This is a question so don’t jump down my throat. I’d like to preface this with a quick statement. Yes, this involves homosexuality. Yes, it involves acts of pedophilia. If either of these things sicken you, stop reading. It’s just better all around if you not continue and save me the hassle of reading an emotionally charged comment attacking me or homosexuals (as for pedophiles, feel free to attack them verbally) and then having me delete your comment. I will do it, trust me.
I am not attacking Roman Catholicism or Christians in general. I’m speaking specifically to things we’ve all read in the paper and heard on the news (radio or televisions) regarding the priesthood. I am not condoning nor accusing swaths of people. I’m asking a (probably complex) question.
I have wondered in the past and it just happened to come up in something I read so I am wondering now, about the priesthood. If you’re curious, I was reading an article located here [no registration required]. Basically, it’s Intelligent Design. I won’t debate the finer points of Intelligent Design; however, I will say that it’s not science. It’s dressed up to look like science, but maybe I’m mistaken. It doesn’t seem like sound science to me. Regardless, that article called up this question in my own mind it wasn’t posed in the article.
Roman Catholic priests (I’ll generalize and say priesthood) have what some people might consider harsh restrictions placed upon them. I consider celibacy to be harsh, but that’s a personal opinion. Could one say that because of the way religion in general tends to polarize issues into binary (good and evil) that it creates a certain amount of attraction to what you’ve been banned from? Many people tend to do things that are forbidden to them. Not all people, because many fear the repercussions more than they enjoy the forbidden fruits as it were; however, there is a lot to be said for the large portion of our population that will derive pleasure from doing something if only because someone told them they couldn’t/shouldn’t.
My next question is fairly simple as well, but it touches on a complex area. Could it be said, that the priesthood draws to its numbers pedophiles and homosexuals? Now, before you jump to the “No of course not, you moron!” Hear (read?) me out. It’s certainly plausible that this is the case, but I wouldn’t accuse the priesthood of being a haven for such individuals that would subvert a religious order who for all intents and purposes are attempting to do good. I would say that it could be viewed as a particularly interesting place to seek out as a haven though, because you are given a certain amount of power in such an order. Is that not true? I think this would be something interesting to study, because the lifestyle and easy access to children would seem ideal for those that could abuse such status as being a priest.
So there are my questions, feel free to answer/give opinion/bitch at me for bein’ a hater/whatever! lol Later days!
Addendum: Would anyone agree/disagree that the priesthood is also a place that would attract homosexuals/pedophiles who are self-loathing? The people I’m speaking about are those that would seek out an antithetical to themselves. Does the priesthood provide a mechanism for such individuals to work out what is in their own mind an issue?
I had an associate who was _so_ homophobic, but had homosexual tendencies. I have and still do question his sexuality, but he’s not come out and said he’s homosexual. It’s neither here nor there, but highly interesting to me.
Hey again, Prata,
“I won’t debate the finer points of Intelligent Design; however, I will say that it’s not science.”
Without debating the finer points of ID, could you tell me why you consider it “not science”? Here is where I am coming from: Science, to the best of my knowledge, is not dependent on either the theory or the conclusions involved. Science is a method, or group of methods, which deal with experimentation, data collection, observable phenomenon, repeatable results. Therefore, no matter what the theory, if pursued and tested using the scientific method, the results and conclusion can be considered “science” (unless of course the conclusions go against the data). So, if ID follows those tenets, scientific progress will be made regardless of the conclusions. Agree or disagree?
“Could one say that because of the way religion in general tends to polarize issues into binary (good and evil) that it creates a certain amount of attraction to what you’ve been banned from?”
It may provide the factors that create the attraction, but does that make it in any way a responsible factor? Consider the following: A woman who dresses very suggestively may cause a desire for her in many, but that doesn’t make her responsible if they sexually assault her. Television adds make goods attractive when they advertise, but that’s not the same thing as forcing us to want them so much that we will steal or kill for them. I dare say that all people have unhealthy or “sinful” desires” within them. Some circumstances attract people with those types of desires (e.g., rampant, unrestrained sex – brothels). I would still say that the fault is in the individual not the organization unless the organization exists primarily to encourage the behavior. Clear as mud?
“Could it be said, that the priesthood draws to its numbers pedophiles and homosexuals?”
