Archbishop Claims SCOTUS Decision Is "Poisoning" The Future

[Still Life]

You are now guilty of the same malfeasance and ignorance that you accuse this Archbishop of. I hope that it was worth sabotaging your entire argument to get in that one little childish insult.

I agree. It was an unnecessarily low-blow and this publication can do a lot better. As a person who works/trains in a Justice system, I take issue with the Archbishop's gross-generalisations pertaining to violence and the nature thereof, however.

Just to throw my two cents in the ring.
1.) As the pastor of his diocese, Archbishop Chaput has responsibility to teach the faith and encourage all men and women to live the life that God has called them to live. In this case, it is primarily about the parents being involved in their child's life. Though the setting is about violent video games, it is almost accidental to the main thrust of what Chaput is trying to teach.

Firstly, I think it's great that you're throwing your 2c into the ring. You bring a really good perspective that this site, I think, lacks.

Secondly, assuming I have read your thoughts correctly, I believe that the Archbishop is not approaching family issues in a rational, completely informed and appropriate way. Some of his language smacks of politics, not someone trying to teach balanced and moral lives. The message so called 'leaders' need to start preaching is one of objectively informed decision making and responsibility.

I think it's disgusting when I go to a midnight launch for COD and see underage kids rock up with a parent/guardian. I similarly find it disgusting when a supposedly educated man blows smoke up society's ass about video games tainting young minds, thus becoming the catalyst for ultra violent behavior. Empirical socioeconomical, sociological and criminological data paints a very different story. Ethically speaking, a community leader of this stature, should not be speaking in gross generalisations in any authoritative manner.

 

[Awexsome]

Oh perfect, another great thing to bring up on how religion is holding back mankind with some kind of zealous belief in unrealistic fairy tales only stifling progress. Was just running low on ammunition lately, thanks Archbishop.

 

[Atmos Duality]

"extends and elevates the individual's right to free expression - or in this case, a corporation's right to make a healthy profit - at the expense of family sovereignty, the natural rights of parents and the intent of the Constitution's authors."

Explain to me how the SCOTUS decision impairs those rights at all.

By simple logic, a law proposing impairments was struck down...ergo, NOTHING WAS IMPAIRED. Rather, the opposite is true: freedoms were established and upheld.
Parents still wield the same rights and responsibility for their children; nothing more, nothing less.
Whether those parents choose to exercise those rights is up to them.

Chaput is full of shit. It's fine to speak your opinion, but making such obviously wrong statements is just embarrassing; it's embarrassing that there are people who state such idiocy as if it were fact and that such people are actually in positions of authority.

 

[Jewrean]

Religion has been poisoning human-kind since its inception. Sure video games are poisonous as well, but hey stop picking on the new kid on the block!

 

[theultimateend]

I'm willing to bet that Catholic priests have <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases>done more harm to the youth of the world than videogames have

That was completely unnecessary.

The Archbishop has no idea what he is talking about here, obviously, but I'm sure vansau is perfectly aware that he is strawmanning. Ignorance is excusable (though really annoying). Poor debate tactics are not.

The pope used his influence to help hide pedophiles.

If you support a group whose leader supports a heinous act, you are not exempt from labels or harsh comments.

If you like to be a good person, but don't like pedophilia, you probably have better options out there than being part of that organization.

Just like if the current president started executing homeless people I'd either vote him out or leave the country. I wouldn't say "Well that's unfair, its just the president, that doesn't mean I'm a bad person just for living here and funding his actions with tax dollars."

Edit: When I say "You" I don't mean YOU as in the person I'm quoting, but you as in the person who would actually be offended by the original posts comment.

You are now guilty of the same malfeasance and ignorance that you accuse this Archbishop of.

They really aren't. That's not even close to apples to apples.

 

[Thorvan]

The man who still cites the Columbine Massacre as evidence of videogames' effects on kids has publicly announced that he disapproves of the recent Supreme Court verdict.

Unbelievable! Incredible! Headline of the century!

I fail to care to look at this from his perspective lest he actually defines what, "parental rights," are being taken away by this. "Parental support?" That I could buy. But don't just go throwing around random buzzwords to one-dimensionally strengthen your position, it just makes you look like an idiot.

And yes, vansau, the pedophile thing was a bit low. I understand that you have an adamant position on this issue, but try to keep things civil and professional. We don't need to push them down to show that we are up; After all, we did already win.

 

[Racecarlock]

Here's my impression of the archbishop statement after reading about 5 words. "WAAAH WAAH WAAH WE LOST SUPREME COURT SUCKS WAAH WAAH CORPORATE PROFITS WAAH WAAH WAAH SAME ARGUMENT AS OTHER GUYS WAAH!"

 

[Still Life]

The pope used his influence to help hide pedophiles.

