You cannot blame the Catholic Church for the horrible acts. Any organization large enough will end up with bad apples. I am sure an Atheist organizationlarge enough would likely have similar atrocities (sadly).

I think the test of an organization is in how it reacts to the bad apples. That is where I think the CC (And many other organizations, religious and not - looking at you Penn State) can get examined and found wanting. When those organizations self identify themselves as keepers of morality (And again welcome to the party Penn State) it is hard not to judge pretty harshly.

Except they're not actually related.

Actually, they are related. The Catholic church problem was systemic, going all the way right up to the top. Every institution has bad actors that occasionally get out of line. The church problem was pervasive and institutionalized. The senior clergy actually enabled, bribed and covered up. It happened all over the world, wherever the church happened to be, not just a parish here and there.

It's disgraceful and despicable.

Holy orders (ordination) is considered a bar to marriage. Marriage is not a bar to Holy Orders (except for Bishops).

Thanks again Snapper. That makes more sense to me for some reason (likely my math background - it looks mathy stated that way), but I would be interested in more if the bro-in-law has more to say.

A priest who has sex with anyone is sinning.
[...]
This really isn't religion specific.

Eastern Orthodox priests are allowed to get married (prior to taking Holy Orders), and continue having sex with their wives even after they become priests.

There are even a few legitimately married Catholic priests (who started out as married priests of other types, then converted to Catholicism): more info here.

EDIT: Duplicate removed.

Eastern Orthodox priests are allowed to get married (prior to taking Holy Orders), and continue having sex with their wives even after they become priests.

Yes, I'm well aware of the differences between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic priests, as well as those others snapper has mentioned within the RC Church. I didn't think the point needed to be spelled out in the point I was making to Ray.

You cannot blame the Catholic Church for the horrible acts. Any organization large enough will end up with bad apples. I am sure an Atheist organization large enough would likely have similar atrocities (sadly).

Maybe if we expand that to include any organization that demands celibacy from its members, and the get-out-of-jail free card for sins. The Catholic Church is a disgusting organization and has been for hundreds of years. Are all priests pedophiles? Of course not. But, any other organization found guilty of harbouring and abetting pedophiles to the degree that the CC has would be disbanded in a heartbeat.

Like the British Navy?

#157: I don't think I was actually defending the Church, but ok.

I want to chime in here to say that while I am no fan of the Catholic Church, these sorts of things do, sickeningly enough, happen in many types of organizations. I wouldn't frame it exactly the same way Bitter Mouse does, but I agree with the general idea.

wow.

Quick recap: We found one pro athlete who said he REALLY admired Tebow. We started a thread for it.

We had hyberolic words like "extreme" thrown out, which to some people means anything THEY feel is extreme, regardless of what much of humanity thinks. Apparently almost every human on earth is an extremist in some form to many others. How helpful.... now what word do we use when we find a REAL extremist?

An athlete gets called out / cussed out ever which way for the presumption that he doesn't give enough of his money away, to the 'right' causes. While we're discussing a similar athlete who is rare bird who DOES give lots away.

And we retread the same ground as 100 other threads.
Happy Martin Luther King Day. I think I'll go call a friend of a different race and commiserate about life in the U.S. instead of reading any more.

And we retread the same ground as 100 other threads

Actually, I learned something from Snapper -- so I'm coming away having improved my understanding of the celibacy requirements in both the Roman and Eastern Church.

Also, Tebow is one of my favorite Evangelicals, which is admittedly faint praise.

Ricky Gervais' "I'd like to thank God for making me an atheist" at the Golden Globes last year is the only sports/entertainment declaration of atheism I can recall.

Penn Jillette wrote a book on the subject of being an atheist, though I guess that wasn't a new revelation (so to speak).

Wrt Ratzinger's betrayal of children, the late Chris Hitchens had some things to say.

***

It's definitley a skill to be able to identify and admit known AND unknown unknowns to quote Rumsfeld.

How can you identify and admit unknown unknowns? Doesn't make any sense...

