What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Randy Carson]

CL-

Now that your thread has been completely de-railed by the Catholic bashers, perhaps we could consider another related question: WHERE does the idea of moral behavior come from?

(bold mine)

You disingenuous asshole!  This thread was very nice, friendly, and interesting until you nosed your way into it. What, are you bored because we've lost interest in your threads because we have a Catholic who is civil and respectful, and therefore getting that treatment in return?

Go dig yourself into a hole.

Becca-

If you are civil and respectful to me, then YOU will get that treatment in return. The choice is and always has been yours.

[pocaracas]

CL-

Now that your thread has been completely de-railed by the Catholic bashers,

That reminds me...

perhaps we could move back in the general direction of your OP and consider another related question: WHERE does objective moral truth come from? What is its source?

How about if "objective moral truth" isn't really a thing?
How have you determined that such a thing is real?

It seems to me there are a number of possibilities including:

1. Evolution
2. Oneself
3. Our society or culture
4. Reason
5. God

Evolution is often suggested as the source for our morality, but I don't think this really works. The evolutionary explanation claims that as our species evolved, human beings who acted in moral ways (such as those who cooperated and did not kill or steal) lived longer than those who didn't. As a result, we now have the instinct to be moral that has developed over millions of years.

While evolution may explain why we act in a certain way, it doesn't explain why we should or shouldn't act in those ways. At best, moral truths which are products of evolution are not commandments which we are bound to obey but suggestions that assist our "herd" in it survival. But if our community decided to kill handicapped children after birth, if would be moral, since weeding out genetically inferior or defective individuals would improve the overall health of the herd.

And it once was... remember Trojans!

Since then, our numbers have enlarged greatly and we can accommodate a few freeloaders, such as handicapped people, homosexuals, single aunts, etc...

And if rape were indeed an effective way to reproduce with a human community, and morality came from evolution, the rape would not be immoral, would it?

In a tribal style of society, how many women who get pregnant from a rape are actually willing to nurture that baby?
How many would try to get an abortion that could also end up killing themselves? Doesn't look so great as an effective way to reproduce, huh?

So, these are a few objections to the idea that evolution is the source of our moral behavior.

Thoughts on this before I move to the next source, the self?

Lets, lets...

[Randy Carson]

In the U.S. about one in five victims of sexual abuse by a priest is female.

So, 80% are male?

Well, that's what I've been saying all along.

[The Grand Nudger]

I did address this in a post several pages back. I'll see if I can find it for you.

You did?  Do you think that your answer to whatever question asked then will answer the question I just asked?

[Randy Carson]

CL-

The distinction is a technical one and has to do with the age of the boys who were molested.

While it is true (everyone listening?) that young, pre-pubescent boys AND girls were molested by priests, it appears that a majority of the victims were actually young teens (post-puberty). What this means is that the priests were not necessarily pedophiles but aggressive homosexuals preying on other males (who were much younger) than the priests.

According to one website:

• The vast majority of abuse by priests who victimize persons under the age of 18 has taken the form of ephebophilia -- involving post-pubertal youths who are often 16 or 17 years of age.
  
• Yet most of the public has the impression that most of the abuse is pedophilia-- involving young, pre-pubertal children.
  

Thanks for clarifying. I see what you're saying about the age. I don't think though, homosexuality in and of itself was the cause of abuse. I think people can be abusive regardless of their orientation. Are you saying gay men are generally more likely to abuse than straight men?

No. They may be equally abusive. Heck, for all I know, straight men are more abusive.

But what I have said is that the data suggests that this was not pedophilia...and for the most part, it was not heterosexual (little girls or women). It is predominantly the raping of innocent young men by older homosexuals.

Now, between this and my Ask a Catholic thread, I think this topic really HAS been covered adequately. If not, there's Google for those non-Catholics who still have questions.

Let's get back to your OP. Agreed?

[The Grand Nudger]

One blames the gays, the other points at all the other bad people doing bad things......moral fortitude, as understand by the followers of cathol. Enjoy.

[Whateverist]

The issue isn't really the moral failing of priests or whether they are straight or gay, pedaphilic or ephebophilic or even milf hunters. The real issue is the manner in which the institutional leaders of the church protect offenders, facilitate their continued abuse and seek to cover the whole thing up. Scapegoating the gay priests isn't helpful, Randy.

[Whateverist]

If we're discussing this at all, we'll probably go on doing so until Randy admits to the institutional failure of the Catholic church rather than isolating the gays for sacrifice. Other than that, I'm ready to move on.

[The Grand Nudger]

Scapegoating the gay priests isn't helpful, Randy.

Well, it worked for sin and death..didn't it? That's how catholics handle immorality and it's consequences...remember?

[Whateverist]

Not on us. He should consider his audience.