How crazy is the Catholic Church

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Lucky13 said:
What are your opinionsd on this then?
F.C.F.C.'s page
The Vatican'
Nopedo - Other crimes of the Catholic Church

Is ANY of it true?!
Click to expand...

I would say 50/50 perhaps. It's not like none of these things happened, but it's easy to slant some of the information a certain way. "F.C.F.C.'s page" might look more accurate than the others.



Good point.
 
mkloby said:
All I can say is that there is another aspect of controlling HIV that you, and many others, are completely missing, and this is a major shame - the behavoiral aspect.
Click to expand...

The behavoiral aspect ? What do you mean ? What can be wrong with controlling HIV ? You fear peoples will have more sex partners ?

Who cares ? If they use some sort of protection, I don't care if a guy (or a girl) had one partner in his/her life or one hundred. It is not of my business and it is not of yours neither.

Live and let live, damn it !

Or may be you fear that when HIV infection cases will start dropping, peoples will stop protecting themselves ? No, because a well sexualy-educated person will know that there is other forms of VDs and that the pregnancy risk would still be in the picture.

That's why I'm 100% in favor of sexual-education (starting in Grade 6) and condom distributors in high-schools and colleges bathrooms.

mkloby said:
Shouldn't the lack of sources strike as suspect?
Click to expand...

Of course, I don't have answers to everything !

mkloby said:
Can you really validate a statement like that?
Click to expand...

Well, ask anyone born in the Province of Québec who were still children during the war... They'll tell you exactly what I said.

mkloby said:
This is an oversimplification of history.
Click to expand...

It's not oversimplification, it was already simple to begin with. It's the Pope who wanted the Crusades.
 
There is a behavoiral aspect to HIV - namely that main form of transmission is through sexual contact. Making condoms available, while being very effective in reducing the transmission of HIV when used properly, does not address the behavoiral aspect of the disease.



HIV infections dropping are definitely a good thing, no doubt about it. However, I think you'd have to acknowledge that the availability of condoms does not equate to the actual use of them. If this were true, there wouldn't still be such a large number of teenage pregnancies (Granted, since the peaks in the 80's, they have dropped - attibuted to both contraceptive and increased absitnence according to American Journal of Public Health, 2007).

Another issue I have with public availability of condoms is why should the public at large be financially supporting protection for sexual behavoir?


Maestro said:
Well, ask anyone born in the Province of Québec who were still children during the war... They'll tell you exactly what I said.
Click to expand...
Anything that would be easier to source other than me requesting leave to go to Quebec?



Maestro said:
It's not oversimplification, it was already simple to begin with. It's the Pope who wanted the Crusades.
Click to expand...

From that comment, I'm not sure if you truly understand the politics that surrounded the origins of Islam, the expansion, and the Christian response. Was it the Pope that founded the religion of Islam and expanded Islam through a amazingly aggressive and successful military campaigns? Look at the surge of Islamic expansion since its origin...

It is not close to as simple as you make it seem. It is common today, however, for the Crusades to be portrayed as a simple example of Catholic aggression against peaceful Islamic lands.
 
In Quebec where Maestro lives is majority French population and probably 80% + of the population is Catholic . The church controlled almost all aspects of life . The Catholic church was vehement in its anti war stance in both the first and second war and very anti semetic. Here is an excerpt from the official statement by the church
The senior Roman Catholic clergyman in Canada, seeking to get rid of church baggage and turn over a new leaf, asked forgiveness on Wednesday for sexual abuse and discrimination committed by Catholics in the past.
In an open letter published in newspapers in the province of Quebec, Quebec Archbishop Marc Ouellet said that society in the Canadian province was burdened by wounded memories and that the Roman Catholic Church's moral authority had been damaged.

"It is time to take stock and make a fresh start," Ouellet wrote. "Mistakes have been made which have tarnished the image of the Church and for which I humbly ask forgiveness."

He spoke of the abuse of youth by priests, "causing them serious and traumatic damage that shattered their lives."

