Pope says "Love and Lust should not be confused"

robindch

...this story has been doing the rounds yesterday and today about Ratzinger's forthcoming encyclical, his first, but I'm wondering who actually takes the time to read what he says, and who pays attention to it? That love and lust should not be confused is hardly at the cutting edge of the psychology of the human condition.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/18/wpope18.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/18/ixworld.html

btw, the document is called "Deus Caritas Est" [God is Love], which, by some strange coincidence, is also the text of the first religious graffitus I've seen in Dublin for a long while, daubed ineptly in white paint on one of those gray traffic-light control box thingies, just across the dual carriageway from Donnybrook bus garage. Weird. Does Ratzinger have agents provocateurs roaming Dublin's streets?

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

...this story has been doing the rounds yesterday and today about Ratzinger's forthcoming encyclical, his first, but I'm wondering who actually takes the time to read what he says, and who pays attention to it? That love and lust should not be confused is hardly at the cutting edge of the psychology of the human condition.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/18/wpope18.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/18/ixworld.html

btw, the document is called "Deus Caritas Est" [God is Love], which, by some strange coincidence, is also the text of the first religious graffitus I've seen in Dublin for a long while, daubed ineptly in white paint on one of those gray traffic-light control box thingies, just across the dual carriageway from Donnybrook bus garage. Weird. Does Ratzinger have agents provocateurs roaming Dublin's streets?

Thanks for the article. The Pope's opinion seems to carry a lot of weight with posters on this forum, both negative and positive, why? In my part of the world we never hear what he has to say, unless you're a Roman Catholic and your priest speaks on it. I'm interested on why he garners such attention? I recognize that he is the leader of the largest denomination in the world, but is that the only reason?

Sapien

Can someone tell me what's wrong with lust?

Cantab.

I think the thrust of what the Pope is trying to get at is that sex has been completely trivialised and the idea of love has been completely removed.

If you read the front page of that telegraph quoted above, England are about to effectively legalise brothels with up to 3 'ladies of the night' working in them. This is the kind of thing that is going on in the world today: state approved prostitution, buggery, pornography, the normalisation of adultery (e.g. desperate housewives), etc. and indeed the normalisation of a whole littany of sexual behaviour.

All these acts go against moral law and the Catholic Church must step in and inform Catholics in a very powerful way the immorality of what is being portrayed by popular western culture (a Papal Encyclical is second highest ranking document a Pope can release after a Papal Bull).

All too often, popular culture and society have exclusively united this idea of romance and sex when instead unmarried couples should challenge this deceptive idea and remain romantic without becoming sexual. I guess it all boils down to the unitive significance and procreative significance with are both inherent to the marriage act.

For me, the trivialisation of sexual acts where morality is but in the eye of the idividual sets up a slippery slope to a world where anything is ok so long as the individual person is ok with that. In this world, real people suffer (prostitutes, desserted spouses, etc.) and the only person to actually 'benefit' is that immoral person who, in a moment of self-gratification, feels a little bit better by satisfying their primal instinct.

To answer Sapien and "what's wrong with lust?" Well it breaks the ninth commandment (10th Protestant commandment), that's what's wrong with it.

hairyheretic

Cantab. wrote:

If you read the front page of that telegraph quoted above, England are about to effectively legalise brothels with up to 3 'ladies of the night' working in them. This is the kind of thing that is going on in the world today: state approved prostitution,

Already exists in a number of countries, and civilisation hasn't toppled in flames yet. Prostitution has been around as long as society has, and will likely go on as long as the human race does.

If you don't want to have anything to do with it, then don't. These measures look to be making it safer for those who choose to though.

Cantab. wrote:

buggery,

Do you refer to this only in homosexual terms? Or are you against hetrosexual people indulging in it as well?

Cantab. wrote:

pornography,

Don't like it? Don't read it. Its an easy solution.

Cantab. wrote:

the normalisation of adultery (e.g. desperate housewives), etc. and indeed the normalisation of a whole littany of sexual behaviour.

And if any or all of those acts are carried out between consenting adults, and no one is being hurt by them, where is the problem?

Cantab. wrote:

All these acts go against moral law

And just what exactly is moral law?

Cantab. wrote:

and the Catholic Church must step in and inform Catholics in a very powerful way the immorality of what is being portrayed by popular western culture (a Papal Encyclical is second highest ranking document a Pope can release after a Papal Bull).

And most likely half them will ignore it, the same way as they do everything else that the church puts out that they don't agree with.

Cantab. wrote:

All too often, popular culture and society have exclusively united this idea of romance and sex when instead unmarried couples should challenge this deceptive idea and remain romantic without becoming sexual. I guess it all boils down to the unitive significance and procreative significance with are both inherent to the marriage act.

If you wish to take that road, and obey the teachings of your church, go for it. No one is stopping you. You have however no right to try enforcing those beliefs on those who do not share your oppinion.