I haven't seen/heard any proof of this beyond convoluted conspiracy theories and puffery. Can you provide evidence that backs this statement?

 

[DarthSka]

Just to throw my two cents in the ring.
1.) As the pastor of his diocese, Archbishop Chaput has responsibility to teach the faith and encourage all men and women to live the life that God has called them to live. In this case, it is primarily about the parents being involved in their child's life. Though the setting is about violent video games, it is almost accidental to the main thrust of what Chaput is trying to teach. In fact when it comes to the question of whether the Californian Law should be overturned he is somewhat ambivalent in that he agrees with Alito and Robert's opinion. The bulk of his angst is about the majority opinion written by Scalia and his reasoning and arguments used.

2.) Archbishop Chaput's opinion in this case is about the concern for a parent's right to decide what media a child is able to obtain without their knowledge. Chaput is writing in First Things, which is a Catholic theological journal. Hence in his writings there are certain presuppositions that are assumed. Namely the principle of subsidiarity; with regard to the parent's right to make decisions about what media their children are able to access.

3.) As is noted above, Chaput is not arguing for the banning of video games, rather, that violent video games be restricted to a certain age. Like other forms of media and goods that are restricted by age such as pornography, alcohol and tobacco products. He is arguing that explicit material can have a strong impact on a young child's mind. Yet, if a parent should consent to purchase the game for their child, then it is up for that parent to allow it.

4.) It is an opinion. While he is an archbishop, this piece is his opinion about the law and the majority opinion on the ruling. It is not the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. He is making a statement about the recent decision and giving his opinion. As such all responses to this statement should be based upon the arguments that he brings up and not ad hominem attacks.

5.) Finally, I am a catholic priest who plays video games. My personal opinion on the matter is that there needs to be some common sense. As I shake my head when I see a 7 year old in a Rated R film, I shake my head when I hear students who are in 4th or 5th grade playing GTA or some FPS game like Modern Warfare (note I do realize that not all FPS games are like Modern Warfare). Like Alito, there needs to be a more defined definition for violent video games and some restriction to minors is not a bad thing. For example the Halo series has violence, but a much different type of violence then a particular airport scene in Modern Warfare 2. Ultimately the Californian Law was written poorly and it is impossible to prevent young kids from getting their hands on some of the violent games. Yet, the purpose of the law was to make it more difficult. Trying to make parents aware of what their children are buying is noble and in someways a good thing - they just did it the wrong way.

Fr. Peter

Welcome to the escapist, Father. Gotta tell you, it's really cool to see a priest posting on a gaming forum.

Just to throw my two cents in the ring.
1.) As the pastor of his diocese, Archbishop Chaput has responsibility to teach the faith and encourage all men and women to live the life that God has called them to live. In this case, it is primarily about the parents being involved in their child's life. Though the setting is about violent video games, it is almost accidental to the main thrust of what Chaput is trying to teach. In fact when it comes to the question of whether the Californian Law should be overturned he is somewhat ambivalent in that he agrees with Alito and Robert's opinion. The bulk of his angst is about the majority opinion written by Scalia and his reasoning and arguments used.

2.) Archbishop Chaput's opinion in this case is about the concern for a parent's right to decide what media a child is able to obtain without their knowledge. Chaput is writing in First Things, which is a Catholic theological journal. Hence in his writings there are certain presuppositions that are assumed. Namely the principle of subsidiarity; with regard to the parent's right to make decisions about what media their children are able to access.

3.) As is noted above, Chaput is not arguing for the banning of video games, rather, that violent video games be restricted to a certain age. Like other forms of media and goods that are restricted by age such as pornography, alcohol and tobacco products. He is arguing that explicit material can have a strong impact on a young child's mind. Yet, if a parent should consent to purchase the game for their child, then it is up for that parent to allow it.

4.) It is an opinion. While he is an archbishop, this piece is his opinion about the law and the majority opinion on the ruling. It is not the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. He is making a statement about the recent decision and giving his opinion. As such all responses to this statement should be based upon the arguments that he brings up and not ad hominem attacks.

5.) Finally, I am a catholic priest who plays video games. My personal opinion on the matter is that there needs to be some common sense. As I shake my head when I see a 7 year old in a Rated R film, I shake my head when I hear students who are in 4th or 5th grade playing GTA or some FPS game like Modern Warfare (note I do realize that not all FPS games are like Modern Warfare). Like Alito, there needs to be a more defined definition for violent video games and some restriction to minors is not a bad thing. For example the Halo series has violence, but a much different type of violence then a particular airport scene in Modern Warfare 2. Ultimately the Californian Law was written poorly and it is impossible to prevent young kids from getting their hands on some of the violent games. Yet, the purpose of the law was to make it more difficult. Trying to make parents aware of what their children are buying is noble and in someways a good thing - they just did it the wrong way.

