Archbishop Claims SCOTUS Decision Is "Poisoning" The Future

[Rad Party God]

I am catholic and the only thing that comes to mind while reading this article was:

This guy is an asshole. Just as many others that dared to rear their ugly faces when "those murder simulators" are suddendly out of the niche category and actually labeled as a medium, as art. I think that the court's decision just stirred up their caves that they were living for the last 20 years or so.

 

[Still Life]

Singular voices emerged as a representation of a majority opinion, the majority opinion did not emerge as a result of a singular individual.

Those singular voices gave voice to those who couldn't, therefore enacting change. Social and cultural movements snowball. There is no immediate meeting of the minds with a majority. For example, Black people in America have never been a majority; 15% of a population is not a majority. It was because of key activists on both sides that were able to enact social change with the Civil Rights Movement.

Also, please tell me you've actually read Burke before you started using his quotes. Because this was a guy who defended oppressive, lower class child labour on the grounds that it was traditional.

Freud and Marx said and did some weird shit, yet obviously some of their teachings had merit. Burke's quote is not without merit.

 

[triggrhappy94]

Wait wait wait...
So, if a majority of the public no longer agrees with a first amendment right, would the Bill of Rights then be change or is that just too bad for the people. Like freedom of speech was the number one thing people asked for way back when the Constitution was being written, and its ment to protect people from tyrany, but now 200 or so years ago (I have no idea how long its been) people no longer want it, then what happens?

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

I am sorry that the truth is painful. Hopefully you feel better soon.

Is it hard to see with your head lodged so firmly up your ass?

They harbored, relocated, and abetted child molesters. Are you saying they didn't? Because these things called facts say they did.

This supposedly started in the 70's but they waited until 2011 to officially do anything about it.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/roman_catholic_church_sex_abuse_cases/index.html

They declined to defrock those attacking children.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html

And if this is to be believed, they made it a priority to cover it up first.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/17/religion.childprotection

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/scandal/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35851754/ns/world_news-europe/t/abuse-claims-sweep-catholic-church-europe/

Soooo, care to point out where I said anything false? Or is ad hominem all you got?

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

That has got to be the fakest, most insincere smile I have ever seen.

A real smile the eyes lift along with the lips, his eyes not only are they staying flat, but look really creepy.

OT: This is the least bit of surprising news ever. However, the important thing is that we have made SOME people in power who had backed this law and others like drop out, and that kind of thing grows in a snow ball effect.

We are the winners here, and we just made our battle a down hill one.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

His organization is known for harboring, relocating, and abetting child molesters

I can't think of an appropriate way of responding to this without being banned for abusive language. I guess I'll let this one go.

I am sorry that the truth is painful. Hopefully you feel better soon.

I think this sums it up quite nicely...

 

[Still Life]

Wait wait wait...
So, if a majority of the public no longer agrees with a first amendment right, would the Bill of Rights then be change or is that just too bad for the people. Like freedom of speech was the number one thing people asked for way back when the Constitution was being written, and its ment to protect people from tyrany, but now 200 or so years ago (I have no idea how long its been) people no longer want it, then what happens?

If a few can convince a suitably large number of people of the merits of their push to remove, say, FOS then quite possibly. They would have to get past what provisions/rules which protect the constitution from spontaneous and ill-measured changes. It's unlikely in the aforementioned case because such a right makes total sense, has value and has been culturally embraced.

 

[gyroscopeboy]

They should make a law against bad parenting, thats just, or even MORE so, as indirectly to blame as video games.

 

[chinomareno]

Please keep ripping on Catholics Escapist, tell it how it is I don't care if it's not cold journalism.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

They harbored, relocated, and abetted child molesters.

This should be replaced with

Some members of the Catholic church harbored, relocated, and abetted child molesters.

"They" is a very loaded word, and it seems a lot like you're saying Catholicism is pro-pedophilia. We don't know that this specific priest knows or covered for any pedophiles. You can't just say "he's a Catholic, and Catholics did that so he's a hypocrite". That's ridiculous.

I was hoping maybe if I just gave you time to think you'd realize your mistake and stop insinuating that Catholicism is a religion of pedophiles, but I guess not. I thought you were an idiot, but I guess you're just a bigot :/

I didn't say they were a religion of pedophiles. I said they abetted, relocated, and harbored them. I posted evidence that showed that, as an organization, they did just that. He is a representative of that organization, talking about harming children. He isn't representing an organization that can make that statement without hypocrisy.

I never said, him, personally. Because of what he is, stating what he is stating is, simply put, hypocrisy. Full stop. So are you able to stop with the name calling and have an actual discussion? Or is this your best?

 

[vansau]

Please keep ripping on Catholics Escapist, tell it how it is I don't care if it's not cold journalism.

