An ex-secular theist explains how you've been lied to.
I see what you did there!
I agree with what you're trying to do, but be careful. We don't know the facts and apparently the director vehemently denies the allegations. Innocent until proven guilty and all of that.But yeah, point made.
Roman Polanski anyone?
Malcolm,Yep, you're right. No rushing to judgment. I guess we'll just have to see.
Yep, you're right. No rushing to judgment. I guess we'll just have to see.I wish "our side" was given the same benefit of a doubt. It seems that if Father [insert name here] isn't found guilty in the court room, he's still guilty as far as the general public and media are concerned.
So you are comparing the Catholic Church to Hollywood?Frankly, based just on the article this guy actually sounds innocent.
The only comparison being made to the Catholic Church is the usual reminder that the refrain of 'The sexual abuse scandal in the Church would have been avoided if only priests were allowed to marry and if there were female priests!' is bogus, since we can clearly see - and this goes far beyond this particular incident - that sexual abuse takes place all throughout society, where such limitations do not exist.
Sure, if you want to assume that Hollywood and the Catholic church have comparable morals. The Bible specifically says in 1 Corinthians 7 that marriage is designed to fight temptation.
Drew,I honestly, truly have no idea what you're even trying to accomplish with that comparison.I point out that the option of married and female directors doesn't act as a lock against (in this case it's just accused) sexual abuse in Hollywood. I can very easily point at numerous cases of child sexual abuse happening (not just accused, as far as courts are concerned) with married adults as the perpetrators.You tell me I'm implying the Church and Hollywood have 'comparable morals' (?), tell me that 1 Corinthians 7 'specifically says' marriage is designed to fight temptation (never mind that the question of child sexual abuse is not coming up there at all, and even the 'design' comment is off-base in a broader context) and...Really, I don't get it. Are you just swinging blind and hoping something lands here?Are you telling me that this director wouldn't have had a problem if only he got married to some nice woman?
You should compare the Catholic Church to other churches that have married pastors. You shouldn't compare the Catholic Church to Hollywood. Everyone knows that Hollywood is wicked. Also, for what it's worth, being married is not the key; the key is being married and also having marital sex. "Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency." 1 Corinthians 7:5
Drew,A serious question.Have you ever been in a conversation and suddenly realized you had made a bad move? Like, you jumped to a conclusion incorrectly, you went on the offensive when you didn't understand what was originally being said, and thereupon found yourself in a position where you should actually be backing off and moving carefully, rather than digging deeper?Or, have you never, ever had this happen?Regardless - I didn't 'compare the Catholic Church to Hollywood'. I talked about an claim about a particular practice that is partly but not exclusively engaged in by the Catholic Church. The (gay) director is only the most noteworthy and public accused incident I'm talking about - there are plenty, and I mean plenty, of married men and women sexually abusing their children, certainly within the statistical rates that priests are accused of doing so.Now you can hem and haw here and say 'Well clearly they are not doing what they SHOULD do in marriage!' But that's irrelevant: it shows marriage solves nothing on this front, in and of itself. And if you start talk about the need for them to have self control, etc, you've just obviated marriage as relevant as opposed to individual fortitude.This is an example of a situation where you should not be doubling down and trying to change the topic, or reframe the conversation - I won't allow it to happen, and I can tell when you're doing it. You should just go - hostility to Catholics aside - 'I'm sorry, I misread' and back off, because pressing on just makes you ripe to have an intellectual example made out of yourself.
If you have these supposed statistics which exonerate the Catholic Church, then why didn't you link to an article showing those statistics? Instead, you linked to an article trying to exonerate the Catholic Church by showing that some Hollywood director is also accused. If you repeatedly deny that you are trying to compare your church to Hollywood, then I give up -- I guess I just can't figure out what the hell your point was supposed to be.
Drew,If you have these supposed statistics which exonerate the Catholic ChurchFirst, I am not trying to 'exonerate the Catholic Church'. I made a joke about the ability for directors to get married or be women apparently didn't stop him from (so the accusations go) molesting someone.You'd like statistics? My pleasure.Take a good look at characteristics of adults who molest children - particularly entry number one. "Usually married."Would you like some more?I guess I just can't figure out what the hell your point was supposed to be.Well, of course you can't, because you're not thinking clearly.Look, Drew, I get it - you dislike the Catholic Church, a la Triablogue, so when you see the C-word you immediately go on offense. But let me be frank: you are doing poorly here, and you're not going to do better. Part of it is because you completely misfired, and keep on misfiring - you're going according to a script I'm not following. So I'm going to ask you again.Have you ever been in a conversation and suddenly realized you had made a bad move? Like, you jumped to a conclusion incorrectly, you went on the offensive when you didn't understand what was originally being said, and thereupon found yourself in a position where you should actually be backing off and moving carefully, rather than digging deeper?Or, have you never, ever had this happen?
Post a Comment