Cantab. wrote:

For me, the trivialisation of sexual acts where morality is but in the eye of the idividual sets up a slippery slope to a world where anything is ok so long as the individual person is ok with that.

Morality can only be a personal thing. You are the only person that can decide what is right or wrong for you. You can't decide what others should find right or wrong.

Cantab. wrote:

In this world, real people suffer (prostitutes, desserted spouses, etc.) and the only person to actually 'benefit' is that immoral person who, in a moment of self-gratification, feels a little bit better by satisfying their primal instinct.

Any comment on the suffering real people have endured because of church policies?

Cantab. wrote:

To answer Sapien and "what's wrong with lust?" Well it breaks the ninth commandment (10th Protestant commandment), that's what's wrong with it.

Which is only relevent to someone who believes in them.

BrianCalgary

hairyheretic wrote:

And if any or all of those acts are carried out between consenting adults, and no one is being hurt by them, where is the problem?

The myth being that no one is hurt. I have seen many hurt children that are a result of parents who put their lust ahead of their family. The adults are consenting but the kids get creamed.

Think of all the consenting adults who now carry aids and other STD's that are hurting those that love them and are left behind to mourn when they die.
Not to mention the cost of health care on those who are cared for when they contract the diseases.

How about the unwanted pregnancies that are aborted or raised in a home where no one cares.

There are huge problems. Don't kid yourself. I work with kids and nothing is worse than seeing the pain in the eyes of a kid when there parents proclaim 'oh they are fine', wake up, they aren't.

BC: the second condition was that noone is hurt, though.
In cases where they are, then it's bad. Simple as that I guess

robindch

> the idea of love has been completely removed

Other than (apparently) yourself and the pope, can you give us some examples of people who believe that "love has been completely removed"?

> England are about to effectively legalise brothels with up to 3 'ladies of
> the night' working in them [...] In this world, real people suffer (prostitutes,
> desserted spouses, etc.)

Have you ever spoken with any of the prostitutes working in Dublin? Have you compared this with the well-regulated and safe sex-industry in Amsterdam and come to a decision as to which one is more detrimental to people?

It's a simple fact of life that some men are prepared to pay for sex and some women are prepared to sell it to them. Some societies accept this and deal with it so as to minimize the problems which arise from that fact. Other societies, like Ireland's, do not and prefer to pretend that it sex can be controlled by outlawing it. Doesn't work and so we're left with the forlorn drug-addicts hanging around Fitzwilliam Square.

40crush41

bluewolf wrote:

BC: the second condition was that noone is hurt, though.
In cases where they are, then it's bad. Simple as that I guess

The ends don't justify the means. Say if the end result were agreed upon, but the means of reaching that agreed upon goal were false, then its still wrong.

Or maybe we can live in an idealistic world where people never gets hurt.. then yup, it would be as simple as that wouldn't it.

Cantab.

hairyheretic wrote:

Already exists in a number of countries, and civilisation hasn't toppled in flames yet. Prostitution has been around as long as society has, and will likely go on as long as the human race does.

Would you like to be a prostitute? Do you think women like being prostitutes? What do you think of men who visit prostitutes and take advantage women in such situations? As far as I'm concerned, prostitution is obviously morally wrong and such practices should remain outlawed in civilised christian countries.

hairyheretic wrote:

If you don't want to have anything to do with it, then don't. These measures look to be making it safer for those who choose to though.

There's no such thing as 'safe' sex. You can have all the so-called 'protection' laws you want, but you can never take away the life-long scar the woman is subjected to from allowing random men penetrate her own body.

hairyheretic wrote:

Do you refer to this only in homosexual terms? Or are you against hetrosexual people indulging in it as well?

Both. (I pretty much know what you're going to say, but go on, say it anyway).

hairyheretic wrote:

Don't like it? Don't read it. Its an easy solution.

And what about the women involved in its production? They're effectively prostituting themselves for the immediate self-indulgence of others.

hairyheretic wrote:

And if any or all of those acts are carried out between consenting adults, and no one is being hurt by them, where is the problem?

What if a child is conceived as a result of such illicit behaviour? What about the effect of a young daughter involved in such an industry on her family? That's irrelevant as long as she and her producer are consenting individuals?!

hairyheretic wrote:

And just what exactly is moral law?

The natural moral law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God ahs given this light or law at the creation.

i.e. we know inherently not to have sex with our mothers/grandmothers, we know not to have sex with animals

hairyheretic wrote:

And most likely half them will ignore it, the same way as they do everything else that the church puts out that they don't agree with.

The Church forgives sinners. As long as they repent for their sins they will be fine, but to go against the Church in a 'I know better' way is pretty bad I should think.

hairyheretic wrote:

If you wish to take that road, and obey the teachings of your church, go for it. No one is stopping you. You have however no right to try enforcing those beliefs on those who do not share your oppinion.