I'm pretty sure it does (well, I wouldn't use "identify"). Think of it as a grid. Anything that doesn't fall under the other three headings is an unknown unknown.

Known knowns: We know what it is we know: We know that OBP can be determined exactly.

Known unknowns: We know there are al-Qaeda members in Pakistan, we just don't know how many.

Unknown knowns: We don't know what catcher defense is worth, but we know it exists.

Unknown unknown: We don't know, for example, whether there is a particle that turns matter inside out, then outside in, without any time passing--although the mere fact of conjecturing about it might change its location on the known-unknown grid. Another example would be if we didn't know catcher defense existed, and didn't know how we would measure it if it did indeed exist. Another example would be political events 1000 years from now. We have no idea what they'll look like, or if the human race will even survive to foment them. With an unknown unknown, you simply don't have enough information to grasp whether a thing exists, and if it did, you'd have no idea how to measure or predict it.

I guess it's appropriate that someone mentioned Andy Dalton, as I go to church with his parents (and him, when he was in school here in Katy) and have always found him to be a very humble and hard-working Christian. He went to a private Christian university, set a lot of passing records, and is a great rookie quarterback with lots of potential.

So why no stories about him and his faith?

This story is entirely about Tebow's lack of NFL pedigree. He doesn't look or play like an NFL quarterback, and he was field general for some "miraculous" wins. Cue conflation.

With an unknown unknown, you simply don't have enough information to grasp whether a thing exists, and if it did, you'd have no idea how to measure or predict it.

And once you have identified it IT CEASES TO BE AN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN!

An unknown unknown, is something you don't know that you don't know. Once you admit that you don't know it, YOU KNOW THAT YOU DON'T KNOW IT!

Well yeah, just as I suggested, but asserting there might exist a class of hypotheticals doesn't make something unknown "known". It's not really a description, therefore it's not knowledge. It's merely possibility.

An awareness that there are things we don't know doesn't mean we therefore know them, is another way of putting it.

edit: re your last graf, Nah, as in my particle example. Now, I suppose I could start making a list of things I don't know, and could therefore cut down on the number of things--strictly speaking--I don't know that I don't know. But by admitting there are things I don't know that I don't know, doesn't mean I know what those things ARE. Therefore, the lattermost class--unknown unknowns--still exists.

ARE YOU CHANNELING TOLAXOR???

But by admitting there are things I don't know that I don't know, doesn't mean I know what those things ARE.

That's the whole point of known unknowns. They are things you know that you don't know. If you know that you don't know them, they are not unknown unknowns.

My point, though, is that there remains a whole class of things I don't know that I don't know about: those are the unknown unknowns. Perhaps it would be more illuminating to call them things I can't conceive of. That I know there are things I can't conceive of doesn't mean I know those things. If I can't conceive of them, that means there are things out there that I don't know I don't know.

I don't think we're introducing a fifth class of things here (i.e. I know that there are things I don't know I don't know about, though it's useful to allow for that if only to see where we disagree), but instead merely recognizing the existence of a class. Recognizing the existence of a class does not mean I have any knowledge whatsoever of any other properties of that class. That's where we differ. You believe awareness of a class of things confers knowledge of properties of those things, sufficient to bring them into the class of known unknowns. I don't. And that's okay.

I see what you're saying, though (no pun intended).

BECAUSE THINGS THAT ARE NOT CAN'T BE. CAUSE THEN NOTHING WOULDN'T BE! YOU CAN'T HAVE NOTHING ISN'T, EVERYTHING IS! #### YOU EAT YOUR FRENCH FRIES

Ray: I see and understand some of what you are saying, but where you lose me is when you make assertions on how the Catholic Church runs itself, they should be allowed to have their own rules.

I don't believe they should have rules that abridge or severely compromise basic human rights. If a corporation or a secular non-profit tried to impose a celibacy requirement as a pre-condition to employment, they would be dragged into court so fast it would make your head spin.