That could be said to the extent that pedophiles and homosexuals examine the conditions in the priesthood with an eye to attaining their final goal. This ties in your next question:
“Would anyone agree/disagree that the priesthood is also a place that would attract homosexuals/pedophiles who are self-loathing?”
Some would see either condition as a fault, and might come into the priesthood as a way to atone for it while using the inherent celibacy requirement as cover for their lack of interest in a wife. Others could be less self loathing and more opportunistic. A pedophile might see the priesthood as a profession with access to children that also provides (or at least used to provide) a great deal of protection from prosecution. This is not self-loathing. This is evil, pure and simple, and that is word I do not use lightly.
I generally try not to dwell on the motives of others. The questions are fascinating to discuss, but ultimately academic. We have no way of really knowing what those motivations are. we can infer based on what they tell us and how their actions match up, but that is all.
[Translate]
“I generally try not to dwell on the motives of others. The questions are fascinating to discuss, but ultimately academic. We have no way of really knowing what those motivations are. we can infer based on what they tell us and how their actions match up, but that is all.”
This is true. And I only posed the questioned for the same of curiosity. Not at all thinking anyone would come to some sort of profound conclusion.
“Some would see either condition as a fault, and might come into the priesthood as a way to atone for it while using the inherent celibacy requirement as cover for their lack of interest in a wife. Others could be less self loathing and more opportunistic. A pedophile might see the priesthood as a profession with access to children that also provides (or at least used to provide) a great deal of protection from prosecution. This is not self-loathing. This is evil, pure and simple, and that is word I do not use lightly.”
Oh that’s a very interesting point to make! I hadn’t thought of that. Speaking to the opportunistic point, I totally agree. That would be very evil. I use the word evil to varying degrees, but in this case I mean it in the same way you use it.
“It may provide the factors that create the attraction, but does that make it in any way a responsible factor? Consider the following: A woman who dresses very suggestively may cause a desire for her in many, but that doesn’t make her responsible if they sexually assault her.”
I wouldn’t say it makes her responsible either. It wasn’t my intention to allude that religion is necessarily responsible for that. I think the nature of the question implies some sort of responsibility to be laid somewhere; however, that isn’t my belief.
“Without debating the finer points of ID, could you tell me why you consider it “not science”?”
ID isn’t science because it can not be pursued in a scientific manner. Unless I misunderstand portions of how Intelligent Design is studied and put forth to others. I don’t know any scientists that agree with ID being science. Asking a research scientist and a biologist the very question you asked me, I was given this paraphrased answer:
‘In order to be a legitimate scientific theory you have to be able to create tests that prove a theory as false or inaccurate – not tests that establish the theory as fact.’ My biologist comrade went on to say the following: ‘Evolution is fact. The theoretical part of Evolution is the historical path. With a scientific theory you should be able to predict what is going to happen before you test it. If each test you apply falls within that prediction, you are providing yourself with credibility. The only facts you gain are the results of your experiments. Even if you perform the test a hundred time it is still a theory, and that’s different from an idea.’
I don’t think we’ve had any Theory from Intelligent Design that can be disproven through scientific study, but I admit I’m weak in the ID field, I should probably bone up on it. Mainly what I’ve read of it and what I’ve heard from people involved in the sciences (life sciences) is that ID’s fine to teach as a philosophy, or even in a religion class just not in science class.
Interestingly, I find that science and god don’t contradict one another if you think about it. Religion and science are at odds. I’m sure scientists would be more than happy to put some tests to any actual theories that come up from ID though.
I don’t believe ID should be taught as an alternative theory to say Evolution. To me it would be like teaching some weird alternative to gravity. On the other hand, I’d be playing ignorant if I didn’t say that I am fully aware that science can not answer all questions now, and may not in the next 100 years, but through it we learn a lot about how our world works and how we function.
[Translate]
I agree with most of your comments regarding science. My disagreement comes with a lot of the ways they are used, sometimes in the academic community, sometimes in the media. There is certainly no personal criticism intended here.
I have some arguments with this statement as regards to ID:
“‘Evolution is fact. The theoretical part of Evolution is the historical path. With a scientific theory you should be able to predict what is going to happen before you test it.”
