|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jun 24, 2019 21:14:13 GMT -5
He broke an employment contract. He did. But is that employment contract moral? It was written by Catholics, so one cannot be sure. Which was my point.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jun 24, 2019 21:16:07 GMT -5
Look, the Catholic Church is RUN by gay men. It manifestly has no issues with homosexuality. He wasn’t fired for being gay. He was fired for breach of contract. It's run by pedophiles, actually. Not the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Jun 24, 2019 21:16:31 GMT -5
He broke an employment contract. He did. But is that employment contract moral? It was written by Catholics, so one cannot be sure. Which was my point. Isn't it people like you who claim morality is relative?
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Jun 24, 2019 21:18:08 GMT -5
Look, the Catholic Church is RUN by gay men. It manifestly has no issues with homosexuality. He wasn’t fired for being gay. He was fired for breach of contract. It's run by pedophiles, actually. Not the same thing. If they are abusing young males they are homosexual by definition. They definitely aren't straight.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jun 24, 2019 21:20:10 GMT -5
Isn't it people like you who claim morality is relative? When have I claimed that?
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Jun 24, 2019 21:20:57 GMT -5
Isn't it people like you who claim morality is relative? When have I claimed that? I didn't say you did, did I?
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jun 24, 2019 21:22:15 GMT -5
If they are abusing young males they are homosexual by definition. They definitely aren't straight. Studies have been made that contradict you. While there is doubtless some overlap, it appears that pedophiles, even same sex pedophiles, aren't guaranteed to be gay. The Church's archaic rules regarding sex are mostly to blame. They are either fostering aberrant behavior or providing a place where people who already engaged in such behavior can conceal themselves - for awhile.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jun 24, 2019 21:23:15 GMT -5
When have I claimed that? I didn't say you did, did I? You have a bizarre debating style. You level an accusation, then when called on it, backpedal furiously.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Jun 24, 2019 21:32:58 GMT -5
If they are abusing young males they are homosexual by definition. They definitely aren't straight. Studies have been made that contradict you. While there is doubtless some overlap, it appears that pedophiles, even same sex pedophiles, aren't guaranteed to be gay. The Church's archaic rules regarding sex are mostly to blame. They are either fostering aberrant behavior or providing a place where people who already engaged in such behavior can conceal themselves - for awhile. So do these studies say male pedophiles who only abuse young boys are straight? Most of the priests have abused young adolescent males that are post pubescent, they are not referred to as pedophiles but are hebephiles or ephebophiles depending on how much beyond puberty the victims are. They are gay.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Jun 24, 2019 21:35:24 GMT -5
I didn't say you did, did I? You have a bizarre debating style. You level an accusation, then when called on it, backpedal furiously. You have a problem understanding simple English. I said people like you not you in particular and it was phrased as a question. So no accusation was leveled and I didn't back peddle because I didn't have to.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 25, 2019 3:35:14 GMT -5
Look, the Catholic Church is RUN by gay men. It manifestly has no issues with homosexuality. He wasn’t fired for being gay. He was fired for breach of contract. It's run by pedophiles, actually. Not the same thing. No. The gay cardinals and bishops of the Lavender Mafia covered for and enabled the pedophile priests. But the leadership is mostly just gay.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Jun 25, 2019 6:02:34 GMT -5
It's run by pedophiles, actually. Not the same thing. No. The gay cardinals and bishops of the Lavender Mafia covered for and enabled the pedophile priests. But the leadership is mostly just gay. I got in the same argument on the old board with some of these leftists who tried to claim that men who abused young boys were heterosexual or straight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2019 6:11:43 GMT -5
The RCC fosters little doubt about its stand on gay marriage. This should come as no surprise to the teacher. So what is your point with that statement? The point is that the teacher being fired was not supportive of Catholic teaching, as he was required to be under the terms of his contract. As a result, he was terminated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2019 6:13:15 GMT -5
When I look for moral guidance, I never consider the Catholics. They ceded their right to claim any sort of moral authority when they became an organization that routinely abused women and children, and that routinely covered that up. If they keep their noses clean - and I mean spotless - until around 2050 or so, they can ask again. That would be a period of contrition roughly as long as their known period of abuse. Until then, they ought to keep a really low profile. I'm sure this will weigh heavy on the Catholic Church.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2019 6:15:22 GMT -5