Yes you're damn right nobody is stopping me from being a Catholic. That said, I do have a right, and indeed an obligation, to stand up for what I believe in whether by voting against prostitution, abortion, gay 'marriage', legalised drugs, indeed using every tool at my disposal (political persuasion, lobbying, law-making, campaigning, protesting, etc.)

hairyheretic wrote:

Morality can only be a personal thing. You are the only person that can decide what is right or wrong for you. You can't decide what others should find right or wrong.

No, I refute this idea that morality is solely a personal thing. Even if both parties are consenting in a particular scenario, other people can and are affected (e.g. adultery).

hairyheretic wrote:

Any comment on the suffering real people have endured because of church policies?

Well you obviously have nothing more to say on my original point that: In this world, real people suffer (prostitutes, desserted spouses, etc.) and the only person to actually 'benefit' is that immoral person who, in a moment of self-gratification, feels a little bit better by satisfying their primal instinct. The perceived 'benefit' of such deeds is completely disproportionate to resultant moral consequences.

What specific Church policy is it you refer to that causes people suffering?

hairyheretic wrote:

Which is only relevent to someone who believes in them.

Well there you go. You really shouldn't get too upset about the forthcoming Papal Encyclical then. We do however, as Catholics, pray for greater understanding, tolerance and respect from secularists and liberals who seem hell-bent on attacking the Church at any opportunity.

Asiaprod

Cantab wrote:

What do you think of men who visit prostitutes and take advantage women in such situations? As far as I'm concerned, prostitution is obviously morally wrong and such practices should remain outlawed in civilized Christian countries.

Men pay money and the prostitute returns a service in lieu of the payment. Who is taking advantage of who in this scenario?
You generalize to often. I have no moral problem with it．
And what is with the civilized Christian countries tag. Why do you try to hang these Christian labels on countries. And particularly objectionable is the hidden connotation that only Christian countries are civilized. Even if you did not intend to say this, that's how it comes across. You don't own the country, there are not just Christians living in these countries, This is not a game of Monopoly. To be politically correct, maybe what you should say is countries holding high regard for Christian values, and drop the civilized bit. IMHO

The Church forgives sinners. As long as they repent for their sins they will be fine, but to go against the Church in a 'I know better' way is pretty bad I should think.

I thought God forgives not the church.

We do however, as Catholics, pray for greater understanding, tolerance and respect from secularists and liberals who seem hell-bent on attacking the Church at any opportunity.

Here is a real novel idea for you, instead of praying for these things to happen to your, pray to emulate them yourself. Then you might get your wish.
I think the story goes, you attack me, I will attack you.

Vangelis

hairyheretic wrote:

Already exists in a number of countries, and civilisation hasn't toppled in flames yet. Prostitution has been around as long as society has, and will likely go on as long as the human race does.

Its seemingly ever-existing existence and "inevitability" that way does in no way justify it. Only a dormant, indifferent world will not care for a difference.

If you don't want to have anything to do with it, then don't. These measures look to be making it safer for those who choose to though.

People are concerned on behalf of other people. It's natural. A world that does not care is poisonous.

Don't like it? Don't read it. Its an easy solution.

Repeating myself: people care. They won't stop caring. Don't like it? What are you going to do about that?

And if any or all of those acts are carried out between consenting adults, and no one is being hurt by them, where is the problem?

As long as there is consent. Yes, as long as murder happens between consenting adults, what's wrong? Check our Armin Weimes. German cannibal who killed and ate 20 kg of another man - with consent. He taped the murder and it was shown in the trial as part of his defense.

Where exactly does the line go? This idea about consenting adults, consenting on anything, is a modern idea. Don't forget that. People tend to think that these days we've reached the perfect philosophy of life. We're freed! Are we really...

If you wish to take that road, and obey the teachings of your church, go for it. No one is stopping you. You have however no right to try enforcing those beliefs on those who do not share your oppinion.

He obeys the teachings of his God.

Do you have a right to enforce your opinion? It seems to me like you're on the way of doing that.

Morality can only be a personal thing. You are the only person that can decide what is right or wrong for you. You can't decide what others should find right or wrong.

When morality becomes personal, there can be no unity. Humankind will be dispersed, split up. There is a need for coherence, harmonious co-existence. You won't have that by saying "I do what I want. And so what if it bothers anybody else? Screw them."

Any comment on the suffering real people have endured because of church policies?

Fairly blame the church, but not God.

hairyheretic

Cantab. wrote:

Would you like to be a prostitute?

Anyone who would pay to have sex with me is probably in need of some good mental health advice

Cantab. wrote:

Do you think women like being prostitutes?

I would imagine not all do. That being said, I don't much like my job at times. I do what I have to do to pay the bills though.

Cantab. wrote:

What do you think of men who visit prostitutes and take advantage women in such situations?

They're paying for a service. I can't see either side being taken advantage off.