There was no "ripping on Catholics" intended. See my earlier post [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.298736-Archbishop-Claims-SCOTUS-Decision-Is-Poisoning-The-Future?page=4#11858055], please.

 

[Liudeius]

And I cite priests raping small children as evidence of religion's negative effects on the world.
Yay senseless accusations and TL;DR's!

 

[captain underpants]

You'd think that if it was such a massive problem, he'd have a few more recent examples, rather than a single one that happened 12 YEARS ago.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

You'd think that if it was such a massive problem, he'd have a few more recent examples, rather than a single one that happened 12 YEARS ago.

And would actually cite evidence, not correlation that leaves out the fact that the boys were imbalanced beforehand. But let's not split hairs, ya know. XD

 

[airrazor7]

Why is it that people keep ignoring the fact that the ruling does not delimit the "rights" of parents? Idiots are always the ones who can speak the loudest.

Actually I have a better question? When did parents forget how to be parents and when did everyone else forget that it's the responsibility of the parents to raise their own children? Maybe I've just been living under a rock my entire life and this is truly how the people of the world have always been.

Heck the guy in this article is a clergyman; aren't there religious rules about families in the books he studies and speaks from? Maybe instead of wasting his breath he needs to turn to the parents and tell them what the good books say about parenting. Every religious book I know of has rules and regulations about families. They need to start teaching those kind of topics.

 

[crystalsnow]

People really are getting their panties in a bunch over the Catholic sex abuse jab at the end there. It was a joke and was intended to be read as such.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

Why is it that people keep ignoring the fact that the ruling does not delimit the "rights" of parents? Idiots are always the ones who can speak the loudest.

Actually I have a better question? When did parents forget how to be parents and when did everyone else forget that it's the responsibility of the parents to raise their own children? Maybe I've just been living under a rock my entire life and this is truly how the people of the world have always been.

Heck the guy in this article is a clergyman; aren't there religious rules about families in the books he studies and speaks from? Maybe instead of wasting his breath he needs to turn to the parents and tell them what the good books say about parenting. Every religious book I know of has rules and regulations about families. They need to start teaching those kind of topics.

That sounds an awfully lot like work, comrade. Whining is always easier. I'm just waiting for the buzz to die down so I don't have to read about the next idiot whining... Again... And... Again... *sigh*

 

[sir.rutthed]

OK, folks, let's address the elephant in the room: I was not claiming that all priests are sex offenders, nor was I claiming that there's anything wrong with being Catholic. That parting comment was meant to showcase that it was ridiculous how this man had such a problem with videogames "harming" kids (when there's been no definitive proof of the lasting effects that some experts claim) while he's a part of an organization that has had a number of very public scandals about how SOME (again, note, not all) of its members have mis-used their power and authority to victimize children.

I think Chaput is overlooking some major issues, such as how many studies that attack violent games are flawed and one-sided, not to mention the fact that the industry prides itself on preventing kids from getting their hands on M-rated games.

Now, do you want a specific argument about members of the church doing more harm than videogames? How about this? [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7930380.stm]

Do I think this is commonplace? No. But is Chaput a part of the organization that did this? Yes.

My goal was to make a counter-point, and if I did offend you, I apologize.

Here's the thing. I don't mind when you news contributors put in a little spin on these bits. I like it when you actively foster debate with what you say. I like that we get to see a little personality from you guys once in a while. But when you start making blanket statements like that about groups that a good portion of your viewership are very likely to be a part of, that's just stupid and offensive to your readers. The link you provided added absolutely nothing to your argument and only served to take away any legitimacy your argument may have had. If you wanted to say "I think Chaput is overlooking some major issues, such as how many studies that attack violent games are flawed and one-sided, not to mention the fact that the industry prides itself on preventing kids from getting their hands on M-rated games.", why wouldn't you just say that in the first place rather than pretty much accusing the guy of pedophilia by association? It was a cheapshot and completely uncalled for and it's exactly the same as him saying all gamers are murderers because of the Columbine kids.

OT: Not surprising. This kind of reaction will be pretty common for a few weeks, then people will accept it and move on.

 

[airrazor7]

-snip-

Yeah, you know it's going to keep happening until another popular medium comes into existence. People attacked music during its budding generations and people attacked movies during its budding generations, like when the current governor of CA was a popular actor, for example.

People still attack those mediums along with games and probably the only thing that has avoided ignorant wrath are books...wait, no, religious groups and parents tried to ban the Harry Potter series (said the books were teaching children spells and devil worship) and I'm pretty sure other books have been verbally assaulted as well.

No medium of fiction and entertainment is safe. Why don't just start going after entertainers who used to be held up on pedestals until they start trashing their lives and careers? At least some good progress would be made since the targeted entertainers would have to consider changing their ways due to fear of their careers ending from public disapproval.