He broke an employment contract. He did. But is that employment contract moral? It was written by Catholics, so one cannot be sure. Which was my point. A contract is not a moral document; it is a legal document. Since this is a private school, it is likely a legal contract, though we will not know for sure unless the teacher challenges the termination action.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Jun 25, 2019 6:20:36 GMT -5
When I look for moral guidance, I never consider the Catholics. They ceded their right to claim any sort of moral authority when they became an organization that routinely abused women and children, and that routinely covered that up. If they keep their noses clean - and I mean spotless - until around 2050 or so, they can ask again. That would be a period of contrition roughly as long as their known period of abuse. Until then, they ought to keep a really low profile. I'm sure this will weigh heavy on the Catholic Church. Record low church attendance in the US and all over the world, which means less money. At some point things they’ve done or not done, and the mistakes they’ve made, should weigh heavy on their goofy hatted heads.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2019 6:32:20 GMT -5
I'm sure this will weigh heavy on the Catholic Church. Record low church attendance in the US and all over the world, which means less money. At some point things they’ve done or not done, and the mistakes they’ve made, should weigh heavy on their goofy hatted heads. To a degree, you are correct, of course. But the Catholic Church has, regrettably, become used to people who have used these events as excuses to walk away from their faith. The Catholic Church does literally, a world of good, but it is comprised of people put together with all the flaws and with all the weaknesses of everyone else. When those flaws are exposed, it is particularly egregious. Donations have fallen off world wide but it isn't the church that suffers; it is those the church helps. And there is no other organization providing the global services of the RCC.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Jun 25, 2019 6:34:31 GMT -5
Record low church attendance in the US and all over the world, which means less money. At some point things they’ve done or not done, and the mistakes they’ve made, should weigh heavy on their goofy hatted heads. To a degree, you are correct, of course. But the Catholic Church has, regrettably, become used to people who have used these events as excuses to walk away from their faith. The Catholic Church does literally, a world of good, but it is comprised of people put together with all the flaws and with all the weaknesses of everyone else. When those flaws are exposed, it is particularly egregious. Donations have fallen off world wide but it isn't the church that suffers; it is those the church helps. And there is no other organization providing the global services of the RCC. They’re a company. Any company would likely collapse under the scandals the Catholic Church has had over the years. It would no longer exist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2019 6:37:07 GMT -5
To a degree, you are correct, of course. But the Catholic Church has, regrettably, become used to people who have used these events as excuses to walk away from their faith. The Catholic Church does literally, a world of good, but it is comprised of people put together with all the flaws and with all the weaknesses of everyone else. When those flaws are exposed, it is particularly egregious. Donations have fallen off world wide but it isn't the church that suffers; it is those the church helps. And there is no other organization providing the global services of the RCC. They’re a company. Any company would likely collapse under the scandals the Catholic Church has had over the years. It would no longer exist. While your description of them as a company is a gross exaggeration, your second statement simply describes a company with a loyal customer base.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 25, 2019 7:25:37 GMT -5
No. The gay cardinals and bishops of the Lavender Mafia covered for and enabled the pedophile priests. But the leadership is mostly just gay. I got in the same argument on the old board with some of these leftists who tried to claim that men who abused young boys were heterosexual or straight. There are 2 pieces to this: The pedophile problem, which was covered up by management is by far the more disturbing of the two. The other piece is that seminaries have become gay playhouses for church leadership. The participants are mostly more or less adults (I don't imagine there are a lot of seminarians under the age of 17 or 18), and generally willing, so there's not a crime so to speak. But there can't be any doubt that the Catholic Church has a VERY large, and VERY promiscuous gay contingent in its leadership.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Jun 25, 2019 7:49:09 GMT -5
They’re a company. Any company would likely collapse under the scandals the Catholic Church has had over the years. It would no longer exist. While your description of them as a company is a gross exaggeration, your second statement simply describes a company with a loyal customer base. How can a company have a loyal customer base while every graph and chart shows them losing customers and income while dealing with never-ending scandals? Sounds like a Yogi Berra-ism to me. Stock prices would drop, people would be thrown in jail...it would make Enron look like picnic.