Cantab. wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, prostitution is obviously morally wrong

In your oppinion. Not everyone agrees.

Cantab. wrote:

and such practices should remain outlawed in civilised christian countries.

So, only christian countries are civilised now, is that it? Here's a newsflash for you ... civilisation and morality are not determined by religion.

Prostitution is already legal in (off the top of my head) 4 "civilised christian" countries. It may well be in more.

Cantab. wrote:

There's no such thing as 'safe' sex. You can have all the so-called 'protection' laws you want, but you can never take away the life-long scar the woman is subjected to from allowing random men penetrate her own body.

Considering how many people in the pub / club culture go out and sleep with people they hardly know, there must be an awful lot of that scaring going on. Of course, maybe its not such a big deal outside of your viewpoint.

Cantab. wrote:

Both. (I pretty much know what you're going to say, but go on, say it anyway).

I didn't have any follow up in mind, so feel free to continue with this obvious comment of mine.

Cantab. wrote:

And what about the women involved in its production? They're effectively prostituting themselves for the immediate self-indulgence of others.

They're being paid for having pictures taken, in the low end of the scale. At the upper end, they're being paid to have sex. Have you seen the money that some of the more popular porn stars can earn? They'll make more in a year than most people will in a lifetime. Doesn't exactly sound like they're being exploited to me.

Cantab. wrote:

What if a child is conceived as a result of such illicit behaviour? What about the effect of a young daughter involved in such an industry on her family? That's irrelevant as long as she and her producer are consenting individuals?!

I think we're thinking of different things here. You seem to be talking about the porn industry. I was talking about just two ordinary people.

Cantab. wrote:

The natural moral law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God ahs given this light or law at the creation.

Morality is not determined by religion. Everyone, regardless of their beliefs, has their own viewpoints of what is right, and what is wrong.

Cantab. wrote:

i.e. we know inherently not to have sex with our mothers/grandmothers, we know not to have sex with animals

Funny, most people seem to know that, whatever beliefs they hold.

Cantab. wrote:

The Church forgives sinners. As long as they repent for their sins they will be fine, but to go against the Church in a 'I know better' way is pretty bad I should think.

So, you believe that the church is completely infallible then, that they have never and can never mistakes?

If they can, then how are my decisions any less valid than theirs?

Cantab. wrote:

Yes you're damn right nobody is stopping me from being a Catholic. That said, I do have a right, and indeed an obligation, to stand up for what I believe in whether by voting against prostitution, abortion, gay 'marriage', legalised drugs, indeed using every tool at my disposal (political persuasion, lobbying, law-making, campaigning, protesting, etc.)

And if someone disagrees with you, then don't they have the exact rights you claim to do the same?

Cantab. wrote:

No, I refute this idea that morality is solely a personal thing. Even if both parties are consenting in a particular scenario, other people can and are affected (e.g. adultery).

You seem to be missing my point. I say that morality is a personal thing, because no one else can decide for you what is right and wrong. Will you accept others decisions, allow them to tell you "X is right, Y is wrong" without deciding upon those issues for yourself?

Cantab. wrote:

Well you obviously have nothing more to say on my original point that: In this world, real people suffer (prostitutes, desserted spouses, etc.) and the only person to actually 'benefit' is that immoral person who, in a moment of self-gratification, feels a little bit better by satisfying their primal instinct. The perceived 'benefit' of such deeds is completely disproportionate to resultant moral consequences.

If someone has chosen to become a prostitute, in the knowledge of what that entails, then I do not believe they are suffering. If someone is forced into it, against their will, thats another matter.

For those whose marraige breaks up because of infidelaty, just how strong was the marraige in the first place? If all were sweetness and light, why would that one partner be looking for someone else? Would the marriage have continued to hold together, or would it have broken up at another point for another reason?

Cantab. wrote:

What specific Church policy is it you refer to that causes people suffering?

If you want a recent example, what of the churches decision to cover up the peadophle priests here for decades, threaten or bribe their victems, and rather than hand the abusers over for justice, to move them on to other parishes and allow them to continue their abuses?

If you want historical examples, I'll show you mass murder on a grand scale.

Cantab. wrote:

Well there you go. You really shouldn't get too upset about the forthcoming Papal Encyclical then.

Nope. It means nothing to me personally.

Cantab. wrote:

We do however, as Catholics, pray for greater understanding, tolerance and respect from secularists and liberals who seem hell-bent on attacking the Church at any opportunity.

Have you considered why they might want to attack the church?

Respect is not automatically given. Respect is earned, or lost, through your words, and through your deeds.

Your church has done much in its history that it cannot be proud of, and now is being called accountable for those actions. If an individual was abusing children, would you help them move house and try to cover their tracks? Why then should an institution be held to any different standards?

