc.) have similar proportions of incidences of pedophilia. Wherever it is present, in whatever form, it is reprehensible and unexcusable. But your statement "sexual habits of priests" makes it appear that the priesthood is rife with pedophiles. It clearly is not. And when he said, "God is Love," Benedict explored the relationship between the erotic love between man and woman, referred to by the term "eros," and the Greek word for the unconditional, self- giving love, "agape", he was speaking about humanity as a whole, and it's relationship to God, who is perfect love; not your next door neighbors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deacon Bill Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Try this one: When the hopelessly impractical device of celibacy is abandoned so that the Pope and his cohorts can get a clue about sex and inter-gender relationships in the first place, maybe I'll give him some credence when he pronounces on sex, marriage, divorce and all the rest. Until then, his views are those of one who knows nothing of the subject of which he speaks. 1288397[/snapback] So a surgeon who studies for 8-12 years to become a surgeon can't speak about surgery unless he actually performs surgery? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deacon Bill Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 (edited) I honestly cannot see why the celibacy thing persists. It is quite clearly impractical, it may be a driver towards the recent pedophilia cases (or it may not), it gravely reduces the life experience that an adviser of any kind should have and it reduces the numbers of prospective priests. An opinion ventured from a position of "ivory tower" can always be held to be irrelevant to the people the opinion is aimed at. 1288432[/snapback] That is singularly one of the most retarded opinions I have ever heard leveled at the Catholic church. So in your world, a priest is sitting there thinking, "man I need to get laid...but I'm not supposed to because I took a vow of celibacy. Maybe if I doink some little kid, that won't really count". Heterosexuality nor homosexuality have no bearing on pedophilia whatsoever. Being married or unmarried have no bearing on being a pedohile. Your point on celibacy is certainly open for debate. Read Paul's letters, you'll find out why celibacy exists. But being celibate does not trigger some "pedophile molecule" that laid dormant until some priest got a case of the blue balls. I normally enjoy your posts Ursa, but you're way out in left field on this one. Edited January 25, 2006 by Deacon Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted January 26, 2006 Author Share Posted January 26, 2006 That is singularly one of the most retarded opinions I have ever heard leveled at the Catholic church. So in your world, a priest is sitting there thinking, "man I need to get laid...but I'm not supposed to because I took a vow of celibacy. Maybe if I doink some little kid, that won't really count". Heterosexuality nor homosexuality have no bearing on pedophilia whatsoever. Being married or unmarried have no bearing on being a pedohile. Your point on celibacy is certainly open for debate. Read Paul's letters, you'll find out why celibacy exists. But being celibate does not trigger some "pedophile molecule" that laid dormant until some priest got a case of the blue balls. I normally enjoy your posts Ursa, but you're way out in left field on this one. 1288464[/snapback] i'm not so sure either way. it doesn't seem like such a stretch to think that suppressed sexual energy might find its way out in ways like this. but then again i don't have any data or anything suggesting that IS the case either. i'd be interested in knowing what clinical psychologists say about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deacon Bill Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 i'm not so sure either way. it doesn't seem like such a stretch to think that suppressed sexual energy might find its way out in ways like this. but then again i don't have any data or anything suggesting that IS the case either. i'd be interested in knowing what clinical psychologists say about it. 1288479[/snapback] Dang troublemaker Az Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 I'd love to get in on this thread but I'm at work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 I think the Roman Catholic Church has actually done a pretty fair job, albeit decades late, of addressing the pedophilia scandal that has rocked the church. I think if you do a minimal amount of research, you'll see that other occupations that involve a person in an authoritative or guidance role (IE. police, fireman, teachers, deacons, etc.) have similar proportions of incidences of pedophilia. Wherever it is present, in whatever form, it is reprehensible and unexcusable. But your statement "sexual habits of priests" makes it appear that the priesthood is rife with pedophiles. It clearly is not.1288445[/snapback] Decades late? Probably centuries late, but we'll never really know for sure. As far as "addressing" the problem, I bear no end of scorn and disdain towards the Vatican for refusing to endorse a zero-tolerance policy. There is no excuse for anything less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 (edited) As far as "addressing" the problem, I bear no end of scorn and disdain towards the Vatican for refusing to endorse a zero-tolerance policy. There is no excuse for anything less. 1288533[/snapback] While I understand the amount of anger people hold towards the Catholic Church, what would you have them do? Close up shop and go home? It seems to me that the pope's words do address the matter of molestation, albeit indirectly. Pedophelia reduces sex to the most base act of physical indulgence seperated entirely from any spiritual meaning. The molestee becomes little more than an object. Isn't this what Benedict is talking about? Not that I'm informed on the subject, but Benedict seems to be taking some difficult and pertinent issues head-on. Edited January 26, 2006 by billay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.