Fr. Peter

Wow, never though I'd read a post from a priest on any gaming forum. Well, I welcome you here and hopefully so shall the rest of the community. If you keep up insightful input like this, maybe you can put some of this stereotypical jabs at your calling to rest. Though, I can guarantee you that you will run into unmovable ignorance (hey, it's how the internet works, right?), there are plenty willing to engage in meaningful conversations here. Though it would probably be better to do so with people face to face, we have this, so why not use it?

 

[Blind Sight]

I'm willing to bet that Catholic priests have <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases>done more harm to the youth of the world than videogames have

That was completely unnecessary.

The Archbishop has no idea what he is talking about here, obviously, but I'm sure vansau is perfectly aware that he is strawmanning. Ignorance is excusable (though really annoying). Poor debate tactics are not.

The pope used his influence to help hide pedophiles.

If you support a group whose leader supports a heinous act, you are not exempt from labels or harsh comments.

If you like to be a good person, but don't like pedophilia, you probably have better options out there than being part of that organization.

Just like if the current president started executing homeless people I'd either vote him out or leave the country. I wouldn't say "Well that's unfair, its just the president, that doesn't mean I'm a bad person just for living here and funding his actions with tax dollars."

What about the deaths of civilians within foreign countries where U.S. intervention is occurring? Doesn't that equal an event backed by American political institutions similar to your homeless example? Are the American people responsible for the deaths of Libyan civilians from NATO airstrikes? You're going to have to expand your reasoning if you're going for the 'if you're part of the organization you're partially responsible' argument.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

I was going to make a smarmy remark about the Catholic church being yet again out of touch and flailing to maintain relevance in a modern world that is rapidly leaving them behind. But I have instead decided to be the better man and ignore the ridiculous remarks.

You hear me? A better man. My maturity and grace know no bounds.

Poop.

LOL! Thank you for making me laugh good sir.

Seriously though, I think the best thing that gamers and the industry can do is stand behind the research-based, fact-based, and logic-based arguments that support the medium (arguments that the video game advocates used in this Supreme Court case). At the same time we should, as you suggest, "ignore the ridiculous remarks" from people who are obviously ignorant about the nature of media, video games, and the Constitution. These same people who like to ignore the simple fact that parents-not-doing-their-jobs-is-what-makes-screwed-up-kids! Nothing else!

 

[theultimateend]

The pope used his influence to help hide pedophiles.

I haven't seen/heard any proof of this beyond convoluted conspiracy theories and puffery. Can you provide evidence that backs this statement?

I could literally not find enough evidence to convince you of otherwise but the most recent note I can find after about 3 seconds of searching is:

In August Pope Benedict was personally accused in a lawsuit of conspiring to cover up the molestation of three boys in Texas by Juan Carlos Patino-Arango in Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston. He sought and obtained immunity from prosecution as head of state of the Holy See.[94] Some have claimed that this immunity was granted after intervention by then US President George W. Bush.[95] The Department of State "recognize[d] and allow[ed] the immunity of Pope Benedict XVI from this suit."[96] See pope#International position for information on head-of-state immunity of a pope.

However I imagine if I actually cared enough I could gather up quite a bit more, a quick video snip is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUquJT5e5Do

The full episode this is from actually shows snips of the documents that the guy signed.

What about the deaths of civilians within foreign countries where U.S. intervention is occurring? Doesn't that equal an event backed by American political institutions similar to your homeless example? Are the American people responsible for the deaths of Libyan civilians from NATO airstrikes? You're going to have to expand your reasoning if you're going for the 'if you're part of the organization you're partially responsible' argument.

Yes, I would say that anyone who is of voting age is responsible for those deaths. I being one of them, these sort of things should result in a dramatic overhaul of our political system and a strong changing of the guard.

Good example by the way, I would also say Iraq is another incident of Americans supporting wide scale murder. Again, myself, being one of those Americans.

Or was I supposed to get all defensive about this?

 

[Blind Sight]

The pope used his influence to help hide pedophiles.

I haven't seen/heard any proof of this beyond convoluted conspiracy theories and puffery. Can you provide evidence that backs this statement?

Sure, I can. The Crimen Sollicitationis document from 1962 provides details to dioceses on how to cover up sexual molestation cases by priests. That includes threatening the victim with excommunication should they accuse the priest of sexual misconduct. This document was approved by John XXIII and the highest ranking cardinal. The author of this document? One Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. This is not a 'conspiracy theory' it is a legitimate curial response (confirmed by numerous experts and even several now 'rogue' Catholic priests) to sexual abuse by priests.

 

[Treaos Serrare]

god people like this need to be shot,preferably in the head with a large caliber firearm on national television

 

[Still Life]

The pope used his influence to help hide pedophiles.

