Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, January 15, 2012

MLB.com: Wainwright expresses admiration for Tebow

ST. LOUIS—Hours before taking the field against the New England Patriots on Saturday night, Tim Tebow found himself the center of discussion in the Cardinals’ interview room. Yes, these days it seems as if there is no setting that the Broncos quarterback can’t effectively infiltrate.

Putting his Southeastern Conference allegiance aside, Adam Wainwright spent several minutes expressing his admiration for Tebow, particularly for the fearless the University of Florida product shows in expressing his religious faith in a public forum.

“I am obsessed with Tim Tebow,” Wainwright said. “I’m not afraid to say it. It’s almost embarrassing to us athletes that this much emphasis is put on Tim Tebow because that means we aren’t living our lives as we should. If we did that more often, the way he is living wouldn’t be as big a story. I’m so proud of him for living out his faith.”

Tripon Posted: January 15, 2012 at 02:07 PM | 193 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: cardinals, rockies

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. Russ Posted: January 16, 2012 at 11:08 AM (#4037890)
My problem with Tebow isn't his religious beliefs, nor the way he expresses them (though I am somebody that believes you shouldn't put your religious beliefs in somebody else's face). My problem with him is that I think he is not a good pro QB, and that people are taking a small sample size (about 2/3 if a season), including an unusual number of narrow victories and an extremely weak division, and thinking that this is evidence that he is a good QB. Denver is not a very good team, and he is not a legitimate starting QB in the NFL.


Tebow is basically Kordell Stewart with a more successful college career and with his "slash" position being RB. As with Stewart, Tebow could play in front of a decent team and succeed for a while, but he'll have to stay ahead of defenses adjusting to him. Stewart was up and down as defenses continued to adjust to the changes he was making (and the changes the Steelers' OC were making to best utilize Stewart's skill set).

In the end, KS's bad decision making did him in... if Tebow can learn how to recognize defenses and make smart decisions to avoid turning the ball over, he'll probably have a decent career.


   102. ray james Posted: January 16, 2012 at 11:14 AM (#4037895)
Paterno: "I don't think I deviated from I think I'm all about and what I think is important.".

Well, for better or worse, I think we can all agree that is true.
   103. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 16, 2012 at 11:22 AM (#4037902)
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.

Snapper, are you aware that a lot of Catholic clergy are practicing homosexuals?


Which of course was absolutely, horribly wrong.

I don't believe either the current or the last Pope tolerated anything directly, but you're correct that bishops and Cardinals did.

Those men should be kicked out of the priesthood, and turned over to civil authorities where crimes were committed.

Any priest who engages in any sort of sex is committing a terrible sin, and needs to be removed from active priesthood, at least temporarily.
   104. Barnaby Jones Posted: January 16, 2012 at 11:39 AM (#4037923)
Best Tebow article


Imagine an athlete who didn't believe in God, and during interviews, photoshoots, endzone celebrations, he went out of his way to show everyone that he's an atheist. "I guess I just gotta give all the credit to myself again," he'd say, "We all know God doesn't exist, so I guess today was just another testament to how f***ing great I am." Imagine how completely insufferable that would be. And then to have people say we can't talk about that athlete's atheism?
   105. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: January 16, 2012 at 11:39 AM (#4037924)
102- Regarding the Paterno thing, this is the basic defense of Paterno at the amazing Black Shoe Diaries Penn State blog:

Joe's greatest asset that goes along with his smarts is he is not afraid to admit that he doesn't know something The problem with many corporate and academic types is that they don’t know what they don’t know. People constantly make business and political decisions based on their own perceptions rather than taking the advice of people in the trenches. Joe is excellent at deciding to seek advice and to question people closer to situations rather than make all decisions on his own, especially off the football field, where he is the buck stop.

