EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 22, 2014 18:27:36 GMT -5
Yes there were far too many homosexual priests during that period of time. There was homosexual activity in many seminaries during those years. There is also no excuse for priests to engage in homosexual activity outside the seminary. The fact, yes fact, that they abused teenagers, not children, is the distinction so it was not primarily pedophilia but homosexual activity. Equally as deplorable but not politically acceptable to label it as such. Read Michael Rose's "Goodbye Good Men".
|
|
seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,649
Member is Online
|
Post by seaweed on Apr 22, 2014 19:29:01 GMT -5
Since we have some right wing crazy going on in this thread already, can someone explain why I'm supposed be outraged about some cheapskate freeloading cattle farmer who won't pay a grazing fee or whatever? You gotta love a guy who claims not to recognize the US Fed Govt's existence but rides around waving a US flag all day - he is just as consistent as all the other right wingnuts
|
|
seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,649
Member is Online
|
Post by seaweed on Apr 22, 2014 19:38:29 GMT -5
Yes there were far too many homosexual priests during that period of time. There was homosexual activity in many seminaries during those years. There is also no excuse for priests to engage in homosexual activity outside the seminary. The fact, yes fact, that they abused teenagers, not children, is the distinction so it was not primarily pedophilia but homosexual activity. Equally as deplorable but not politically acceptable to label it as such. Read Michael Rose's "Goodbye Good Men". now there is some deplorable parsing there. and what proof do you have that they were mostly teens? you can say "equally as deplorable" but you choose a word that implies consent and smears* the victims, who were by no means universally homosexual. if you don't like pedophilia because you think that doesn't apply to teenagers, the call it rape. * i say smears because of the obvious distaste for homosexuality the Catholic Church exudes
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 23, 2014 7:29:38 GMT -5
Since we have some right wing crazy going on in this thread already, can someone explain why I'm supposed be outraged about some cheapskate freeloading cattle farmer who won't pay a grazing fee or whatever? You gotta love a guy who claims not to recognize the US Fed Govt's existence but rides around waving a US flag all day - he is just as consistent as all the other right wingnuts If there is one thing I admire about liberals, it is their steadfast consistency on any and every issue. I mean, never even the slightest whiff of hypocrisy ever. As for the original topic, I know very little about those events. So I will not comment on it. And, I am pretty sure I am the first person to do that in the history of the Internet. I win!!! ... Hitler, Hitler, Hitler! DAMMIT!
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 23, 2014 10:13:49 GMT -5
hoya95 - do you think the author and Philomena may have interests, financial and otherwise, that should be considered when assessing credibility? Easy Ed, it did not take long for your prophecy to prove true - abuse, not facts. Not unexpected. Facts, not abuse: The report to which you cite from Ireland confirms that the Magdalene Laundries were engaged in extremely questionable practices, including strongly encouraging the adoptions of the children of unwed mothers and forcing them to work in the laundries for no pay while those adoptions were ongoing. Perhaps, as some of your other cites show, the evidence of direct abuse against the women in the laundries (sexual or physical) was less striking than had previously been reported. But these were not exactly institutions wearing white hats. There is certainly no reason to defend them. Hollywood manipulation of facts in movies is as old as the movies themselves. For sure, directors and writers often are doing so to make a point, but the main issue (as you, yourself point out, when citing to the author's comments) is financial. They simply want to dramatize the story as much as possible to make a buck. Thus, certain of the dramatic choices in the movie that you deride as fraud or done for dramatic effect and don't take away from the larger truth of the story. Did she travel to Washington? No. But she did go over ahd over to the convent seeking information, which was denied. Did the adoptive parents "buy" the child? No, but they made a sizable "donation," a euphemism I would suggest makes what they did almost worse. Were the conditions in the Laundires as bad as depicted, including the "cruel" nun? I don't know, but when you're depicting an institution that, for sure, engaged in questionable practices, I can undrestand the rationale behind worsening those practices for dramatic effect. Sure, she was above-age and signed a consent form, but she wasn't given a choice. The adoption was a requisite part of any young lady's "stay" in the Laundries. All of the reports I've seen indicated she had an audience with the Pope -- whether it was truly "private" or not seems besides the point and pedantic. I never saw any suggestion that the film-makers (or Philomena herself) was saying that the Pope or the Church endorsed the story, and the stories I saw even made clear that the Pope had not and would not watch the movie itself. So, what's the issue here?
