Archbishop Claims SCOTUS Decision Is "Poisoning" The Future

[Noremac60]

1. No, ignorance is in no way excusable. Ignorance can be fixed if the individual is willing to put the effort into learning about the topic of which they are ignorant. A lack of intelligence (stupidity), on the other hand, is still annoying, but can be excused because it is a result of one's inability to learn, rather than their choice not learn.

2. While I agree that the hyperlink is a cheap shot, I cannot dismiss it as an invalid point. If the Archbishop is truly concerned with helping the youth of America it would seem that his time would be better spent helping the church identify and remove pedophiles from its ranks than issuing spiteful and ultimately futile statements.

Yes it is. None of us are omniscient, so we all will speak out of ignorance many times in our lives. Considering he started speaking out after Columbine, he's most likely another victim of media ignorance. We shouldn't make a big deal when someone is simply wrong. It makes the gaming community look jumpy and insecure.

How do you know one of the Archbishop's duties isn't taking preventative measures against pedophiles or other harmful people? Obviously, the man didn't spend much time researching this topic, so he's apparently busy elsewhere.

Yes we do all speak from ignorance form time to time, but this man has been doing so on a regular basis for over a decade. He has had more than ample time to learn about this topic and his choice not to do so makes his ignorance inexcusable. Unless of he is, as you suggest, too busy driving pedophiles out of the church to do proper research about the subject. This is highly doubtful though, because if that were the case then he wouldn't waste his and our time with inflammatory statements, which serve to do nothing other than perpetuate lies.

Also, when men (or women) with influence are wrong it is important that we refute their statements, so that over time similar statements will become increasingly few and far between, eventually fading from existence. Calling the gaming community "jumpy and insecure" for reacting to these statements seems to be hyperbolic. The community has merely become very proactive to denounce statements like this because of the fact that games have been accused of causing almost every societal problem in the last two decades. Without people willing to stand up for the medium, games could easily slip back to being the easy target that they have been for the past few decades.

 

[Blind Sight]

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?

Not really, and actually, I used Libya as an example to prove how you are completely not responsible for the war there, in order to illustrate my point that just because you're part of an organization does not mean that you're responsible when the top tier of society is corrupt. In the case of Libya, Obama violated numerous acts approved by the elected officials in the country (such as the War Powers Act) by intervening in a foreign conflict without the approval of Congress. That action is the responsibility of one man, not the people who elected him into power. Indirect action with long term consequences does not necessarily infer responsibility. 'Anyone who is of voting age' is not responsible for those deaths for numerous reasons. Perhaps Obama, for example, was the lesser of two evils. Perhaps the voters did stand against the war politics of the two major political brands by voting third party. Perhaps the system itself is broken and cannot be solved by democratic process. These factors do not infer responsibility on the people, but rather that they are stuck in a broken system. One could argue that they should change said system, but grouping individuals together into a collective responsible whole negates the fact that they all have individual, arbitrary minds and opinions on the subject and how the organization should function. Basically, it's just a whitewash of an issue rather then any actual analysis of it.

 

[theultimateend]

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?

Not really, and actually, I used Libya as an example to prove how you are completely not responsible for the war there, in order to illustrate my point that just because you're part of an organization does not mean that you're responsible when the top tier of society is corrupt. In the case of Libya, Obama violated numerous acts approved by the elected officials in the country (such as the War Powers Act) by intervening in a foreign conflict without the approval of Congress. That action is the responsibility of one man, not the people who elected him into power. Indirect action with long term consequences does not necessarily infer responsibility. 'Anyone who is of voting age' is not responsible for those deaths for numerous reasons. Perhaps Obama, for example, was the lesser of two evils. Perhaps the voters did stand against the war politics of the two major political brands by voting third party. Perhaps the system itself is broken and cannot be solved by democratic process. These factors do not infer responsibility on the people, but rather that they are stuck in a broken system. One could argue that they should change said system, but grouping individuals together into a collective responsible whole negates the fact that they all have individual, arbitrary minds and opinions on the subject and how the organization should function. Basically, it's just a whitewash of an issue rather then any actual analysis of it.

The reaction to the incident should have been to impeach him or to punish him. Edit: Or, as you mentioned, investigate the issue seriously and relentlessly till it can at least be avoided in the future.

By not doing so the voters become complicit.

This is not an incident that would put your life in danger by acting out. It would be similar to being superman and just watching as someone is knifed to death and then going to dinner.

My main point is that people should either be willing to accept blame for an action of the group, or they should admit they are not part of that group. There is no shame in not being labeled as part of a group.

You can love Jesus, Heaven, and the Bible, and not support Catholicism. But if you support the pope, you can't just ignore the bad things he has done.