I just read.
by BMAN13 on Jan 15, 2012 3:10 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
.
I really hate when people pounce on such admissions as admissions of guilt/failure by The JuggerNitt on Jan 15, 2012 5:36 PM EST up reply actions
.It's definitley a skill to be able to identify and admit known AND unknown unknowns to quote Rumsfeld.
by PSUEnrg02 on Jan 15, 2012 11:15 PM EST up reply actions
.
All politics aside... I was unencumbered by employment for a few months after 9/11/01, and got to listen to Rumsfeld’s daily press briefings – that man may be the smartest person to ever hold a cabinet position, and the biggest reason why the press corps hated him was because they didn’t understand what he was saying most of the time. The wisdom required to differentiate what you know, what you think you know, what you might know, and what you definitely don’t know is an invaluable asset, and one in which the great majority of people have no talent.


Re: Tebow. Personally I have a problem with anyone who lends their support to "Focus on the Family" because I think they make the lives of homosexuals and women more difficult. However, it sure seems like Tebow is a nice guy who is liked by just about anyone who encounters him. And so are many people.
   106. Barnaby Jones Posted: January 16, 2012 at 11:45 AM (#4037936)
Based on his dad's views of the 80% Roman Catholic Philippines:

There are approximately 42,000 barangays in the Philippines and it is estimated that over 64% of them do not have a single evangelical church. In a country of over 92 million, the number of people who have never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ is staggering.


I think it is a fair bet that Tebow doesn't even think snapper is a real Christian. Think about that.
   107. SoSH U at work Posted: January 16, 2012 at 11:48 AM (#4037939)
Best Tebow article


That's not the word I would use.

Further proof that when it comes to Tebow, neither side of the extremism divide has a stranglehold on stupid.

And then to have people say we can't talk about that athlete's atheism?


Yeah, people haven't been able to talk about Tim Tebow's religion. That's been a real taboo subject no one dares touch.

I think it is a fair bet that Tebow doesn't even think snapper is a real Christian. Think about that.


Yup, a lot of Evangelicals (hell some mainstream Protestants) feel that way about my faith. I've thought about it, and find that I don't really give a crap. I'm especially perplexed why atheists would pretend to.

   108. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: January 16, 2012 at 11:51 AM (#4037947)
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...
   109. Barnaby Jones Posted: January 16, 2012 at 11:54 AM (#4037951)

Further proof that when it comes to Tebow, neither side of the extremism divide has a stranglehold on stupid.

....

I've thought about it, and find that I don't really give a crap.


Somebody sure is grumpy.
   110. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: January 16, 2012 at 11:59 AM (#4037956)
How can you identify and admit unknown unknowns? Doesn't make any sense...


It would make sense if you were the leader that Paterno is.
   111. SoSH U at work Posted: January 16, 2012 at 11:59 AM (#4037958)

Somebody sure is grumpy.


The guy who finds "The It's OK to Hate..." article asinine and is unable to get into a lather about the differences between Bob Tebow's church and his own is the grumpy one? That's a neat twist.



   112. SoSH U at work Posted: January 16, 2012 at 12:00 PM (#4037960)
Double Post
   113. Greg K Posted: January 16, 2012 at 12:02 PM (#4037965)
How can you identify and admit unknown unknowns? Doesn't make any sense...

If ever there was a phrase that would benefit from some clarification through concrete examples that would be it. Though admitedly that's not really possible during war-time.

I'm guessing it's somehow a distinction between things that are knowable with the proper research that just hasn't been undertaken yet, and things that we will just never know.
   114. ray james Posted: January 16, 2012 at 12:05 PM (#4037967)
Which of course was absolutely, horribly wrong.


Willful blindness on your part, snapper.

I don't believe either the current or the last Pope tolerated anything directly


The current pope certainly did. More willful blindness on your part, snapper. Here:

Memo to Pope Described Transfer of Pedophile Priest

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope and archbishop in Munich at the time, was copied on a memo that informed him that a priest, whom he had approved sending to therapy in 1980 to overcome pedophilia, would be returned to pastoral work within days of beginning psychiatric treatment. The priest was later convicted of molesting boys in another parish.