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,906
|
Post by Filo on Apr 23, 2014 11:17:53 GMT -5
Don't know how most of you could even read beyond this: Example, the “news” references are always to the Church’s “pedophilia” scandal when it is undisputed that pedophilia was less than 5% of the reported abuses. The scandal was of homosexuals preying upon adolescent boys in their charge. The scandal demonstrated the wisdom of the Boy Scouts’ policy not to allow homosexuals as scoutmasters in charge of adolescent boys. The mass media had to call the Church scandal something else so it could continue to harass the Boy Scouts to reverse their policy. That says quite enough about the original poster and his supporters. Still can't believe this tortured line of reasoning, and sad to see it coming from those who are alleged followers of Christ. Ridiculous distinctions between "teenagers" and "children" are just plain embarrassing in this context. Some of you should be ashamed.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Apr 23, 2014 11:27:18 GMT -5
"....Example, the “news” references are always to the Church’s “pedophilia” scandal when it is undisputed that pedophilia was less than 5% of the reported abuses. The scandal was of homosexuals preying upon adolescent boys in their charge. The scandal demonstrated the wisdom of the Boy Scouts’ policy not to allow homosexuals as scoutmasters in charge of adolescent boys....."
FOR SHAME.
There are no words. This is the most reprehensible argument I have seen in my time on this board, which goes back to it's origin as one of the B&G board's first resident conservative political agitators.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,440
|
Post by TC on Apr 23, 2014 11:56:17 GMT -5
Don't know how most of you could even read beyond this: To be fair, I wanted to get to the part about the Jews and the black helicopters.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 24, 2014 8:38:46 GMT -5
Yes there were far too many homosexual priests during that period of time. There was homosexual activity in many seminaries during those years. There is also no excuse for priests to engage in homosexual activity outside the seminary. The fact, yes fact, that they abused teenagers, not children, is the distinction so it was not primarily pedophilia but homosexual activity. Equally as deplorable but not politically acceptable to label it as such. Read Michael Rose's "Goodbye Good Men". now there is some deplorable parsing there. and what proof do you have that they were mostly teens? you can say "equally as deplorable" but you choose a word that implies consent and smears* the victims, who were by no means universally homosexual. if you don't like pedophilia because you think that doesn't apply to teenagers, the call it rape. * i say smears because of the obvious distaste for homosexuality the Catholic Church exudes Stop putting words or intentions in my mouth. I clearly stated that homosexual activity with teens was equally as deplorable as with children. They are both deplorable. That's what I said. In no way did I say, nor do I mean, that I am consenting to this nor putting the blame on the victims. What I am saying is, to solve a problem, you must define the problem. Most, but not all, of the problem was homosexual activity between priests and teens and the priests are at fault for deplorable acts. Some smaller problem was deplorable pedophilia. I cited a reference if you want to check it out. For the record I regard homosexual activity to be on an equal basis with heterosexual activity outside of marriage.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,440
|
Post by TC on Apr 24, 2014 9:55:05 GMT -5
now there is some deplorable parsing there. and what proof do you have that they were mostly teens? you can say "equally as deplorable" but you choose a word that implies consent and smears* the victims, who were by no means universally homosexual. if you don't like pedophilia because you think that doesn't apply to teenagers, the call it rape. * i say smears because of the obvious distaste for homosexuality the Catholic Church exudes Stop putting words or intentions in my mouth. I clearly stated that homosexual activity with teens was equally as deplorable as with children. They are both deplorable. That's what I said. In no way did I say, nor do I mean, that I am consenting to this nor putting the blame on the victims. What I am saying is, to solve a problem, you must define the problem. Most, but not all, of the problem was homosexual activity between priests and teens and the priests are at fault for deplorable acts. Some smaller problem was deplorable pedophilia. I cited a reference if you want to check it out. For the record I regard homosexual activity to be on an equal basis with heterosexual activity outside of marriage. You didn't cite a source, you just threw out a book title whose subtitle is "How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church" and while I haven't read it, seems in synopsis to be a screed blaming everything on liberals and homosexuals and how everything would have been solved by recruiting priests from some handwavy population of Orthodox liberal hating youth. I don't see any chapters on transferring priests around, ignoring and dismissing victim complaints, or cover ups.