If you are so concerned with "right" and "morality", do you not have a responsibility to correct that within the organisation that you belong to? Should you not condemn them for what they have done?

hairyheretic

Vangelis wrote:

Its seemingly ever-existing existence and "inevitability" that way does in no way justify it. Only a dormant, indifferent world will not care for a difference.

Then how would you proposed it be done away with? As long as there is both demand for it and the willing supply, it will exist.

Vangelis wrote:

People are concerned on behalf of other people. It's natural. A world that does not care is poisonous.

And how exactly is this care shown? Campaigning against legalised prostitution by simply going "It's wrong" doesn't seem to be showing much care to me. Are those who wave placards and write outraged letters prepared to actually do something to help? Or is it easier to just protest, and feel self satisifed that the "right thing" has been done?

Vangelis wrote:

Repeating myself: people care. They won't stop caring. Don't like it? What are you going to do about that?

And are these objections because of a genuine care for the people invovled, or because of a disapproval of their actions?

Vangelis wrote:

As long as there is consent. Yes, as long as murder happens between consenting adults, what's wrong? Check our Armin Weimes. German cannibal who killed and ate 20 kg of another man - with consent. He taped the murder and it was shown in the trial as part of his defense.

You seem to be completly ignoring my point about no one being hurt. Obviously if someone is being murdered, that is a problem.

Vangelis wrote:

Where exactly does the line go? This idea about consenting adults, consenting on anything, is a modern idea. Don't forget that. People tend to think that these days we've reached the perfect philosophy of life. We're freed! Are we really...

How free are you if you allow others to make your choices for you?

Vangelis wrote:

He obeys the teachings of his God.

Do you have a right to enforce your opinion? It seems to me like you're on the way of doing that.

I'm not trying to force anyone to live by my code. What I am saying is that I will live by mine, not by the decisions anyone else makes as to what is right and wrong.

With freedom comes responsibility. If you choose to form your own oppinions, rather than blindly accept someone elses, then you must take responsibility for what is done as a result of those oppinions. You can't just give the equivalent of "I was only following orders".

Vangelis wrote:

When morality becomes personal, there can be no unity. Humankind will be dispersed, split up. There is a need for coherence, harmonious co-existence. You won't have that by saying "I do what I want. And so what if it bothers anybody else? Screw them."

That's not what I'm saying.

Vangelis wrote:

Fairly blame the church, but not God.

I have only refered to the church. I can quite easily separate ones belief from the man made stuff that grows up around a belief.

40crush41

40crush41 wrote:

The ends don't justify the means. Say if the end result were agreed upon, but the means of reaching that agreed upon goal were false, then its still wrong.

What's that got to do with it? I'm genuinely confused as to what you are trying to say.

Or maybe we can live in an idealistic world where people never gets hurt.. then yup, it would be as simple as that wouldn't it.

If two people have sex, use protection, and noone gets hurt, just what is the problem?

Cantab.

Cantab. wrote:

Would you like to be a prostitute? Do you think women like being prostitutes?

No, but I really wouldn't like to be a biologist or chemist either.

What do you think of men who visit prostitutes and take advantage women in such situations?

If prostitution is illegal, there will be people taking advantage of the women, yes. State approved means regulations and prevention of such abuse, and it becomes simply paying for/providing a service.

As far as I'm concerned, prostitution is obviously morally wrong

As far as you're concerned, yes. Morals can be ...subjective, though, and so a lot of people don't have a problem with it.

There's no such thing as 'safe' sex. You can have all the so-called 'protection' laws you want, but you can never take away the life-long scar the woman is subjected to from allowing random men penetrate her own body.

If she does it willingly, I sincerely doubt it would be a "life long scar" or more than 5 minutes' concern.

And what about the women involved in its production? They're effectively prostituting themselves for the immediate self-indulgence of others.

Prostitutes are prostituting themselves...?

The natural moral law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God ahs given this light or law at the creation.

i.e. we know inherently not to have sex with our mothers/grandmothers, we know not to have sex with animals

We know that whether we're atheists or not. Or most seem to, anyway. Morality is not determined by religion.

No, I refute this idea that morality is solely a personal thing.

So people don't disagree on right and wrong, e.g. this thread?

Asiaprod

bluewolf wrote:

If she does it willingly, I sincerely doubt it would be a "life long scar" or more than 5 minutes' concern.

Prostitutes are prostituting themselves...?

Yeah, I had to think on that one for a few mins too.
I thought that that was the whole point of the deal.

Cantab, this introduction of the "life long scar" is very interesting. What do you base this observation on?

40crush41

bluewolf wrote:

What's that got to do with it? I'm genuinely confused as to what you are trying to say.

I was saying that just b/c you agree that an action isn't wrong, doesn't make the action right. You can easily lie to yourself that way.
But honestly, who listens to philosophy nowadays anyway? As long as you're enjoying yourself go for it.. do whatever makes you feel good, just be sure you agree upon no regrets for later.

If two people have sex, use protection, and noone gets hurt, just what is the problem?