|
|
|
Post by guido2 on Jun 25, 2019 8:49:50 GMT -5
So what is your point with that statement? The point is that the teacher being fired was not supportive of Catholic teaching, as he was required to be under the terms of his contract. As a result, he was terminated. thx
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Jun 25, 2019 8:54:45 GMT -5
Sexual repression, shame and guilt -- all major tenets of Catholicism -- foster sexual deviancy.
Catholicism created pedophiles and then covered for them when they became priests.
It's no different than abusive parents creating someone who will abuse his future wife, or worse.
|
|
|
Post by guido2 on Jun 25, 2019 9:12:59 GMT -5
He did. But is that employment contract moral? It was written by Catholics, so one cannot be sure. Which was my point. A contract is not a moral document; it is a legal document. Since this is a private school, it is likely a legal contract, though we will not know for sure unless the teacher challenges the termination action. Well here is the question then; Was that document a legal document in the first place, in view of civil rights laws as they stand? Either Federal, state or both? Seems that much like there are OSHA laws that dictate what a private company can and can not due in regard to running its business. I would think that similar controls are in place for schools....even private ones.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jun 25, 2019 11:53:39 GMT -5
You have a problem understanding simple English. I said people like you not you in particular and it was phrased as a question. So no accusation was leveled and I didn't back peddle because I didn't have to. When one writes "people like you" and directs that at a person, what are they to conclude except that they are included? Perhaps the problem isn't how I read, but how you write.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jun 25, 2019 11:55:38 GMT -5
I'm sure this will weigh heavy on the Catholic Church. As an organization they have expressed disinterest in their flock and outright dislike for those not in their flock, so I'm sure your sarcastic quip is actually true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2019 11:58:05 GMT -5
Sexual repression, shame and guilt -- all major tenets of Catholicism -- foster sexual deviancy. Catholicism created pedophiles and then covered for them when they became priests. It's no different than abusive parents creating someone who will abuse his future wife, or worse. SMH.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jun 25, 2019 12:03:06 GMT -5
A contract is not a moral document; it is a legal document. Since this is a private school, it is likely a legal contract, though we will not know for sure unless the teacher challenges the termination action. True. But, one's moral foundation does influence the sort of contracts one writes, wouldn't you agree? I doubt the teacher has a solid case. He clearly broke the contract. I question whether the contract, and by extension Catholic teaching, is based on solid morals. And I assert that recent severe problems in that organization mean that it is not wise to simply assume so because it is a religion or claims divine inspiration. A lot of people claim divine inspiration. Most of them can't prove it. Many more fail to live it.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Jun 25, 2019 12:12:28 GMT -5
You have a problem understanding simple English. I said people like you not you in particular and it was phrased as a question. So no accusation was leveled and I didn't back peddle because I didn't have to. When one writes "people like you" and directs that at a person, what are they to conclude except that they are included? Perhaps the problem isn't how I read, but how you write. People like you means for example, leftists. That doesn't mean all leftists and it doesn't necessarily include you. Your problem like so many here is you like to read things into what people write that fit your views instead of what someone actually writes.
|
|
|
Post by guido2 on Jun 25, 2019 12:25:07 GMT -5
When one writes "people like you" and directs that at a person, what are they to conclude except that they are included? Perhaps the problem isn't how I read, but how you write. People like you means for example, leftists. That doesn't mean all leftists and it doesn't necessarily include you. Your problem like so many here is you like to read things into what people write that fit your views instead of what someone actually writes. This is a real quandary….which is worse..... - a person misinterpreting what a person says. - or a person that ignores/blows off/deflects what are known to be as absolute truths. Hmmmm tough one ….really tough one. 🙄🤣
|
|