I'm sure I could make the point more clearly, but I'm a bit tired. Basically it isn't ok to say you are part of a pro-life group that bombs abortion clinics, but then say its alright because you don't support bombing abortion clinics.

By being in the group, you empower the group. If a person is not willing to speak out against the actions of the group, change it, or leave it, these groups never change.

Which, interestingly, is what we see with US politics. It has stagnated, because people are so gungho about calling themselves Democratic or Republican when almost nobody is actually either of those things.

Edit: But yeah, I'm not saying "Just accept the shit and move on." Being analytically is VERY important, examining the problem is VERY important, but sticking with the group and just acting like the problem isn't partially your fault is silly.

Because you aren't the only person with that mentality, you are one of a large portion of that group. Sort of like when people say "It's just 1 vote" when they don't vote. They aren't the only person saying that .

 

[starwarsgeek]

Also, when men (or women) with influence are wrong it is important that we refute their statements, so that over time similar statements will become increasingly few and far between, eventually fading from existence. Calling the gaming community "jumpy and insecure" for reacting to these statements seems to be hyperbolic. The community has merely become very proactive to denounce statements like this because of the fact that games have been accused of causing almost every societal problem in the last two decades. Without people willing to stand up for the medium, games could easily slip back to being the easy target that they have been for the past few decades.

It's just as important to refute them calmly, respectfully, and logically. Otherwise, our comments can be brushed off just as easily and it adds weight to the opposition to any outside readers. I know there aren't many (any?) non-gamers who read the escapist, but that does not excuse bad journalism or immature comments. "Hey look, pedophiles!" doesn't exactly give a good impression, does it? This goes back to my statement about ignorance being excusable. We shouldn't cry out in anger when someone is incorrect about an issue; we should simply explain why he or she is wrong.

 

[Still Life]

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.

I completely agree with this principle. I'm Catholic by denomination and I haven't renounced the faith (exploring my Australian Indigenous identity/spirituality), but that won't stop me from calling out those who abuse their position and power. I refuse to identify with such people who fail as leaders.

I don't have a problem with diversity of opinion. I do have a problem with political animals with ill-informed, divisive and disgustingly generalised opinions, given prominence because of a position of power over people.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Seeing as how Chaput was a pretty adamant foe of games back then, it's not surprising that he still hates them. That said, 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, though this wasn't something that the Archbishop addressed in his article.

Perhaps that was a little catty.

Given Caput has criticised positive reviews for films, denounced voting for John Kerry as sinful, condemned voters of Barack Obama and stating that Catholics should deliberately involve themselves in politics [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_J._Chaput] - whether they know anything about the politics or not; it would be perhaps fairer to denote where this man's loyalties lie.

Even better,

"even in classic Catholic thought, the church must respect the institutions of the state"

The State have deemed you wrong, Archbishop. Respect that.

 

[theultimateend]

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.

I completely agree with this principal. I'm Catholic by denomination and I haven't renounced the faith (exploring my Australian Indigenous identity/spirituality), but that won't stop me from calling out those who abuse their position and power. I refuse to identify with such people who fail as leaders.

I don't have a problem with diversity of opinion. I do have a problem with political animals with ill-informed, divisive and disgustingly generalised opinions, given prominence because of a position of power over people.

I'm going to admit I actually don't know what denomination means off the top of my head (I never said I was smart hah), so I'll google that.

But this is basically all I'm asking of folks.

The defensiveness to calling out the group is bullshit. It's one of those problems that won't go away until people admit it is one.

I >lovelove< people having ideas, dreams, hopes, good feelins, and all other positive things.

Most of the time, being part of a group limits these things in order to empower only a few of them. That's not really diversity.

I'd much rather see a bunch of folks who all like Jesus (or whoever) talking about their own interpretation of how they feel about it all, than them saying "I'm a such and such."

The problem is atm, people do the first AND the second part.

I'll stop while I'm ahead though, in my mind that is, I'm starting to slip off the thinking block as the night wears on.

Edit: Googled Denomination, that's pretty solid.

"A religious denomination is a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity."

I'm not a fundamentalist against groups, but that's closer. Sounds smaller and more accurate when describing and properly representing the people within it.

But if this kind of thing was the norm, there would be no central power to hide criminals, and at least that problem would be resolved. Frankly I bet if you removed the central power there would be no strong arm to stop them from marrying, or being normal human beings, and likely would reduce pedophilia down to levels similar to the rest of the world/country.

I imagine most of the problem is tied into cognitive dissonance. Trying to act inhuman as part of your faith. BUT I'm not privy to all the rules of Catholicism so I won't go around acting like I'm a scholar on the topic. Would be prickish.