First off, as someone who makes my living in a science related field, I have no problem with any part of evolution that can be tested and verified. My problem comes with the parts that are not verifiable, and yet are still taught with the same weight as though they were. For instance, there is no conceivable test (at least that I am aware of) that will demonstrate that man (or any other higher life form for that matter) evolved from a lower form. I freely admit that there is a certain amount of evidence that can lead to that conclusion, but that’s far from the same thing.
When talking about the historical path and evolution, many scientists abandon testability and essentially wind up with the classical fallacy “After the fact, therefore because of the fact.” To me, they don’t have nearly the direct evidence they require to make some of the assertions that are being passed off as “fact.” And yes, in environmental engineering courses we do get a significant amount of course work in biology and evolution. I took all the courses, I got A’s, I still don’t believe a lot of the conclusions.
You may be right about there not being a testable way to verify predictions by ID. I don’t know. When Darwin first proposed evolution, it was rejected by many on the same grounds. If people had let it go at that there would be no “Theory of Evolution” today. Experimentation and investigation usually come after proposing.
Now you may be right that it can’t be tested, but you admit that you haven’t studied it and neither have I. I do believe that if experimentation and study are vigorously discouraged (as is the case in much of the academic intelligentsia) then any progress that might be made will be severely retarded. On the other hand, with encouragement and open discussion, who knows what we may find out?
While I was growing up, there was no such thing as “Chaos Theory”. How could there be? Patterns in randomness? How could you test that? I’m still not sure, but because that doesn’t threaten the scientific orthodoxy no one is trying to beat it down. On the other hand, you can find many cases (try Ben Stein’s “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,”) of cases where supposedly dispassionate scientists take a very emotional and vindictive view of ID.
[Translate]
“While I was growing up, there was no such thing as “Chaos Theory”. How could there be? Patterns in randomness? How could you test that? I’m still not sure, but because that doesn’t threaten the scientific orthodoxy no one is trying to beat it down….”
I can’t even begin to speak on Chaos Theory. I mean, it’s kind of crazy. Chaos Theory is a (I think) purely mathematical thing though correct? I think Chaos Theory really only attempts to find the mathematical patterns that do occur in complex seemingly random data. Now, math is supposed to be pure, but that’s about all I know (or think I know) about Chaos Theory.
“I do believe that if experimentation and study are vigorously discouraged (as is the case in much of the academic intelligentsia) then any progress that might be made will be severely retarded. On the other hand, with encouragement and open discussion, who knows what we may find out?”
Perhaps we should study it; however, until there’s a theory that can be experimented upon I’m not sure we can? I can’t form a theory to test for, but then I’m also not a scientist and thus it would probably end up in epic FAIL for me. I wouldn’t say that experimentation and study are vigorously discouraged, but I am not (again) in that field to say what’s what either. You probably have a better grasp of that than myself.
If people want ID to be taken seriously isn’t it the job of scientists whom are interested in the subject to form a theory and begin to experiment? I suppose though that takes money and likely a lot of it to fund such research. I’m sure that the Vatican would be happy to fund in part some of that research. Or maybe the people that want to teach our kids this in science class as an alternative to Evolution can put their money where their mouth is and fund research in that area. I honestly, don’t know how to best approach that.
It’s my perception that the reason ID isn’t openly discussed is because like Darwin was told to modify aspects of Evolution before it was accepted by the scientific community, ID has been told to bring a theory that can be tested to the table, and that hasn’t happened. That’s how I understand it, this may be incorrect?
“When talking about the historical path and evolution, many scientists abandon testability and essentially wind up with the classical fallacy “After the fact, therefore because of the fact.” To me, they don’t have nearly the direct evidence they require to make some of the assertions that are being passed off as “fact.”
That may be true, I’m kind of a fence sitter on certain things mainly because they don’t make or break my world view. It doesn’t matter to me from the perspective of my religion in what way we got here, so outside of being curious, Evolution’s statements or other scientists statements to our ancestry have little impact.
“First off, as someone who makes my living in a science related field, I have no problem with any part of evolution that can be tested and verified. My problem comes with the parts that are not verifiable, and yet are still taught with the same weight as though they were.”
I don’t think that’s unreasonable at all.
Totally out of order, I’m gonna have a look-see at Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Thanks for the recommendation.
Later gator!
[Translate]