An initial statement on the matter issued earlier this month by the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising placed full responsibility for the decision to allow the priest to resume his duties on Cardinal Ratzinger’s deputy, the Rev. Gerhard Gruber. But the memo, whose existence was confirmed by two church officials, shows that the future pope not only led a meeting on Jan. 15, 1980, approving the transfer of the priest, but was also kept informed about the priest’s reassignment.


   115. ray james Posted: January 16, 2012 at 12:07 PM (#4037972)
Any priest who engages in any sort of sex is committing a terrible sin, and needs to be removed from active priesthood, at least temporarily.


Even heterosexual sex with a willing partner, snapper?

How is that "a sin"?
   116. SoSH U at work Posted: January 16, 2012 at 12:09 PM (#4037974)
Even heterosexual sex with a willing partner, snapper?


Of course.
   117. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 16, 2012 at 12:09 PM (#4037976)
Snapper, in #39:
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.


Snapper, in #51:
American culture (and policy) is not, and was never intended to be, dominated by any religion.

Not dominated by a religion, but informed by a common morality.


From the apparently broad consensus on the topics in #39, I would tend to conclude that America IS "informed by a common morality". It just doesn't happen to be a common morality that lines up at all with what Snapper sees as "'classic' Christian ideals".
   118. Barnaby Jones Posted: January 16, 2012 at 12:12 PM (#4037981)
The guy who finds "The It's OK to Hate..." article asinine and is unable to get into a lather about the differences between Bob Tebow's church and his own is the grumpy one? That's a neat twist.


I found the article amusing, and found the discrepancy odd (and also, again, amusing, since snapper is BBTF's token outspoken Christian). Not sure how you took either of my posts as an incitement to lathering. Sorry.
   119. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 16, 2012 at 12:13 PM (#4037982)
"I guess I just gotta give all the credit to myself again," he'd say, "We all know God doesn't exist, so I guess today was just another testament to how f***ing great I am."


Heh, awesome.
   120. ray james Posted: January 16, 2012 at 12:16 PM (#4037985)
Of course.


Not understanding you, SOSH.
   121. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: January 16, 2012 at 12:20 PM (#4037992)
"I guess I just gotta give all the credit to myself again," he'd say, "We all know God doesn't exist, so I guess today was just another testament to how f***ing great I am."

Or from the (publicly, at least) humble atheist, "... how great the genetic pool is."
   122. Greg K Posted: January 16, 2012 at 12:22 PM (#4037998)
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.
   123. SoSH U at work Posted: January 16, 2012 at 12:23 PM (#4038000)
Not understanding you, SOSH.


A priest who has sex with anyone is sinning. He's taken a vow to abstain from that as a priest. When he violates that vow, he's committed a sin.

This really isn't religion specific. Even if you were to believe that unmarried heterosexual sex is not a sin (though the Church obviously does), it shouldn't be difficult to understand that whether conduct is sinful (or right or wrong, in layman's terms) can be context dependent. What would be sinful/wrong for an ordinary citizen to do (withhold information on a murder, for instance) would not just be defensible but appropriate for someone else (a lawyer).

   124. SoSH U at work Posted: January 16, 2012 at 12:25 PM (#4038003)
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.


And every episode of the Bill Maher show.

   125. Greg K Posted: January 16, 2012 at 12:26 PM (#4038006)
And every episode of the Bill Maher show.

If you call that entertainment!

ZING

I actually forgot he had a show.
   126. ray james Posted: January 16, 2012 at 12:35 PM (#4038016)
A priest who has sex with anyone is sinning. He's taken a vow to abstain from that as a priest. When he violates that vow, he's committed a sin.


No. He just changed his mind. Nothing wrong with that.
   127. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 16, 2012 at 12:40 PM (#4038021)

Even heterosexual sex with a willing partner, snapper?