Ouellet also sought forgiveness for certain "narrow attitudes" before the 1960s, when what is known as the Quiet Revolution ended the pervasive Catholic grip on Quebec society. He said some Catholics tended towards anti-Semitism, racism and indifference to natives, and discrimination against women and homosexuals

Attendence in the Catholic church has dropped from 75% to less then 25% in recent years
 

Thanks for the post, Pb. I think Cardinal Ouellette is right.


The same type of statement can be made about all groups - I don't see this as any more or less prevalent in Catholic groups.
 
mkloby said:
Thanks for the post, Pb. I think Cardinal Ouellette is right.



The same type of statement can be made about all groups - I don't see this as any more or less prevalent in Catholic groups.
Click to expand...

I think the control of the population was very similar to the ones on the Irish in the 1840's but they perservered longer in Quebec
 
What I mean is that, he/they as a church (I guess) is looking for forgiveness for something that their priests did, "he spoke of the abuse of youth by priests, "causing them serious and traumatic damage that shattered their lives."..." Something they don't forgive themself when others do it....

Why should they be forgiven?
 
Watching something on the discovery channel.

A Rabbi said that the bible is not based on truth but a higher truth...it don't have to be historically accurate.

So the basis of religion is belief. Belief in things that may or may not happened.

And im too much of a cynic to buy into it so to Hell I go...But the Devil loves his rock N roll so not all bad.
 
Personally I believe that god doesn't care wether we believe in him/her(or what'ever) or not, as long as we just treat each other well and have empathy sympathy for those in need.
 

Pbfoot having answered "Québec's anti-semetic question" for me, I'll concentrate on your statement above...

That is why education is so important (re-read my posts, you'll see that I always state that condoms must be "used" in conjuction with sex-ed). A well sexually educated teenage will use condoms. And if they use condoms, they won't get a friggin VD, no matter with how many different partners they have sex.

Plus you don't have to financially support the availability of condom... As I said, put condom distriboturs in high-schools/colleges' bathroom. The kid puts one buck in the machine and get a condom. Easy, simple, and you won't have to pay a token.

What better solution do we have ? Teach them absitence ? It would be blind and irresponsible since every societies in the western world tried it for centuries (remember the Church's famous sentence : "No sex before wedding.") and they failed. They couldn't prevent Mr. X to have sex with Miss Y and accidentally get her pregnant. The only thing that was different is that it was taboo to talk about it.

So what other solution do we have ? Hide our head in the sand and say : "It's not ganna happen" ? No, the best solution is to teach protect.

Because if you don't teach them to have a safe sex-life, they'll take their info from somewhere else (i.e. porn movies) and it is not nessessary the best source.

I'll tell you a story (and I swear it is a true story, it is too twisted to make-up)...

Note before starting : In my province, we have sex-ed in Grade 7, 9, 10 and 11.

I was in the sexual education class in Grade 9 (so I was about 14-15 and it was during the 1998-1999 scholar year). During the class, our teacher asked us, just out of curiosity, how many of us had sex before. About 10 (in a class of about 25 students) raised their hands. (I was part of the bunch who still had their hands down). He was surprised by the amount of hands raised, so he started to ask everyone with their hand raised how old they were when they did it for the first time. Most of them answered 14 or 15. However, one of them answered 12. The teacher was flabbergasted, you could see it on his face.

- 12 ? It's pretty young. Did you use a condom at least ?

- Erhm... No. Didn't have one and didn't feel like I needed one.

That's why you must educate kids and start young. Because, one way or an other, they will do it. And I would prefer my kids to have all the "weapons" in hands and have them have a safe sex-life rather than try to brainwash them with phrases like "Don't do it before wedding" and crap like that and finally ends up with a son who had his first baby at 13, caught Gonorea at 17 and died of AIDS at 25.

Think about it...
 
Maestro - you can use all the boldface and large font that you'd like; it still doesn't mean I'm going to agree that your approach is what is going to be successful or that it is what is needed. What's more, it doesn't create the statistics and backing for success.