|
|
nathanhm
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by nathanhm on Apr 24, 2014 10:15:30 GMT -5
I don't understand this desire to place a division between children: teenagers and non teenagers. The majority of the kids molested were between 11 and 14. So if you homophobes are trying to say a grown man molesting and raping an 11-12 year old is a pedophile but becomes just a regular gay guy on the kids 13th birthday you are out if your minds. An adult who engages with children in sexual behavior is a pedophile. Gender of the child in many cases is irrelevant because it's a matter of access to the child. Simply there was more access to boys than girls but girls were molested and raped as well. But don't let facts get in the way of a good narrative.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 24, 2014 15:43:50 GMT -5
Yep, if anyone disagrees with you, call him a homophobe. Or a racist. Standard fare for liberals.
|
|
nathanhm
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by nathanhm on Apr 24, 2014 16:16:41 GMT -5
You are a homophobe and this might blow your mind but I'm not a liberal.
|
|
seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,649
Member is Online
|
Post by seaweed on Apr 24, 2014 16:51:41 GMT -5
the distinction you seem not to care about Easy is that homosexual activity is consensual, whether you like it or not. Priests raping teens is not consensual. See the difference? Absent consent it is not sexual, hetero or homo, it is violence.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 25, 2014 12:33:22 GMT -5
How do I delete my Hoyatalk account?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 25, 2014 14:50:17 GMT -5
You are a homophobe and this might blow your mind but I'm not a liberal. Nathan, I think you owe me an explanation as to why you called me a homophobe. Is is because I follow the Catholic Church's teaching to love all human beings as brothers or sisters? Or that I follow the Catholic Church's teaching that marriage is between one man and one woman? Or that I follow the Catholic Church's teaching that sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful? Or it something else I have said or done? Please give me a reason.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Apr 25, 2014 15:45:42 GMT -5
"Or that I follow the Catholic Church's teaching that sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful?...."
Bingo. That in fact DOES make you a homophobe in the year 2014. As well as hopelessly out of touch with our time. The Catholic Church: always on the cutting edge of the previous century or two's moral thinking.
Honest non-rhetorical question....would you really want your children or grandchildren to have their first physical experience on the night of their marriage to someone they can't easily divorce? Ancillary question: what percentage of CATHOLIC marriages would you say is this actually the case? Certainly far less than 1% in this country would be my guess. Your guess? I'm just trying to guage how far exactly your worldview is disengaged with the world we actually live in.
|
|
nathanhm
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by nathanhm on Apr 25, 2014 16:54:31 GMT -5
ho·mo·pho·bi·a (hō′mə-fō′bē-ə) n. 1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. 2. Behavior based on such a feeling.
You've defined rape and molestation between an adult man and a male child as homosexual while not once saying rape between an adult male and female child as heterosexual.
And said:
"For the record I regard homosexual activity to be on an equal basis with heterosexual activity outside of marriage."
And
"Or that I follow the Catholic Church's teaching that sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful? Or it something else I have said or done? Please give me a reason."
So you consider criminal evil acts to be homosexual and homosexuality to be a sin and you're confused why you're a homophobe? What would make you think you weren't?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 25, 2014 18:51:48 GMT -5
I give up. Now I'm being condemned for what I did NOT say. This will be my last response on the subject. I do not think homosexuality is a sin. I love homosexuals the same as I love others of God's human creatures. I am a Roman Catholic and I attempt to follow all of its teachings. If any of you choose to regard the Church as outdated or disagree with its teachings, that's your problem.
|
|
seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,649
Member is Online
|
Post by seaweed on Apr 25, 2014 19:33:28 GMT -5
the fact that you belong to a social institution, the Catholic Church, that is also homophobic, doesn't make it OK
|
|