No problem, and besides the fact that sex is being used for enjoyment over its purpose to create children -I'd venture to say that the Church would agree too.. thats a huge besides btw. But in a secular world who cares? These are guidelines for people who choose to follow, I understand that.

The thing is that there are tangible risks, pregnancy-but with all the pills she can take, plus an abortionist right around the corner or in ur case a hop over the England, thats hardly an issue. or STDs.. which could hurt ur future partner, nevermind urself. So these can be considered problems.
My point being that yes, there are times that no one will get hurt, other times when it seems that no one gets hurt, and then the times when people do get hurt. There are times in life that you need to take risks in order to live, other times it is better to be safe than sorry so I think.

Cantab.

hairyheretic wrote:

Anyone who would pay to have sex with me is probably in need of some good mental health advice

Interesting. Why do you think that?

hairyheretic wrote:

I would imagine not all do. That being said, I don't much like my job at times. I do what I have to do to pay the bills though.

Also very interesting that you 'imagine not all [women like being prostitutes]'. It is the most vunerable women in society who end up being prostitutes and certainly not young women from Dublin 4.

hairyheretic wrote:

They're paying for a service. I can't see either side being taken advantage off.

So paying for sex with a young woman from a poor country who has come to Ireland because of her desperate situation (drugs, poverty, abuse, blackmail) does not constitute taking advantage of the plight of others?

hairyheretic wrote:

In your oppinion. Not everyone agrees.

Belief is not an opinion. You know if there was actual depth and logic to your argument I might actually take it on board. The whole prostitution debate has been going on for decades and the Catholic Church's stance on it is quite clear. Now unless you can tell me something about the morality of prostitution that the Catholic Church doesn't know, please tell us, because we'd be very interested. Otherwise, just shut up because we've been down this road thousands of times.

hairyheretic wrote:

So, only christian countries are civilised now, is that it?

Presumption is yours. I would regard Ireland, USA, GB, Germany, etc. as being predominantly Christian countries that are rooted in christianity and share christian values (even anonymously at times).

hairyheretic wrote:

Here's a newsflash for you ... civilisation and morality are not determined by religion.

'civilisation and morality are not determined by religion'. There's a nice title for your thesis.

hairyheretic wrote:

Prostitution is already legal in (off the top of my head) 4 "civilised christian" countries. It may well be in more.

Therefore prostitution is morally right?

hairyheretic wrote:

Considering how many people in the pub / club culture go out and sleep with people they hardly know, there must be an awful lot of that scaring going on. Of course, maybe its not such a big deal outside of your viewpoint.

Yeah an awful lot of scaring indeed when you consider the amount of people that contract STDs and bring children into this world outside of a loving relationship.
So have you anything to say about 'the life-long scar the woman [prostitute] is subjected to from allowing random men penetrate her own body' that I refered to in my original point? No 'protection' laws can safeguard against this scar that all prostitutes must bear for the rest of their lives.

hairyheretic wrote:

I didn't have any follow up in mind, so feel free to continue with this obvious comment of mine.

I predicted wrong so. Off the point anyway.

hairyheretic wrote:

They're being paid for having pictures taken, in the low end of the scale. At the upper end, they're being paid to have sex. Have you seen the money that some of the more popular porn stars can earn? They'll make more in a year than most people will in a lifetime. Doesn't exactly sound like they're being exploited to me.

Controversial debates often focus on extremes. Porn stars who make vasts amount of money are an extreme minority. Let's balance your extreme with the destitute girl who arrives in Ireland having to send money home to fend for her disabled father/brother? What about the drug addict woman who has sold everything she owns for a quick fix?

What about a less extreme case of the college-going girl who decides to prostitute herself (I know one or two, in fact, half of her class knows) so she can go shopping in brown thomas on a saturday and fit in with her rich friends? How do you think such a girl will ever find a husband? How do you think this girl gets by every day knowing that she might have an STD or permanent disease? How do you think this girl gets up in the morning to go to college when everyone knows she prostituted herself? What about the effect of the above on the girl's mental/emotional stability? Do you think that having such an illicit history with strange men will have absolutely no effect on future meaningful relationships that she will have?

hairyheretic wrote:

I think we're thinking of different things here. You seem to be talking about the porn industry. I was talking about just two ordinary people.

You're diverting from my original point:

What if a child is conceived as a result of such illicit behaviour [prostitution]? What about the effect of a young daughter involved in such an industry on her family? That's irrelevant as long as she and her producer are consenting individuals?!

which you seem to have nothing to say on.

hairyheretic wrote:

Funny, most people seem to know that, whatever beliefs they hold.

Funny eh? Well I'll tell you something, it's more than 'funny'.

hairyheretic wrote:

So, you believe that the church is completely infallible then, that they have never and can never mistakes?

On matters of faith and morals, yes. No Pope in the 2000 year history has ever been wrong on matters of faith and morals.

hairyheretic wrote:

If they can, then how are my decisions any less valid than theirs?