It's expedient to write me off as burying my head in the sand and denying reality - it's easy and acceptable in today's political climate. There is a major difference in the approach to the problem of teenage sexuality - and it is a problem. You favor a more clinical approach to the problem, focusing on mitigating the risk through contraceptives and sex education. I favor an approach based on addressing the behavoir that is at the root of creating the risk.

I grew up in NJ, one of the most liberal parts of the US. The NJ school system has long prided itself on its program of sexual education. Before looking at numbers and possible effectiveness, you can first off argue as to whether or not NJ's sex ed program actually entails the necessary education (whole other detailed argument). Now, we can look at the situation in NJ and attempt to judge statistically how this aggressive program has actually worked.

Here is a link that details the topic and sexual eduaction in NJ.
The Failure of Sex Education - 94.10

Here is another link to Guttmacher which produces a lot of good information regarding teen pregnancy. If you focus on NJ, a very "progressive" state, the statistics are indeed terrible. Unfortunately, comprehensive teen pregnancy data more recent than 2000 for the US I don't think is available.

Here is the most recent comprehensive detail of teen pregnancy data from the Guttmacher Institute:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf

You can see NJ saw has seen somewhat of a drop in teen pregnancy, but it has remained relatively constant throughout the '90s. I'll be interested to see more up to date complete data when available. Noteworthy is that NJ is 16th in teen pregnancy, 43rd in teen births, and a whopping 1st in teen pregnancy.

Guttmacher also reports that the US teen pregnancy rate remains almost double that of other nations, including Canada, England, Wales, and eight times the Netherlands and Japan. This opens up a possibility that education could be an important issue, although NJ has long had a well established sex education program. Perhaps there is another issue.

Some interesting details regarding condom usage: 49% of women who received abortion reported that their condum use was inconsistent.

An interesting fact - NJ teen pregnancy cost taxpayers an estimated $167 million in 2004.

Teen pregnancy is a problem, regarless of how you think the problem should be addressed. Even with the implementation of comprehensive sex education programs throughout the US, it remains a major problem, especially in NJ. I believe that it is a problem that is rooted in the deterioration in traditional values. I agree with you that sex ed and contraceptives do in fact reduce teen pregnancy rates to varying degrees of success (I don't think you can argue this one), but there is more to the problem than that. The first article covers many other aspects of the problem that sex ed and contraceptive simply cannot address.
 
Lucky13 said:
Something they don't forgive themself when others do it....
Click to expand...

mkloby said:
Why do you say this?
Click to expand...


Hi mkloby!
Well, just trying to understand here how the Catholic Church works and other religions as well, being a Swede makes me a Christian, but a Prostestant one. If I step over the line, just let me know.

Well, as with this child abuse that went on here, nobody should ever be forgiven for doing anything like that, as it says in an earlier post "The senior Roman Catholic clergyman in Canada, seeking to get rid of church baggage and turn over a new leaf, asked forgiveness on Wednesday for sexual abuse and discrimination committed by Catholics in the past."

What I'd like to know mate, is why should they expect to be forgiven, when they as a church (I'm guessing here), would rather see the common people that do such a thing like child abuse etc., burned at the stake....?

I'd like to know the reasoning why they should be forgiven, when nobody should....
 

Alright, you can shoot at my idea as much as you want, but how would you deal with it ? You haven't came out with a single clear idea.

As I stated, men will always be men. You can't expect them to keep it in their pants by telling them : "It's a sin." Abstinence is 100% safe, right, but it is not the solution, as teaching that to your kids will only make sex more taboo... But they will still continue to do it in your back. You know how it works, we've all been kids before !

You know, I read your article "The Failure of Sex Education", and it is making some good points. However, as I see it, both your (NJ) and our (PQ) system need some... erhm... "patches" here and there... Because they are not totally complete.