I haven't seen/heard any proof of this beyond convoluted conspiracy theories and puffery. Can you provide evidence that backs this statement?

I could literally not find enough evidence to convince you of otherwise but the most recent note I can find after about 3 seconds of searching is:

In August Pope Benedict was personally accused in a lawsuit of conspiring to cover up the molestation of three boys in Texas by Juan Carlos Patino-Arango in Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston. He sought and obtained immunity from prosecution as head of state of the Holy See.[94] Some have claimed that this immunity was granted after intervention by then US President George W. Bush.[95] The Department of State "recognize[d] and allow[ed] the immunity of Pope Benedict XVI from this suit."[96] See pope#International position for information on head-of-state immunity of a pope.

However I imagine if I actually cared enough I could gather up quite a bit more, a quick video snip is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUquJT5e5Do

Ta.

I think I remember seeing this story a while back. Not convinced, but I don't discount the theory. One of the benefits of having a cynical mind

Having said that, I don't indulge in faith bashing. It's a shame that a few individuals make it harder for the many genuine persons of faith who have balanced, informed and logical opinions to be taken seriously. Our Archbishop is a poor example of an academic.

The pope used his influence to help hide pedophiles.

I haven't seen/heard any proof of this beyond convoluted conspiracy theories and puffery. Can you provide evidence that backs this statement?

Sure, I can. The Crimen Sollicitationis document from 1962 provides details to dioceses on how to cover up sexual molestation cases by priests. That includes threatening the victim with excommunication should they accuse the priest of sexual misconduct. This document was approved by John XXIII and the highest ranking cardinal. The author of this document? One Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. This is not a 'conspiracy theory' it is a legitimate curial response (confirmed by numerous experts and even several now 'rogue' Catholic priests) to sexual abuse by priests.

Thanks. I'll check this out -- I didn't know of its existence.

 

[ensouls]

And so the cycle continues. Religious leader blames something or someone for deviancy, then people retaliate with comments on pedophilia.

I concur. This is so incredibly useless on both sides. Well done, internet.

 

[theultimateend]

Ta.

I think I remember seeing this story a while back. Not convinced, but I don't discount the theory. One of the benefits of having a cynical mind

Having said that, I don't indulge in faith bashing. It's a shame that a few individuals make it harder for the many genuine persons of faith who have balanced, informed and logical opinions to be taken seriously. Our Archbishop is a poor example of an academic.

I admit I don't like when people shamelessly bash faith. But when an institution worked hard to protect priests over the victims it becomes an exception.

Just like bashing skin heads is fine with me, or bashing homophobes, or the KKK.

These groups are not sanctimonious just because they say they are.

My point is that if people join a group, the only important action of that group is the leadership. People can say "Well I'm a good person" or "my group is a good person" but if the leadership is doing terrible things then you are not a part of that group.

You might be an offshoot, a subgroup, but the label is wrong. You aren't a "Democrat" but a person who agrees with some democratic policies, you aren't a "republican" but a person who agrees with some of their policies.

Unless you agree with >allall< their actions, you are just falsifying their popularity by saying that you agree.

Good lord, if all it takes to be catholic is to believe in the bible and Jesus then there are WAY more Catholics than call themselves Catholic. But I think that once you make the term that broad it basically loses its meaning, plus most of what the Vatican does is hardly supported by either the man or the literature.

Don't get me wrong either, no faith is exempt. All of them have people at their head that are doing things that would not be supported by their supposed faith. And it is the unfortunate nature of people to try and label things, including themselves, that give those positions more power than they ever deserved.

But yeah, as the guy earlier mentioned, I am an American, and certainly feel responsible for many deaths in the middle east. For many problems in the states, and for many missed opportunities. I use it as motivation to keep myself educated and to vote.

And so the cycle continues. Religious leader blames something or someone for deviancy, then people retaliate with comments on pedophilia.

I concur. This is so incredibly useless on both sides. Well done, internet.

It's really disappointing how many people are saying this.

It's a perfectly legitimate point. They should have been extremely gungho on weeding out the problem, instead it became a very long (and still remains) system of hiding the problem and making it worse.

People would not be so forgiving if it was a school that was moving teachers around different classrooms "hoping they'd find one where they don't touch kids".

 

[Calbeck]

"The man who still cites the Columbine Massacre as evidence of videogames' effects on kids"

That pretty much says it all...except for not mentioning that he's not actually Jack Thompson.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

What exactly would you have said had that blow not been in place of the article i would love to know.

Ideally, nothing, as that would undermine the point of "objective journalism". At the very least, ask the audience their thoughts.

But, if forced, as someone had interestingly put, I would put how if SCOTUS had ruled against the video game industry/EMA it would have restricted the rights of the parents that he so lovingly puts on a pedestal, rather than helping them.

My question is why isn't he helping them?.