I'm not saying your opinions are any less valid. But unfortunately, you as an individual, just don't have any clout against a Church of 1 billion members and a 2000 year history. Believe what you like, it's your opinion and are entitled to it in democratic society, just don't expect me to take what you say as being correct.

Cantab.

hairyheretic wrote:

And if someone disagrees with you, then don't they have the exact rights you claim to do the same?

They can claim beliefs contrary to my own, but why should I listen to a mere individual?

hairyheretic wrote:

You seem to be missing my point. I say that morality is a personal thing, because no one else can decide for you what is right and wrong. Will you accept others decisions, allow them to tell you "X is right, Y is wrong" without deciding upon those issues for yourself?

I accept the enlightened authority of the Church on matters of faith and morals. How is an individual's sense of what is right and wrong more correct than that of the Church?

hairyheretic wrote:

If someone has chosen to become a prostitute, in the knowledge of what that entails, then I do not believe they are suffering. If someone is forced into it, against their will, thats another matter.

Even if they choose as a result of a deperate situtaion? This is not human suffering?

You talk about people being forced in to prostitution against their will; these are the very types of individuals who end up working as prostitutes and not well educated young women who wake up one day and decide 'I think make my career out of being a prostitute'. Sure next the DIT will be running degree courses on prostitution! When was the last time you heard a little girl declare 'I'd like to be a prostitute when I grow up'?

hairyheretic wrote:

For those whose marraige breaks up because of infidelaty, just how strong was the marraige in the first place? If all were sweetness and light, why would that one partner be looking for someone else? Would the marriage have continued to hold together, or would it have broken up at another point for another reason?

If that was the case, and the marriage is found to be insincere and therefore invalid, either partner could apply for an annulment. People shouldn't make such commitments to each other if they are not well-meaning. Of course if children are involved, this makes the break-up even more tragic.

hairyheretic wrote:

If you want a recent example, what of the churches decision to cover up the peadophle priests here for decades, threaten or bribe their victems, and rather than hand the abusers over for justice, to move them on to other parishes and allow them to continue their abuses?

As I said before, priests are subject to civil law just as anybody else is. Of course in the Catholic Church there is the added complication of the seal of secrecy of the Sacrament of Penance and if the penitent who has abused children comes forward to confess in the confessional, the confessor cannot break his vow by discussing what was said with the civil authorities. Priests never blab about what they hear in the confessional. No priest has ever revealed the secrets they knew from hearing confessions - look at St. John Nepomucene (1340-1393) who was put to death for his unwillingness to break the seal of secrecy. This is not a 'cover up' as the popular media and people like yourself like to think. Legal professionals and their clients are similarly bound to confidentiality, as are doctors to their patients.

Just because there are a few corrupt politicians (and we've had quite a few here in Ireland) doesn't mean society as a whole is bad because of the failings of the minority (let's not forget, the paedophile ex-priests are a minority and have been weeded out). Similarly just because there are a few bad, immoral, unethical and unscrupulous priests (many of whom have left or been thrown out of the priesthood) does not mean the the Faith is dead. To Catholics, this is a great sign of the power of the Holy Spirit in protecting the dignity and sanctity of its members.

hairyheretic wrote:

Your church has done much in its history that it cannot be proud of, and now is being called accountable for those actions. If an individual was abusing children, would you help them move house and try to cover their tracks? Why then should an institution be held to any different standards?

Yeah, whilst conveniently ignoring the infintely greater amount of good that the Catholic Church does throughout the world. You talk about being held accountable for its actions, what do you mean by this? Of course some people will never be happy until the Catholic Church is wiped off the face of the planet just like Hitler tried to do to the Jews.

hairyheretic wrote:

If you are so concerned with "right" and "morality", do you not have a responsibility to correct that within the organisation that you belong to? Should you not condemn them for what they have done?

Correct this? The implication being that there is some grave discontinuity in the Church's teachings?! My calling in life is not to be a priest nor a theologian nor an expert on morals (as you seem to think I am for some reason), so how could I influence Church affairs directly? And those in power have my full support in the trojan work they do, day in and day out, whether it's by me practicising my faith, giving to Catholic charities, supporting local parish initiatives and looking out for all in my community to name but a few. I guess being a living witness to God is the best way to show gratitude and love to our Church.


Why does the Catholic Church bug you so much? You obviously have a massive chip on your shoulder from somewhere.

robindch

> It is the most vunerable women in society who end up being
> prostitutes and certainly not young women from Dublin 4.

Five seconds with google turns up:

http://www.d4escorts.com/45-Daniella-dublin-escort.html

...and at over EUR200 per hour, one wonders who's taking advantage of who here.

> So paying for sex with a young woman from a poor country [...]