How is that "a sin"?


Unless he is married to her. All unmarried sex is a sin in Catholicism.

Note: The Catholic Church does have married priests in its Eastern Churches and among Protestant clergy who have converted and become Catholic priests. The men must be married before they are ordained; once ordained no priest can marry.
   128. Eddo Posted: January 16, 2012 at 12:42 PM (#4038024)
ray, it seems as if you don't understand what a "sin" is, in a Catholic/Christian context.
   129. SoSH U at work Posted: January 16, 2012 at 12:42 PM (#4038025)
No. He just changed his mind. Nothing wrong with that.


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

   130. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 16, 2012 at 12:44 PM (#4038030)
No. He just changed his mind. Nothing wrong with that.

No, there's a procedure for that. If a priest feels he can no longer live up to his vows, he can request to be "laicized", i.e. returned to the lay state. If he goes through the appropriate procedural channels, he can return to living as a lay Catholic, and then is free to marry.

You can't just "change your mind" on vows. Try telling your wife you "changed your mind" and are going on a date with another woman tonight. See how that goes over.
   131. Greg K Posted: January 16, 2012 at 12:45 PM (#4038031)
No. He just changed his mind. Nothing wrong with that.

I don't know, that's pretty easy for a breaking a vow. Maybe I'm old fashioned but if it's something you just change your mind on you probably shouldn't be taking a vow as solemn as that.

Also, I could be wrong here, but I think there's a difference between a priest renouncing his vows to take up a secular life and marry, (the Rickety Crickets of the world) and a priest who is getting some action on the side while still acting as a priest.
   132. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 16, 2012 at 12:49 PM (#4038037)
All unmarried sex is a sin in Catholicism.


So, you know, sex with your adult girlfriend, sex with the neighbor's kid, 6 of one half-dozen of the other. Hey, you gotta go to confession either way, amirite?

   133. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 16, 2012 at 12:52 PM (#4038042)
Note: The Catholic Church does have married priests in its Eastern Churches and among Protestant clergy who have converted and become Catholic priests. The men must be married before they are ordained; once ordained no priest can marry.


I knew this already but I don't really understand it. From an outside perspective the Catholic Church is usually reasonably self-consistent on matters of dogma, but this one makes little sense to me. Can you deconstruct this so it makes sense to me?

Not a gotcha, I am curious.
   134. Greg K Posted: January 16, 2012 at 12:53 PM (#4038044)
So, you know, sex with your adult girlfriend, sex with the neighbor's kid, 6 of one half-dozen of the other. Hey, you gotta go to confession either way, amirite?

Assault is illegal. So if you're already punching that guy in the face, why not kill him too? You have to go to jail either way.
   135. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 16, 2012 at 12:53 PM (#4038045)
So, you know, sex with your adult girlfriend, sex with the neighbor's kid, 6 of one half-dozen of the other. Hey, you gotta go to confession either way, amirite?

Hah, hah. Nice to see your new handle is so accurate.

You know very well there are degrees of sin within Catholicism, from venial (no confession needed), to mortal, to "sins that cry to heaven for vengeance".
   136. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 16, 2012 at 12:59 PM (#4038057)
You know very well there are degrees of sin within Catholicism


Oh sure, I think everyone knows the priests hold their sins to a different standard than those of the proles. Imagine them covering up for an international child rape ring run by the laity - preposterous!
   137. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 16, 2012 at 01:00 PM (#4038058)

I knew this already but I don't really understand it. From an outside perspective the Catholic Church is usually reasonably self-consistent on matters of dogma, but this one makes little sense to me. Can you deconstruct this so it makes sense to me?

Not a gotcha, I am curious.


Clerical celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma. The Pope could decide tomorrow to ordain married men, it is purely a matter of Church rules, not any divine or inspired law.