Of course we must give the good old "plumbing lesson" (to quote the article) but we must go farther : explain the differences in mentality and physiology between a boy and a girl (i.e. a boy has his sexual peek around 20, while a girl has her sexual peek around 30), inter-personnal relationships and the like. Both of our sex-ed courses are incomplete.

Those sex-ed classes I had gave me a good start, however I had to complete the course by taking info elsewhere... Medical encyclopedias, psychologists and sexologists hosting shows on the radio/TV.

That's were our kids are missing the boat. However, abstinence is in no way the solution. In fact, it will create more problems than anything else in today's society.
 
This is going to be another long one... I'd like to start by saying that I mean no offense to anyone, and not lecturing anyone regarding child upbringing or household model adopted. I am approaching this problem as I believe it exists from a sociological perspective, although of course individual cases and circumstances differ.

I think a major distinction must be made first in how the existence of teen sexuality is viewed. I look at the problem of teen sexuality and pregnancy as a cultural and moral problem, not as an inevitable reality. Every study shows a tremendous increase in teen sexuality from the beginning of the 20th century to now.

In America, we have seen an increasing secularization combined with increasing resistance against traditional Christian values. In addition, there is the increasing influence of mass media on society, as never seen before. I view the problem as a sociological problem. Teen sexual behavior was not simply always like what we are currently experiencing I don't believe the argument that "this is the reality of teen behavior" holds up to historical scrutiny.

In combination with the drive towards "progressive" ideals, the traditional American family unit is increasingly breaking down. The decline of the traditional family model (husband as breadwinner and wife as homemaker) can be attributed to the rise of the dual income household, as well as the increase in single parent households due to the rise in divorce rates as well as the increasing rate of children being born out of wedlock (which in the US is currently 39.5%).

American households have also become increasingly consumerist throughout the 20th century. Elizabeth Warren of the Harvard Law School argues that a main causal factor of the dual income household is the desire for larger housing. In order to support this consumerism, many households have adopted the dual income model.

In the US, according to an AmeriStat study done in 2003:
Among married-couple households, about 13 percent consisted of families with children in which only the husband worked, 31 percent were dual-income families with children, 25 percent were dual-income families with no children, and 31 percent consisted of other types of families, such as older married couples whose children no longer reside in the household.

More recent US Census Bureau data from 2007 can be found here:
http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2007/tabFG2-all.xls

Inherent in both the dual income household and the single parent household is a reduction in parental influence, contact, and oversight. There have been many studies done regarding family structure on adolescent sexual behavior, and they overwhelmingly support that an increased family influence reduces at-risk behavior of adolescents, including sexual behavior. Studies generally indicate that an intact family unit with two natural parents has the strongest effect on reducing teen sexual behavior. More difficult to study, however, is the influence of the traditional family model vs the dual income model. I would offer, however, that with the increased family support and structure of the traditional family model, at-risk behavior would decrease further below that of a dual parent family average including both traditional and dual income family models.

This does not address what exactly to do regarding the problem of teen sexual bahvior. The problem is deep, and beyond what merely sex education and distributing condoms can address, although basic sexual education I do not think is a bad thing. The problem with sexual education, as it is exists in many schools, is that many proponents seek to further isolate sexual behavior from the influence of the family, rather than increase it. This is contrary to the vast majority of empirical evidence that demonstrates that family structure is the leading factor in decreasing teen sexual behavior.

An Example of how sexual education programs that seek to isolate the influence of family include anonymous distribution or availability of of condoms and other contraceptives. Another is text that presents pre-marital sexual behavior as a personal choice completely removed from morality altogether. A last example is the push by many in the sexual education field for the removal of parental consent/notification laws with respect to a minor's abortion.

Proposing sexual behavior to our children as a personal right, choice, and decision is dangerous for many reasons. That they are immature children is the obvious and stark reality. Quite frankly, teenagers generally are not mature or responsible enough to handle the responsibility of sexual behavior. This is evident by the sheer numbers of teen pregnancy despite sexual education and the availability of contraceptives. There is also the enormous public cost of teen pregnancy and birth to the taxpayer, as teens often cannot bear the financial costs of their sexual behavior. The moral repugnancy of pre-marital sex in traditional Christian values seems to have a legitimate basis.
 
