If they should tear down the statue of Joe Paterno at Penn State, does that mean we should tear down the Vatican, too?
Heisenberg
2012/07/16 23:46:04
|
|
|||||
|
4 votes
|
|
25% | ||
|
12 votes
|
|
75% | ||
I can promise you they're far more guilty of covering up pedophile scandals than Joe Paterno did. In fact, there are Catholic priests molesting altar boys in every major city I suspect. A lot of them are pedophiles. There was an archbishop in Massachusetts that was busted a few years ago while the archdiocese looked the other way. Meanwhile, the Pope and the Vatican have looked the other way for several years. Yesterday, I answered a question on here about whether or not they should demolish the statue of Joe Paterno which nonetheless prompted me to ask this one. Where do you draw the line?
We didn't tear down the spire in St. Peter's Square (In 37 A.D., Caligula ordered the obelisk transferred to Rome. He had it placed on the spina which ran along the center of the Circus of Nero, where it would preside over Nero's countless brutal games and Christian executions.).
Why should we tear down any of it, simply for a negative connotation?
Besides, this is a statue of a man, not a symbol of the organization he belonged to. What you're suggesting would be the equivalent of tearing down all of Penn State, not just a statue.
First, your analogy is flawed. Tearing the Vatican down would be analogous to tearing down the entire Penn State campus, not just one statue.
But, as they didn't tear down the whole Penn State campus, or even any part of it other than the Paterno statue, tearing down the Vatican makes no analogical sense here.
Besides, Joe Paterno was one person, while the Catholic Church is a billion-member organization and the largest religion on earth. Naturally, the Church's members have done pretty much everything, whether good or bad, more often than the single individual named Joe Paterno did ... except design football plays. It's just a matter of numbers.
The Church is also the largest charitable and humanitarian organization on the earth. A lot of needy people around the world would be left without help if we carried through with your Vatican-tearing-down plan.
Something tells me that it's not pedophila cover-ups that make you want to tear the Vatican down. If they were, you'd be here calling for public schools, summer camps, and youth centers to also be torn down.
No, something tells me that it's certain Catholic teachings that are your motivation for wanting to see the Vatican torn down. Teachings t...
First, your analogy is flawed. Tearing the Vatican down would be analogous to tearing down the entire Penn State campus, not just one statue.
But, as they didn't tear down the whole Penn State campus, or even any part of it other than the Paterno statue, tearing down the Vatican makes no analogical sense here.
Besides, Joe Paterno was one person, while the Catholic Church is a billion-member organization and the largest religion on earth. Naturally, the Church's members have done pretty much everything, whether good or bad, more often than the single individual named Joe Paterno did ... except design football plays. It's just a matter of numbers.
The Church is also the largest charitable and humanitarian organization on the earth. A lot of needy people around the world would be left without help if we carried through with your Vatican-tearing-down plan.
Something tells me that it's not pedophila cover-ups that make you want to tear the Vatican down. If they were, you'd be here calling for public schools, summer camps, and youth centers to also be torn down.
No, something tells me that it's certain Catholic teachings that are your motivation for wanting to see the Vatican torn down. Teachings that perhaps you don't want to hear, or don't jive with your actual or desired lifestyle.
No offense, but I don't think your real concern here is for the kids who were molested by priests. Kids who, by the way, are almost all full grown adults now ... that's how long ago the priest-molestation scandal happened. Stop living in the past.
2nd thing you said: I agree.
Percentage-wise, very few priests have molested kids. For you to paint the entire priesthood with your "molester" brush is just as bigoted as painting all blacks as gang-bangers, all Muslims as terrorists, or all Jews as money-grubbers.
Why is your type of bigotry (anti-Catholicism) so socially fashionable? You would never get away with speaking this way against any other group or organization. Society's standards of decency and loathing of bigotry wouldn't allow it.