Different rites within the Church have different traditions re: the celibate priesthood. In the East (Catholic and Orthodox) regular priests were usually married, monks were celibate. In the West, it developed in the first millennium that the priesthood was celibate also. It was a norm and became a universal rule in ~1100.

In all the Catholic and Orthodox Churches Bishops must be celibate. So, a married priest can not become a bishop unless his wife dies.

Note: A married man can become a priest, but a priest can never marry. So, once a priest's wife dies, he must remain celibate.

Since priestly celibacy is not doctrine or dogma, the Pope is able to relax it for converting Protestant and Anglican ministers.
   138. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 16, 2012 at 01:03 PM (#4038064)
Oh sure, I think everyone knows the priests hold their sins to a different standard than those of the proles. Imagine them covering up for an international child rape ring run by the laity - preposterous!

No one is defending what they did. Many of those priests and bishops belong in jail, de-frocked, and excommunicated. There are evil men in the clergy. If they had actually followed what Church law dictated in these case, none of this would have happened.
   139. Rennie's Tenet Posted: January 16, 2012 at 01:13 PM (#4038077)
I'm writing a book called, "Tebow's Doctor's Dog."
   140. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: January 16, 2012 at 01:14 PM (#4038080)
No, there's a procedure for that. If a priest feels he can no longer live up to his vows, he can request to be "laicized", i.e. returned to the lay state. If he goes through the appropriate procedural channels, he can return to living as a lay Catholic, and then is free to marry.

After years of alleged hand-holding in the woods with Berniece, the school's secretary, our headmaster did just that after my senior year. Supposedly it went all the way to the Pope. It had to have been true love, ordained from above, because as my father said much later in life, "Berniece was the homeliest woman I ever saw." Other than the lunch ladies, she was the only woman in that school.
   141. ray james Posted: January 16, 2012 at 01:23 PM (#4038096)
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.

And it certainly isn't "a sin". Engaging in perfectly acceptable behavior between two consenting adults cannot in any way be considered "a sin". The sin is prohibiting behavior is innate and essential for emotional health and well-being.
   142. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 16, 2012 at 01:24 PM (#4038098)
Supposedly it went all the way to the Pope.

I believe all such cases must. Just like there are certain sins and excommunications that can only be handled by the Pope.
   143. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 16, 2012 at 01:26 PM (#4038102)
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 what happens if you or your wife is seriously ill and can't engage in sexual relations anymore?
   144. ray james Posted: January 16, 2012 at 01:27 PM (#4038104)
If they had actually followed what Church law dictated in these case, none of this would have happened.


snapper, you write this as though the chastity requirement and the pervasive criminal and perverted behavior of the clergy are not related. They are related, reforms are badly needed, and the church has done nothing that will lead to meaningful reform.

So the problem will continue to recur, until there is such a rebellion that the church will either cease to exist or the needed reforms will be imposed, either from within or without.
   145. ray james Posted: January 16, 2012 at 01:35 PM (#4038116)
So what happens if you or your wife is seriously ill and can't engage in sexual relations anymore?


You're mixing apples and oranges. A mutual vow of fidelity between spouses is not the same thing as a vow of chastity to an institution (and a corrupt one at that) to not engage in behavior that is perfectly acceptable and healthy. The former is a necessity for mutual trust and commitment. The latter is a requirement that corrupts the human spirit.

The church has no right to make that a requirement. It's a violation of a basic human right. That they still get away with it tells you how far we have to go in terms of respect for human rights, dignity and secular law by religious institutions.
   146. ray james Posted: January 16, 2012 at 01:39 PM (#4038120)
From an outside perspective the Catholic Church is usually reasonably self-consistent on matters of dogma, but this one makes little sense to me.


It's very simple. The exceptions serve the interests of the church to expand it's power and reach.
   147. SoSH U at work Posted: January 16, 2012 at 01:46 PM (#4038136)
The church has no right to make that a requirement.