Not being permitted to have children? That's interference in rights of privacy that borders on fascism.

Let's look at some "classic" Christian ideas. Things that were agreed upon, w/o dispute, by every denomination (Catholic or Protestant) 100 years ago.

1) Sex outside of marriage is immoral

Today, the idea of an adult virgin is a punchline in the culture.

2) Contraception is immoral

This is considered a fringe, almost illogical belief.

3) Homosexual sex is immoral

Viewed as tantamount to bigotry and racism in the popular culture

4) Marriage is meant to be forever

Divorce has moved from being a source of scandal, to an absolute norm

The only traditional view that's clinging to life is opposition to abortion. And that's barely half the allegedly overwhelmingly Christian population that holds to a view that was undisputed for 1950 years of Christianity.

The thing is, there were a lot of other classical Christian ideals that were abandoned long ago, such as that women were born immoral and few would be able to enter the kingdom of heaven. Burning heretics was perfectly acceptable 500 years ago. Those ideals have long vanished and few if any are clamoring to bring them back. So why should we just blindly trust that these 4 are it, that we finally have culled out the bad ideas and these need to remain inviolate forever? the church has evolved. Why did it stop evolving 100 years ago? Why would you want it to?

BECAUSE THINGS THAT ARE NOT CAN'T BE. CAUSE THEN NOTHING WOULDN'T BE! YOU CAN'T HAVE NOTHING ISN'T, EVERYTHING IS! #### YOU EAT YOUR FRENCH FRIES

I love this bit.

Me too.

Thirded.

To Ray in #171 - if you don't want to be celibate, don't become a Catholic priest. There are plenty of other options - you can even be a non-Catholic priest if you'd like. And eventually that rule will likely disappear, if it's required to keep the religion viable. Like #172 says, beliefs which find themselves completely out of the mainstream will be abandoned, because the pull of religion is only so strong. At some point it had to be acknowledged that Galileo wasn't going to hell for thinking the Earth wasn't the center of the solar system.

That does it. You guys are unknown to me.

I'm fascinated by the monster TV ratings Tebow is pulling in. Clearly he is getting people that don't give a F about sports to follow him. Too bad for him the NFL has only national TV contracts, so Denver doesn't really benefit much from this. Had the NFL had more of a MLB locally dominated TV revenue stream, the Broncos would be insane to play anyone but Tebow at QB for the foreseeable future.

Apparently the Drudge Report, which gets massive hits, made Tebow the key link for the past month while he was still in the tournament.

And from a business standpoint, the Broncos will make a fortune on luxury suite, club seat and even regular seat revenues in 2012. Sold inventory, 6 months before Tebow returns.

An 8-8 team making huge bucks on a dicey QB coming off a humiliating playoff defeat.

God Bless America.

It is no different than saying that unmarried heterosexual sex is sinful. Is that bigotry?

No, provided you're not focusing solely on unmarried sex by heterosexuals. And indeed, you're just as opposed to unmarried sex by heterosexuals as you are to unmarried sex by gays. So, let the gays marry, and sex in the confines of their relationships will cease to be sinful.

Wait--what's that you say? Gays marrying is sinful in and of itself? Gee, I'd never have guessed you felt that way, given your principled, non-bigoted opposition to all extramarital fornication. Guess it's just their tough $hit there's no path to salvation for them.

I just figured out a way to cut that Gordian knot: if marriage can be defined as "a union between a man and a woman," so can sex. And presto! Relations between two people of the same sex no longer counts as "premarital sex"!

Man, I woulda made a great Jesuit. Or a great...who are the ones who invented sophistry? I'd be an awesome Sophist.

And, if you're not planning on getting married, then you can't be said to have had premarital sex.

Also, can devout, free market capitalists even be said to think in terms of unions between men and women?

This is fun!

Actually, forget sophistry. I guess I'm a Humpty-Dumptyist.

