What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[The Grand Nudger]

A society which fits your hypothetical is unlikely to see rape as immoral.  That doesn't actually make it moral or immoral in the general sense, it's just a declaration of their moral norms. 

 I'd still call them immoral....and you'd still call them whatever was required in order to further your con.  eh?

The example needn't be rape...we see this relationship regarding all sorts of moral norms. But I know that the money shot for you is attaching rape, pedophilia....probably some bestiality later, to -anything- that you don't like. So I won't take too much wind out of your sails on that count.

[Randy Carson]

You have to listen carefully to what I'm saying.

MORE boys than women or girls have been abused. The "pedophile priest" problem is primarily a homosexual problem.

Homosexuality is NOT pedophilia anymore than a man having sex with a three year old girl is straight sex. They are different things. Some people are attracted to sexually undeveloped children and those people are pedophiles. If a man is attracted to a man then he is a homosexual.

Correct.

The ages of the victims suggest that the priests were targeting young men...not young boys.

[Randy Carson]

Randy,

Just for the record, I don't think priests are more likely rapists than the general population.  There's evidence that they are actually less likely to rape boys (or anyone else) than other men.  (That's kind of interesting if you consider that there are a higher percentage of homosexuals in the Catholic clergy than there are in the general population.)  What bothers me, and a goodly number of Catholics too, is that the church repeatedly not only did not report rape to the police, but put those raping priests right back out there with young boys in new communities.

Jenny-

We have disagreed on some things in the past, but here we are in full agreement.

Now, I do have several thoughts on how SOME bishops in the Church handled the situation (surprised? )

1. There was cover-up to avoid scandal. I personally don't think that any pope was involved, but bishops and possibly some cardinals were. Not good.
2. There was probably some inclination to deal with the disciplining of the priests within the Church rather than turning them over to secular authorities. Hindsight is 20-20, but that was not such a good idea.
3. There was thought in the 40's, 50's and 60's that therapy would help these men. That has proven to be false, but the bishops meant well based on what they knew about homosexuality at the time.
4. Based on the two previous points, the idea of moving these priests was based upon the idea that 1) avoiding scandal was a good thing and 2) helping these men with their sexuality problem would stop the behavior. Instead, it made things worse.

Now, as a result of all that has occurred, the Church has gotten much wiser about how it handles a number of things...from the acceptance of candidates to the seminary to the child protection programs put in place at every parish in the country (if not the world). Needless to say, kids are much safer...I'd even say VERY safe at a Catholic Church...especially when compared to their schools and other activities such as swim teams, etc.

But much damage has been done, and it will take a long time to heal.

[Pyrrho]

... Something else to add - if morality comes from trying to do what is best for society so that our species survives, what will it mean when/if overpopulation of humans becomes a major problem? ...

I don't think that morality is a question of what is best for society so that our species survives.  But if it were, it would mean that you Catholics should stop breeding like rabbits because overpopulation is a serious problem.  It is YOUR morality that is a problem.  Atheism is not a source for such immorality.

You might want to look back at what I stated earlier that you previously seemed to like.

It may also be worth mentioning that atheism is not a doctrine, it is the lack of a belief in a god (or, for strong atheism, it is the belief that there is no god).  There is no universal agreement among atheists about morality, and I certainly would not endorse the idea that morality must further the survival of the species (which must, in any case, be a futile thing, as humanity will eventually perish regardless of what anyone does).

Now, it may be that evolution gave rise to empathy, but it does not follow from that that empathy has a specific goal.

If god is added to the equation, it changes nothing as far as morality is concerned.  People who believe that morality is merely following what god says are grossly mistaken.

[Randy Carson]

... Something else to add - if morality comes from trying to do what is best for society so that our species survives, what will it mean when/if overpopulation of humans becomes a major problem? ...

I don't think that morality is a question of what is best for society so that our species survives.  But if it were, it would mean that you Catholics should stop breeding like rabbits because overpopulation is a serious problem.  It is YOUR morality that is a problem.  Atheism is not a source for such immorality.

Wait a second...folks are usually fond of quoting the statistics which point to how many Catholics are using artificial birth control despite the Church's teaching that it is intrinsically evil.

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

So, how is it that we are "breeding like rabbits" if we're all contracepting allegedly?


This is a clear example of one of those "damned if we do, damned if we don't" things I referenced in my "Thoughts on Atheism and Apologetics" thread.

[Whateverist]

So Ms. Carson, care to tell us how you earned that nick name?

[Catholic_Lady]

LOL!

Randy Carson, you are gorgeous!! Hahahaha!!

---

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?

Absolutely! Sorry for dragging it out. Just wanted to make sure I understood where you were coming from.

[Nope]

So Ms. Carson, care to tell us how you earned that nick name?

Because of the attractive woman in his avatar, I am compelled to ignore all his rudeness or condescending tone and be extraordinarily nice to him.

[Longhorn]

oh hey, Randy's here.... -_-

CL, I think you missed it, and it's important to me that you read it

---

I did not phrase myself very well. What I meant was that I cannot explain why I believe it's wrong without referring to God in one way or another. So if you don't believe in God, then the explanation won't matter to you.

....because aside from 'god sez', you don't have a case to make

Even from a non religious standpoint though, I can still see why saving sex for a loving marriage would be a safer, healthier option. So many difficult things happen to people as a result of having sex outside of marriage... pregnancy, fatherless children, STD's, being taken advantage of, etc. I think it's best to wait, regardless.

And like I already mentioned, which must've been buried in all the other replies, contraception takes care of all of that. But pope and crew say it's a no no. Shooting yourself in the foot on their part, don't you think? Abstinence doesn't work, it's a fact.

And regarding being used....ever heard of matrimonial frauds? Or people in committed relationships that aren't married? Surely you don't think marriage is the only way to a stable relationship and without it all relationships are not sincere?....

And you're still ignoring what I said.

Please pay attention to this, I think it's very important.

The views you hold, the same that the catholic church holds, are being taught to children. They cause sexual repression, shame over one's feelings, severe guilt and do not prevent unwanted pregnancies or STDs. They are harmful and immoral, on all grounds. The teaching of them causes very real harm that is very hard to recover from. This is not right.

I think you're a sweet person and I don't understand how you can endorse this. I figured maybe it's because you're not aware.

Your church, in its teachings, harms children. This is not an exaggeration. The very doctrine of that organisation which claims moral authority causes significant hurt.

Now that I know you're aware, how can you associate yourself with that institution and believe such awful things?

---

[Nope]

Randy Carson Wrote:
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?

..

This is what I thought when I read Randy's comment about rape. Abortion and infanticide have been around a long time. Using rape to increase the human species is  inefficient as mothers  are the ones who have to actually give birth and care for the child that they are carrying. It is actually more logical to make certain that the future mother wants an infant so she will take care of it.

Please not the "if" in the first sentence. It's obviously a hypothetical...
[/quote]

What exactly was your point in using rape in this context?