If the Sacrament of Holy Orders was compulsory, you'd have an argument.
   148. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 16, 2012 at 01:46 PM (#4038137)
Thanks Snapper.

Note: A married man can become a priest, but a priest can never marry.


So this is because of tradition? Because it is the part that I find very odd. I mean I guess there is a difference between being married and becomming married, but I am not seeing the theological difference.

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.

Note: I am specifically talking about the marriage and other vows and NOT anything about the pedophilia horror show. Among other things that directly impacted those outside the Churh organization, where many of these rules you are complaining about are truly internal, and hey where there are consenting adults they can agree to anything (Safe, Sane, Consensual - you know the drill) including lots of nothing.
   149. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 16, 2012 at 01:50 PM (#4038142)
snapper, you write this as though the chastity requirement and the pervasive criminal and perverted behavior of the clergy are not related. They are related, reforms are badly needed, and the church has done nothing that will lead to meaningful reform.

So the problem will continue to recur, until there is such a rebellion that the church will either cease to exist or the needed reforms will be imposed, either from within or without.


Except they're not actually related.

Protestant and Jewish clergy have had exactly the same sort of scandals, and their clergy are 100% married. There is a huge sex scandal investigation in Brooklyn right now among Hasidic Jewish religious and social service organizations. It follows exactly the same pattern.

   150. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 16, 2012 at 01:54 PM (#4038146)
So this is because of tradition? Because it is the part that I find very odd. I mean I guess there is a difference between being married and becomming married, but I am not seeing the theological difference.


Yes. That tradition is consistent for 2000 years.

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

I'm not sure the exact theological basis for the distinction. I'll do some quick searching, or ask my brother-in-law when I see him. He's studying for his PhD. in Moral Theology.

   151. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 16, 2012 at 02:01 PM (#4038151)
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.
   152. ray james Posted: January 16, 2012 at 02:03 PM (#4038155)
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.
   153. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 16, 2012 at 02:07 PM (#4038161)
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.
   154. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 16, 2012 at 02:08 PM (#4038162)
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.
   155. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 16, 2012 at 02:09 PM (#4038163)
EDIT: Duplicate removed.
   156. SoSH U at work Posted: January 16, 2012 at 02:16 PM (#4038164)
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.

   157. Rants Mulliniks Posted: January 16, 2012 at 02:48 PM (#4038179)
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.

   158. Tippecanoe Posted: January 16, 2012 at 03:27 PM (#4038200)
Like the British Navy?
   159. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 16, 2012 at 03:38 PM (#4038209)
#157: I don't think I was actually defending the Church, but ok.
   160. rr Posted: January 16, 2012 at 04:01 PM (#4038233)
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.

   161. TomH Posted: January 16, 2012 at 04:06 PM (#4038239)
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.
   162. Tippecanoe Posted: January 16, 2012 at 04:29 PM (#4038261)
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.
   163. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: January 16, 2012 at 05:05 PM (#4038279)
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).
   164. Something Other Posted: January 16, 2012 at 05:09 PM (#4038280)
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.



   165. kthejoker Posted: January 16, 2012 at 05:17 PM (#4038283)
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.

   166. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: January 16, 2012 at 06:28 PM (#4038306)
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!
   167. Something Other Posted: January 16, 2012 at 06:34 PM (#4038310)
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???
   168. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: January 16, 2012 at 06:51 PM (#4038321)
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.
   169. Something Other Posted: January 16, 2012 at 07:15 PM (#4038332)
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).

   170. Endless Trash Posted: January 16, 2012 at 07:35 PM (#4038346)
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
   171. ray james Posted: January 16, 2012 at 08:26 PM (#4038361)
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.

   172. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: January 16, 2012 at 08:36 PM (#4038364)
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?