'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'
'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

What I find ironic about snapper is his stance on homosexuality, which abides by current Catholic doctrine, and the Catholic church's own tolerance of some very virulent homosexual practices, like the homosexual rape of young boys by members of the clergy. This tolerance went all the way up the ladder, to bishops, some cardinals, even the current day pope.

Of course, any supporter of gay rights would call this homophobic. Pedophilia is not homosexuality.

You don't really understand the concept of the vow, do you?

The vow of chastity requirement is an unreasonable one, you could even argue it's an immoral one, so I don't see how breaking it is any big deal.

So, that's a "No," right?

I think it's funny that there are Catholics here that think Tebow would even consider them Christian. I think like 60% of the Protestant missionary work in the world is aimed at saving Catholics.

Edit: oops, I see this was covered.

Ranger Capt. Jake Cutter: Let him make a run for it, I'd say to myself.

Paul Regret: And then what would you say?

Ranger Capt. Jake Cutter: And then I'd say back to myself, you can't let him run. You swore an oath whent they put that badge on you.

Paul Regret: And that's important to you?

Ranger Capt. Jake Cutter: I said I swore an oath.

Paul Regret: Words!

Ranger Capt. Jake Cutter: Mon-sewer, words are what men live by...words they say and mean.

DB

Of course, any supporter of gay rights would call this homophobic. Pedophilia is not homosexuality.

As usual, David"s motives are so heartwarming.

I don't believe they should have rules that abridge or severely compromise basic human rights. If a corporation or a secular non-profit tried to impose a celibacy requirement as a pre-condition to employment, they would be dragged into court so fast it would make your head spin.

I definitely understand what you are saying, but I do buy into the Freedom of religion portion of the First Amendment. The tricky part is where does "your religion" versus "my rights" begin and end. I think a certain amount of allowing for internal rules self governance is kosher (heh).

Of course I also think churchs should be subject to taxation. And no, I am still not defending the Catholic Church, just that I think they have certain rights in the US to self govern according to their religious beliefs.

As usual, David"s motives are so heartwarming.

What motives? Do I have some secret love for the Catholic Church that I've never told anyone about? I make pedophilia jokes about priests as often as the next guy. I'm just interested in accuracy, in not conflating two very different things. (Of course, I assume some of the priests may have been playing around with post-pubescent boys, in which case they may indeed have been gay. (Or it may still have been a crime of opportunity.) But the claim I was responding to was about "the homosexual rape of young boys," and was a direct attack on gays.)

The tricky part is where does "your religion" versus "my rights" begin and end. I think a certain amount of allowing for internal rules self governance is kosher (heh).

Speaking of which, I'm looking forward to hearing Ray's breathless condemnation of the Church failing to even consider hiring any Jews or Muslims or Atheists as priests.

I don't believe they should have rules that abridge or severely compromise basic human rights.

I didn't realize that there was a "basic human right" to be a Catholic priest who has sex.

If a corporation or a secular non-profit tried to impose a celibacy requirement as a pre-condition to employment, they would be dragged into court so fast it would make your head spin.

If a corporation or a secular non-profit tried to impose a having male genitals requirement as a pre-condition to employment, they would also be dragged into court so fast it would make your head spin. But the rules for religious institutions are quite different. (That having been said, it's not clear to me that such a requirement, actually enforced evenhandedly, would be actionable under federal law even for non-religious-institutions. (Some states go much further in restricting the basic human rights of employers, however.))

Not being permitted to have children? That's interference in rights of privacy that borders on fascism.

If only the church were the government, and were imposing these rules on people who didn't voluntarily choose them, this would border on not being insane.

I'm with David (and others) here - these are voluntary "contracts".

Misirlou - great post (172).

This means less than nothing but... every Jesuit priest I've ever known (not many - I'm not Catholic and live in the southeast) has been really cool - great people.

I'm only mildly interested in Tim Tebow and/or the Catholic church, but this thread has me 99% convinced that Ray James is actually Kevin.

Speaking of Catholicism, my latest Netflix arrival is "Of Gods and Men".
I'm looking forward.