Should The Pope Resign?

Current issues and things in the news

Moderator: Moderators

Should the Pope resign?

Poll ended at Sat May 15, 2010 2:59 am

Yes, immediately
9
75%
No, he's acted responsibly
0
No votes
I'm waiting for more info/revelations
3
25%
I'm waiting for him to go on Oprah
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 12

User avatar
The Happy Humanist
Site Supporter
Posts: 600
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:05 am
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Contact:

Should The Pope Resign?

Post #1

Post by The Happy Humanist »

OK, so Joey Ratzinger gets elevated to "Pope Ratzo I", despite having been in the Hitler Youth, and despite having turned a blind eye to the philanderings of several clerics on his watch. I mean, think about just this one story...
A priest (!) raped (!!) 200 (!!!) deaf (!!!!) boys(!!!!!)
Can we take it, from Ratzo's inaction (and continuation in the Shoes of the Fisherman), that the Catholic Church is OK with homosexuality, priests violating their oath of celibacy, and the serial rape of handicapped children? What other conclusion can we come to? :-k
Jim, the Happy Humanist!
===
Any sufficiently advanced worldview will be indistinguishable from sheer arrogance --The Happy Humanist (with apologies to Arthur C. Clarke)

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #31

Post by Goat »

Slopeshoulder wrote:
I agree with every word.

Ratzinger has been the bane liberals and centrists for decades. And while I think the OP is in violation of the rules of civility and paints coarsely and with a broad brush, I will admit that we moaned loud and long when he became pope and we call him benny the rat. I loathe the man.
There is a reason for that
Image
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

Mascaput
Student
Posts: 84
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 7:13 pm

Post #32

Post by Mascaput »

Grumpy wrote:
Not only is blaming pedophilia on homosexuals offensive, it is scientifically rubbish(and is the position of the Catholic Church, hence the purging of non-pedophile preists). Pedophiles are attracted to children, the sex of the child is irrelivant.

"For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.

Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..." (p.180).


Other
Approaches

Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994). In yet another approach to studying adult sexual attraction to children, some Canadian researchers observed how homosexual and heterosexual adult men responded to slides of males and females of various ages (child, pubescent, and mature adult). All of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners. In some of the slides shown to subjects, the model was clothed; in others, he or she was nude. The slides were accompanied by audio recordings. The recordings paired with the nude models described an imaginary sexual interaction between the model and the subject. The recordings paired with the pictures of clothed models described the model engaging in neutral activities (e.g., swimming). To measure sexual arousal, changes in the subjects' penis volume were monitored while they watched the slides and listened to the audiotapes. The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989).

Science cannot prove a negative. Thus, these studies do not prove that homosexual or bisexual males are no more likely than heterosexual males to molest children. However, each of them failed to prove the alternative hypothesis that homosexual males are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children or to be sexually attracted to children or adolescents. "

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/h ... ation.html

(from the UC Davis Psychology School)

You are factually incorrect to hold the offensive position you expressed above.

Grumpy 8-)


Well, if you choose to feel offended, that's is indeed your personal choice, but I don't base my opinions on emotions like feeling "offended". I prefer to leave emotion out of my judgements, and look at the cold hard facts, as deciding to feel offended, or failing to control such emotion, negates the possibility of understanding the issue.

A male who inserts his penis into the mouth or anus (sodomy or buggery) of a male child is a homosexual, like it or not. Most abused male children are raped or sexually abused by males (male on male sex = homosexual).
You say "the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman", but what does that mean? There is nothing in the definition of a homosexual that says anything about their "not being really capable of a relationship withe an adult man or woman", as it is purely same sex activity. That's the fact as far as I understand it, and there is no emotion involved.

M

Post Reply