Archbishop Claims SCOTUS Decision Is "Poisoning" The Future

[Ranchcroutons]

Wheres the button where i can "report" the author for making offensive statements against Catholics?

Thats seriously just getting offensive

 

[NotSoLoneWanderer]

I wonder what would happen if they found a copy of pokemon in Michael Vick's house?

 

[Futurenerd]

He's almost right, but still wrong.

Parents who don't control what their kids come in contact with are poisoning the future. Games are just the medium used.

Thank you. Why can't people REALIZE this? It seems like such a common sense thing!

 

[Worgen]

I seem to recall something about a cathlic kid who also went on a school shooting thing not long after columbine and apparently he had never touched a videogame, unfortunately Im took lazy to look it up

 

[Jumplion]

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.

 

[starwarsgeek]

Wheres the button where i can "report" the author for making offensive statements against Catholics?

Thats seriously just getting offensive

Bottom-left corner of the post. It's only on the actual comment, not the article.

Unrelated Edit: Hey, I'm over 1000 posts now. Neat

 

[Caligulove]

He's an archbishop. Basically what his job is- to fight against change by saying its poisoning or could poison society

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

This guy has a point. We can't even allow dangerous material like video games near our children. They might truly be "poisoned" by the violence and sexual material inside.

The only thing is, he's got the wrong target. I've heard about a book that can be found all over the place. It's ridiculous. And you know what's in it? Rape, murder, human sacrifice, genocide, slavery, incest, supernatural horror, executions, violence, war, famine, plagues, and more. Seriously this book is ridiculous! Now if only I could remember what it was called...

 

[Still Life]

There's plenty of sex and violence in the teaching of the bible. There's also lots of other morally questionable teachings because the Good Book was written in an era long past. Coupled with the damage the church has done over the course of history to other cultures and people of the very same faith up to this day, it is hypocritical to claim video games as one of the key factors propagating violence. It's farcical, as criminology data paints a very different story. But no: "think of the children". What a hollow trump card that has become.

This guy is a stain on his faith; he's quite clearly a neo-conservative moron who doesn't go out of his way to properly inform his opinions because he's too busy fighting a pathetic culture war. It's insulting, quite frankly.

I have nothing against the Church and its faith. I have met, and know beyond decent individuals who define their lives by it, however this kind of politicking by so called 'leaders' is petty, ill-informed and reeks of ultra right-wing politics.

 

[Waaghpowa]

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

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Really? That's funny. Maybe he's right, that videogames will "poison the future" to some degree. However, it seems that seeing as he is part of an institution that has poisoned the whole world with lies and violence to a much greater degree than games will ever be able to do since its inception that perhaps he could be more understanding.

 

[DearFilm]

As a Catholic, I am used to ignorant people saying cruel and ignorant things, but I read this site almost every day and that last paragraph is the kind of lazy low blow that not only encourages me to stop visiting this site, but aligns itself pretty well with the same attitude of broad generalization and mindless insult-mongering that this piece claims to stand against. No institution or item or school of thought is without its deranged and ill-mannered fringes, and to fixate upon them only drives further wedges between parties already separated by ideology.

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.

 

[RaikuFA]

he just dosent want the kids to defend themselves against him

 

[PJ Fournier]

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

 

[synobal]

Nothing to see here just another organization who wants to restrict your freedoms.

 

[Gaderael]

The readers already knowing relevant details does not excuse lazy journalism. I would have taken an extra sentence or two to shoot down the Archbishop's argument.

[sub]I have know idea if you'll actually see this. Didn't feel like making another post so soon, and I can't "reply" in an edit.[/sub]

-snip-

It is not necessary to exercise good journalism simply because it is a "niche" site? Considering other news sites of the same niche that The Escapist fills provide news with much less personal input, that is not acceptable. IGN, despite their own flaws, handle actual news and editorials quite nicely.

And don't get me started on the whole studies and whatnot. I get that The Escapist is primarily a gaming site, but this does not excuse horribly biased, unprofessional [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.286870-Psychology-Study-Blames-Games-for-Aggressive-Behavior] articles on any study. I am all for scrutinizing studies, science needs skeptics, but we never give the same treatment to nicer sounding studies that promote our own precious hobby as if somehow games have absolutely no effect on anybody, no matter how small.

Okay, looking back on it, perhaps you folks do have a point and he should have, at the least, posted links refuting the Archbishop's statements instead of just assuming that we all knew about the other news article that have been posted on The Escapist.

No, it is a valid point. You cannot spout off about video games hurting youth with no justification or proof as a moral crusader while there are so many cases on record of what his church has done to directly harm children.

Evidently, you can. He's not talking about child molestors or crusades or some other BS. This is about video games and the whole SCOTUS ruling. Keep it that way. Molestors in the church and the SCOTUS ruling are two completely different topics. You can rally on saying "they do way more damage!" but that is a strawman and completely missing, and distracting from, his main argument.

If the article did not have that comment, it would have been better for it, come off as less biased (than it already is), and everyone would continue on their merry way.

This is from the Archbishop's article:

But common sense tells us that the violence of our music, our video games, our films, and our television has to go somewhere, and it goes straight into the hearts of our children to bear fruit in ways we can't imagine ? until something like [Columbine] happens.

That's him quoting himself for the new article from a piece he wrote shortly after the events in Columbine. He is directly attacking video games, along with other forms of media as having a direct negative impact on children.

Video games can simulate, and potentially stimulate, violence in a far more intensely immersive way than traditional media. In the words of former army officer and author of On Killing, David Grossman, the worst of these games are "murder simulators." Grossman is not alone in his views.

Once again he directly attacks video games as harming children, going so far as to use someone else's quote calling some games "murder simulators".

My point here is not that video games are bad. My point is that when we too readily stretch an individual's right to free speech to include a corporation's right to sell violence to minors, we collude in poisoning our own future-and tragedies like Columbine are the indirect but brutally real proof of what I mean.

He says that not all games are bad, but them turns around and attacks the industry itself saying the ruling is allowing them to peddle mature games to children, ignoring the ESRB and the fact that major retail outlets have strict policies in place banning the sale of mature games to minors. Then he once again tries to link violent games to the tragedy that occured in Columbine.

So, he openly attacked video games and the industry in his article, which leaves him completely open to having the church's unsavoury past and present brought up in regards to the impact that they have had in regards to harming children.

 

[kasperbbs]

Sorry but i'll never take anything that 'church' people will spit out seriously, so i wont even bother reading this article. Ok.. I did read it and it was a waste of time, nothing out of the ordinary.

 

[starwarsgeek]

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.

 

[Tiger Sora]

Ahhahahaha....... HAHAHAHAHA, Ohh god damn my ribs, ohh they hurt. Oh man this was a good laugh, the church.... I'm gona stop here before I get into trouble.

 

[Frostbite3789]

He's totally right you know. I often find gaming developers breaking into my house and forcing me to play super violent games. I don't have any choice in the matter at all!

/sarcasm