To bring about a change in adolescent sexuality, we must address the factors that have caused the problem to escalate. These are deep rooted issues not easily addressed. They are inter-related, systemic factors, of which adolescent sexual behavior is but one manifestation. In addition to unfettered American consumerism and the decline of the traditional family model, there is been a retreat away from traditional Christian values in the United States. Two critical legal factors which have laid the foundation for this are the erroneous interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade.

The flawed interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment is the leading factor causing . This clause states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," yet it has been interpreted by many to mean "separation of Church and state." That is clearly vague legal terminology, and those hostile toward the religious establishment has continued to push the limits on what the Establishment Clause entails.

One major case that began the charge for "separation of Church and state" was Engel v. Vitale 370 U.S. 421 (1962). Prior to this case, Justice Stephen Field wrote in 1878, "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." The scope of actions that violate the Establishment Clause continue to grow to this day. This faulty interpretation, which is simply not substantiated in the text of the 1st Amendment, has given rise to legalized discrimination of Christianity in America. Christianity is specifically under siege as it is what is under attack in the preponderence of legal action initiated invoking "separation of Church and state." This view has been adopted by and large by American academia, and propagates itself throughout the school systems as well. This has led to an assault on Christian values that is intstitutionalized by the US government.

Christian values are under attack in the public schools and universities, in the legislative halls and the courts, and in the mass media. Those hostile toward Christianity have waged a coordinated campaign intent on removing the influence of Christianity to the greatest degree possible. Christian morality is being replaced with a moral relativism, in which there is no universal right or wrong. Is it truly any wonder that some sexual education programs for teens encourage sexual expression?

Another major factor affecting teen pregnancy was the decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973. The decision to overturn state law criminalizing abortion based on due process with regard to privacy. The decision then qualifies when a woman maintains this right, and when the states' interest in promoting potential life may reach a compelling point, and the woman no longer maintains this right. This decision is inerently flawed, providing Constitutional protection of a to terminate a pregnancy, then further qualifying that right without giving any actual legal protection to the developing child under the Constitution.

This decision has been very aggressively propagated as the penultimate and defining acheivment of feminist "liberation." Unfortately, this decision has helped to create an environment that tremendously hurt the feminist cause. Ample evidence of this is found in the tremendous stress brought to women through great increase in teenage pregnancy rates, single-mother households, and dependence on government assistance. An argument can be made that the ground work for the Roe v. Wade decision was laid in the coordinated offensive against the Christianity (and Christian values) under the guise of the 1st Amendment.

A strict interpretation of the Establishment Clause would serve to destroy the legal foundation for the continued discrimination against Christianity in American public education, legislation, and jurisprudence that has fostered the coordinated offensive against Christian values.

The government must also acknowledge the societal benefits of the traditional family unit. This is why the traditional family deserves special status and recognition under the law. It is the core unit that Christian culture (indeed almost all cultures) is built upon, yet it is under attack by the very same forces that seek to remove all influence of Christianity in the US.

Granted, this will not bring about immediate effects, but it will lay the foundation for the return of traditional values that America was founded upon. Bear in mind, we are presently fully reaping the damages that the "progressive" movement has been sowing for decades.

This is what I think. It goes 180* against what many out there will say.
 

We see this in the same way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

King of the Hill is Back
Replies
5
Views
2K
Checkertail20
B
12oclockhigh.net is closing!
Replies
10
Views
3K
Marcel
H
So apparently Joe Baugher's old site is back?
Replies
1
Views
430
fubar57
Where is our Pirate? The master of Plastic
2 3
Replies
44
Views
7K
N4521U
H
Joe Baugher's website is down?
Replies
5
Views
2K
GreenKnight121
Menu
Log in
Register