 

[Still Life]

Seeing as how Chaput was a pretty adamant foe of games back then, it's not surprising that he still hates them. That said, 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, though this wasn't something that the Archbishop addressed in his article.

That was low man, I mean, even for the escapist that was low

You give a low blow (Linking games to the Columbine shooting); you get a low blow! Seems logical to me

That would be living up to low standards. We, as an informed, intelligent and balanced community can do better than that political animal by maintaining a high standard.

 

[Hungry Donner]

I'm not a Catholic nor am I a particular fan of Catholicism, but I do think it's a tad unfair to bring up the recent sexual abuse scandals as a strike against what he's saying about gaming. I'd certainly agree that the Catholic Church has plenty marring its image at the moment but that doesn't mean his comments are wrong.

Rather, his comments are wrong because standing up to censorship isn't going to erode families or make kids mentally ill. As with the other media scape goats (violent movies, D&D, comic books, pulp magazines, etc.) violent media may catalyze a problem but it doesn't create it to begin with. A family that allows young children to play extremely violent video games isn't going to suddenly go all Leave it to Beaver just because M rated games now require an id to buy.

 

[evilneko]

/ThreadHop
What an idiot. He clearly doesn't even understand the ruling.

 

[theultimateend]

I'm not a Catholic nor am I a particular fan of Catholicism, but I do think it's a tad unfair to bring up the recent sexual abuse scandals as a strike against what he's saying about gaming. I'd certainly agree that the Catholic Church has plenty marring its image at the moment but that doesn't mean his comments are wrong.

Rather, his comments are wrong because standing up to censorship isn't going to erode families or make kids mentally ill. As with the other media scape goats (violent movies, D&D, comic books, pulp magazines, etc.) violent media may catalyze a problem but it doesn't create it to begin with. A family that allows young children to play extremely violent video games isn't going to suddenly go all Leave it to Beaver just because M rated games now require an id to buy.

It doesn't mean his comments are wrong, however considering he is supporting the organization you mentioned, which brings his credibility into question.

Lets say I have a guy who wants to give you some financial advice.

Then I tell you this guy is a member of the "rob you and beat your wife" club.

Even if you don't have a wife, would you trust this guy to give you financial advice?

The man is talking about negative impacts on children. While being a member of an organization that has institutionalized protecting people who negatively impact children.

How exactly is that not relevant?

Especially when one has been proven to negatively impact kids and the other hasn't.

That would be living up to low standards. We, as an informed, intelligent and balanced community can do better than that political animal by maintaining a high standard.

I think the delivery might have been poor, but the point was sound (in the original post). For reasons stated above.

Now for the love of god...the Escapist needs one of those pop up messages like MMO's in Asia. Where it warns you that you've been on too long. I'm signing out.

Good luck all! Just note that SCOTUS is a funny word!

 

[NinjaTigerXIII]

I am so sick of people bitching about the SCOTUS ruling taking rights away from parents, here's a little tip to those parents, you don't want your kids to play violent video games? THEN DON'T LET THEM! Your the parent, what you say goes, tell your brat of a child that they can't play Call of Duty and that's that.

 

[Shahbaz Bokhari]

I live in Ireland and if anyone's been keeping up with international news will be more than aware of the evil and cankerous rot that the catholic church as spread and maintained in this country for an untold number of years. The nation is in an uproar at the moment with the 14,500+ cases emerging against the church which include not only your garden variety sexual assault and rape but torture and murder, with unmarked graves being unearthed in areas like Hyde Park.
Earlier a priest posted in this thread and with no reservation he sounds like a logical and well meaning individual, but I would put to him to use the working mind he has to discover for himself the reasons behind the church's celibacy clause or indeed the church's very inception. After careful research, it's easy to conclude that the Catholic Church has no real place in Christianity. That's all I'm going to say on the church.

And now I want the reader of this post to forget what I wrote altogether. Why?? Because it has NOTHING to do with what the point of this thread was supposed to be. Mike Thompson: You really let yourself down shoe horning that into your report. I know it was meant to be a play on the ''People who live in glass houses'' proverb, but ultimately, as far as the POINT of the argument goes, it was not valid. It had nothing to do with the issue and using the ''But they are responsible for A, B and C''stance is poor debating and pretty much childish.

 

[Blind Sight]

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?