My guess is that the Catholic Church holds certain moral teachings -- on sex, on abortion, on homosexuality, and so on -- that you just can't stand. Well, if you don't like the Church's teachings, fine. But your anti-Catholic bigoted rant is quite another thing.
Could it be because the public school systems doesn't hold certain moral teachings that you can't stand?
The Catholic Church is not only the single largest religion in the world -- it's also the world's single largest private charitable/humanitarian organization. That's a fact that you're obviously wholly ignorant of ... and one that you probably don't even want to hear.
Why would you, when you have a bigoted anti-Catholic hate campaign to push?
First of all, you're implying that the only people who ever molest kids are people who take vows of celibacy. That's not even close to being true, Orpheus. Did Jerry Sandusky take a celibacy vow? Obviously not.
The vast majority of child molesters are not Catholic priests, and thus were never under any celibacy vow at any time in their lives.
The biggest group of child molesters is kids' own relatives. They make up around 75% of all child molesters, and most of these offenders are the kids' own parents. Obviously, they're under no celibacy vows.
The next-biggest group of child molesters is kids' teachers and other school personnel. Again, there's no celibacy vow at play with this group.
Your "celibacy causes pedophilia" argument is very, very baseless factually.
Secondly, the priests who molested kids were not faithful to their celibacy vow -- in fact, they broke that vow in pretty much the worst way it ever could be broken.
Why are you blaming celibacy, when it wasn't the keeping of celibacy that resulted in child molestation? Child molestation is not an act of remaining faithful to a celibacy vow -- it's an act of breaking it. Applying your logic, we'd also...
First of all, you're implying that the only people who ever molest kids are people who take vows of celibacy. That's not even close to being true, Orpheus. Did Jerry Sandusky take a celibacy vow? Obviously not.
The vast majority of child molesters are not Catholic priests, and thus were never under any celibacy vow at any time in their lives.
The biggest group of child molesters is kids' own relatives. They make up around 75% of all child molesters, and most of these offenders are the kids' own parents. Obviously, they're under no celibacy vows.
The next-biggest group of child molesters is kids' teachers and other school personnel. Again, there's no celibacy vow at play with this group.
Your "celibacy causes pedophilia" argument is very, very baseless factually.
Secondly, the priests who molested kids were not faithful to their celibacy vow -- in fact, they broke that vow in pretty much the worst way it ever could be broken.
Why are you blaming celibacy, when it wasn't the keeping of celibacy that resulted in child molestation? Child molestation is not an act of remaining faithful to a celibacy vow -- it's an act of breaking it. Applying your logic, we'd also have to abolish the marriage vow in order to address adultery.
Finally, the vast majority of Catholic priests are good guys who have never molested a kid. These men are under celibacy vows. Another reason why your "celibacy causes pedophilia" argument holds no water.
I imagine it's been happening a lot longer than anybody knows. Schools don't tolerate pedophilia and try to cover it up when teachers do it. I'm only suggesting that ending celibacy may help somewhat, but nothing is guaranteed.
You act as if I'm anti-Catholic because I brought this up. All I'm wondering is why they're not holding the Vatican accountable to the same extent they are Joe Paterno and Penn State.
Not only did it happen under this Pope's watch while he looked the other way. It happened under the last Pope and the one before that and a lot longer than anyone cares to remember I imagine. that was the whole genesis of this questions.
You are absolutely correct. But there are also good folks there also. So I guess Penn state has good folks too. Eh? I believe you made your point.
. . .And FWIW I think Obamacare is George Bush's fault. He's the guy who nominated Roberts. :-)
And people wonder why I think the whole business is rigged, and why I want no part of it whatsoever. . .
Hey, I understand what you're saying, but to me it's a matter of ethics. I can't take part in something which is tantamount to theft. If I vote, that means I tacitly support the system which robs, murders and oppresses no matter who wins--and I don't support that system. I'd vote in a heartbeat, though, were there a realistic alternative. If, say, Paul had a snowball's chance of winning, I'd have voted for him in an instant!