   173. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: January 16, 2012 at 10:53 PM (#4038405)
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.
   174. Der-K: at 10% emotional investment Posted: January 16, 2012 at 11:14 PM (#4038408)
Me too.
   175. dave h Posted: January 16, 2012 at 11:32 PM (#4038414)
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.
   176. Something Other Posted: January 17, 2012 at 12:19 AM (#4038431)
That does it. You guys are unknown to me.
   177. LionoftheSenate Posted: January 17, 2012 at 12:43 AM (#4038436)
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.
   178. Howie Menckel Posted: January 17, 2012 at 12:49 AM (#4038438)

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.
   179. Monty Posted: January 17, 2012 at 01:31 AM (#4038443)
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.
   180. Something Other Posted: January 17, 2012 at 01:44 AM (#4038445)
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!
   181. Monty Posted: January 17, 2012 at 01:57 AM (#4038446)
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.'
   182. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 17, 2012 at 03:20 AM (#4038449)
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.
   183. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 17, 2012 at 03:32 AM (#4038450)
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?
   184. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: January 17, 2012 at 07:31 AM (#4038472)
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.
   185. Downtown Bookie Posted: January 17, 2012 at 07:31 AM (#4038473)
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
   186. Lassus Posted: January 17, 2012 at 09:03 AM (#4038486)
Of course, any supporter of gay rights would call this homophobic. Pedophilia is not homosexuality.

As usual, David"s motives are so heartwarming.
   187. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 17, 2012 at 09:14 AM (#4038493)

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.
   188. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 17, 2012 at 10:20 AM (#4038532)
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.)
   189. SoSH U at work Posted: January 17, 2012 at 10:20 AM (#4038533)
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.

   190. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 17, 2012 at 10:34 AM (#4038546)
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.
   191. Der-K: at 10% emotional investment Posted: January 17, 2012 at 10:40 AM (#4038551)
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.
   192. The Good Face Posted: January 17, 2012 at 10:46 AM (#4038555)
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.
   193. Greg K Posted: January 17, 2012 at 02:25 PM (#4038767)
Speaking of Catholicism, my latest Netflix arrival is "Of Gods and Men".
I'm looking forward.
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dock Ellis
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(2471 - 11:43pm, Nov 16)
Last: Athletic Supporter is USDA certified lean

NewsblogSale of Baseball Prospectus
(318 - 11:34pm, Nov 16)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogMichael Wilbon Weighs In On Jacob deGrom With Worst Baseball Take Of Year | MLB | NESN.com
(8 - 10:45pm, Nov 16)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Sox TherapyLet’s Get Off-Seasoning!
(5 - 10:40pm, Nov 16)
Last: Jay Seaver

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (November 2018)
(433 - 10:09pm, Nov 16)
Last: Morty Causa

NewsblogMarlins get rid of orange, cite South Florida cultures with new look
(28 - 8:57pm, Nov 16)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogHow Kevin Brown Became Baseball's First $100 Million Man
(9 - 8:46pm, Nov 16)
Last: TVerik, who wonders what the hell is "Ansky"

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-16-2018
(10 - 8:30pm, Nov 16)
Last: crict

NewsblogIndians' Trevor Bauer pleads his own Cy Young case using a spreadsheet on Twitter
(24 - 8:01pm, Nov 16)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogFox Sports inks multi-year rights agreement with Major League Baseball
(30 - 8:00pm, Nov 16)
Last: QLE

NewsblogJoe Mauer Retires After 15 Seasons
(84 - 6:44pm, Nov 16)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (2018-19 season begins!)
(1216 - 5:35pm, Nov 16)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogYelich, Betts Win MVPs
(54 - 5:28pm, Nov 16)
Last: The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott)

NewsblogHow Mets, deGrom could get their contract extension done
(4 - 5:18pm, Nov 16)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogAL Central Offseason Preview
(16 - 4:51pm, Nov 16)
Last: Walt Davis

Page rendered in 0.6227 seconds
46 querie(s) executed