Not really, and actually, I used Libya as an example to prove how you are completely not responsible for the war there, in order to illustrate my point that just because you're part of an organization does not mean that you're responsible when the top tier of society is corrupt. In the case of Libya, Obama violated numerous acts approved by the elected officials in the country (such as the War Powers Act) by intervening in a foreign conflict without the approval of Congress. That action is the responsibility of one man, not the people who elected him into power. Indirect action with long term consequences does not necessarily infer responsibility. 'Anyone who is of voting age' is not responsible for those deaths for numerous reasons. Perhaps Obama, for example, was the lesser of two evils. Perhaps the voters did stand against the war politics of the two major political brands by voting third party. Perhaps the system itself is broken and cannot be solved by democratic process. These factors do not infer responsibility on the people, but rather that they are stuck in a broken system. One could argue that they should change said system, but grouping individuals together into a collective responsible whole negates the fact that they all have individual, arbitrary minds and opinions on the subject and how the organization should function. Basically, it's just a whitewash of an issue rather then any actual analysis of it.

The reaction to the incident should have been to impeach him or to punish him.

By not doing so the voters become complicit.

This is not an incident that would put your life in danger by acting out. It would be similar to being superman and just watching as someone is knifed to death and then going to dinner.

My main point is that people should either be willing to accept blame for an action of the group, or they should admit they are not part of that group. There is no shame in not being labeled as part of a group.

You can love Jesus, Heaven, and the Bible, and not support Catholicism. But if you support the pope, you can't just ignore the bad things he has done.

I'm sure I could make the point more clearly, but I'm a bit tired. Basically it isn't ok to say you are part of a pro-life group that bombs abortion clinics, but then say its alright because you don't support bombing abortion clinics.

By being in the group, you empower the group. If a person is not willing to speak out against the actions of the group, change it, or leave it, these groups never change.

Which, interestingly, is what we see with US politics. It has stagnated, because people are so gungho about calling themselves Democratic or Republican when almost nobody is actually either of those things.

Your superman argument fails because it is the actions of two individuals, one aggressor and one independent body, not a collective group based around differing opinions and viewpoints. For your pro-life example, yes, it is not the responsibility of the person within the group if they are actively and vocally against it, so much so that they are trying to change the group for the better. But in such a group there is a lack of coercive force allowing them to be so vocal, which I will explain later on. In the case of impeachment or punishment for the President, there ARE plenty of people calling for such action, particularly in the libertarian and far left aspects of American politics. But singular voices do not shift the balance of a political system. It is not the responsibility of individuals who disapprove of these actions when the majority supports them. Nor is it directly the responsibility (only indirectly) of the majority when the actions are carried out by the choices of a single individual. If one is directly involved in the process, then yes, it is their responsibility as well, but simply electing an official does not make you responsible for the actions of said individual at a later time.

There is also the issue of natural self-interest. Take the case of Bradley Manning, a soldier who openly rejected the system and as a result has been thrown in a cage. With the threat of coercive violence morality is negated, and thus the organization is responsible for continuing such policies, not individuals who are threatened if they take a stand. In the case of the Catholic Church, the majority of priests have no say in the actions of the organization they are part of. Although I do believe it to be illogical, there is also the factor of the church's obvious religious elements. An individual who wholeheartedly believes that their soul and chance at eternal life could be threatened should they changed the infallibility of the Pope (which emerged in the 19th century) partially loses the ability to be moral because of, once again, coercive violence (threats of hell). The responsibility largely lies with the men on top and the systems of coercive violence that they use to their own ends, not individuals within the group. Ending such a system cannot occur through individual voices, democratic process, or rejection of the system.

To be Catholic does not infer responsibility for the actions of priests or the organization that covers them up. To be American does not infer responsibility for the actions of corrupt government officials. It merely infers that you share certain beliefs with others and are a part of a group that agrees with you, nothing more. Placing responsibility on everyone within a group is just the basic 'good and evil' whitewashing that ignores the complexity of issues for the sake of being able to blame someone.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

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.

It was necessary and completely in reference to actual "harm" done to minors. The priest wants to talk about harm done to minors, his own backyard is a good place to start and stay for a while.

 

[dyre]

Um, I understand that Escapist has its biases, but taking a shot like that at Catholics is, besides being an Ad Hom, just ungentlemanly.

Is there a website where I can get gaming news without a one-sided slant? I just want gaming news without the "journalist" throwing in their 10 cents.

Because this isn't that kind of site.

Ars Technica has better news than this place, though it's about technology in general, with just a section for games.

 

[dyre]

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.

It was necessary and completely in reference to actual "harm" done to minors. The priest wants to talk about harm done to minors, his own backyard is a good place to start and stay for a while.

Why? The fact that some of his colleagues suck doesn't have any bearing on the legitimacy of his arguments (though, his arguments are pretty crappy anyway).

That's like saying the US shouldn't denounce genocide because they've slaughtered Indians in the past.