I don't think you know what you're talking about. Take a look at rates and nationalities of the girls listed on the following agencies:

http://www.escortireland.com/Escort_Agencies.cfm

hairyheretic

Cantab. wrote:

Interesting. Why do you think that?

I was making a joke.

Cantab. wrote:

Also very interesting that you 'imagine not all [women like being prostitutes]'. It is the most vunerable women in society who end up being prostitutes and certainly not young women from Dublin 4.

Not necessarily. Do a quick search online, and you'll find escorts listing their services for hundreds of euros an hour. Does that sound like someone vulnerable and in need of quick cash?

Cantab. wrote:

So paying for sex with a young woman from a poor country who has come to Ireland because of her desperate situation (drugs, poverty, abuse, blackmail) does not constitute taking advantage of the plight of others?

Now, what was it you said just a little further on ..

Cantab. wrote:

Controversial debates often focus on extremes.

You're trying to use a fairly extreme example yourself.

Is it a valid one? Yes, in some cases it is. But its not the only one.

Cantab. wrote:

Belief is not an opinion.

Then what is belief? You believe one thing. I believe something different. How are they anything but our own oppinions?

Cantab. wrote:

You know if there was actual depth and logic to your argument I might actually take it on board. The whole prostitution debate has been going on for decades and the Catholic Church's stance on it is quite clear. Now unless you can tell me something about the morality of prostitution that the Catholic Church doesn't know, please tell us, because we'd be very interested. Otherwise, just shut up because we've been down this road thousands of times.

No, I won't shut up. I have just as much right to voice my views as your oh so precious church does.

It may have escaped your attention, but the church is made up of people. I doubt they have a hotline to god installed, which means everything that they come out with are the oppinions of men. They have just as much potential to be wrong as anyone else.

Cantab. wrote:

Presumption is yours. I would regard Ireland, USA, GB, Germany, etc. as being predominantly Christian countries that are rooted in christianity and share christian values (even anonymously at times).

Then if what I read was presumption, perhaps you'd care to more fully explain your comment.

Cantab. wrote:

'civilisation and morality are not determined by religion'. There's a nice title for your thesis.

In other words, you can't argue my point, so its time for the snide remarks, eh?

Take a look at the far east. There is plenty of civilisation there, complete with their own moral codes, and christianity has little influence there.

Cantab. wrote:

Therefore prostitution is morally right?

If someone has entered into it with a full understanding of what they're getting involved in, then I don't see it as being wrong.

Cantab. wrote:

Yeah an awful lot of scaring indeed when you consider the amount of people that contract STDs and bring children into this world outside of a loving relationship.

I presume you have some facts and verifiable statistics you can use to back up this claim?

Cantab. wrote:

So have you anything to say about 'the life-long scar the woman [prostitute] is subjected to from allowing random men penetrate her own body' that I refered to in my original point? No 'protection' laws can safeguard against this scar that all prostitutes must bear for the rest of their lives.

I don't believe it exists, outside of your head. You still haven't fully explained what you even mean by this.

Cantab. wrote:

Controversial debates often focus on extremes. Porn stars who make vasts amount of money are an extreme minority. Let's balance your extreme with the destitute girl who arrives in Ireland having to send money home to fend for her disabled father/brother? What about the drug addict woman who has sold everything she owns for a quick fix?

The drug addicition would be the first thing that would need to be sorted. Are there enough schemes and help for people who want to try and get off drugs? What is there in society that would help rehabilitate that person?

Cantab. wrote:

What about a less extreme case of the college-going girl who decides to prostitute herself (I know one or two, in fact, half of her class knows) so she can go shopping in brown thomas on a saturday and fit in with her rich friends? How do you think such a girl will ever find a husband? How do you think this girl gets by every day knowing that she might have an STD or permanent disease? How do you think this girl gets up in the morning to go to college when everyone knows she prostituted herself? What about the effect of the above on the girl's mental/emotional stability? Do you think that having such an illicit history with strange men will have absolutely no effect on future meaningful relationships that she will have?

I don't presume to know what her thoughts are. If she is continuing to do it though, then she doesn't seem to have a problem in what she is doing.

Remove the factor of money for a minute, and you're describing the actions of plenty of young people today. They will go out and have sex with people they don't know that well.

Cantab. wrote:

You're diverting from my original point:

What if a child is conceived as a result of such illicit behaviour [prostitution]? What about the effect of a young daughter involved in such an industry on her family? That's irrelevant as long as she and her producer are consenting individuals?!

which you seem to have nothing to say on.

How is it any different to someone getting pregnant as a result of a one night stand, or short term relationship? The mother will choose to have the child or not.

If someone has a child, they may decide they no longer want to work as a prostitute. On the other hand, they may. I never said I had all the answers.

Cantab. wrote:

Funny eh? Well I'll tell you something, it's more than 'funny'.

Yes, funny how people can have morals without your religion playing any part.

Cantab. wrote:

On matters of faith and morals, yes. No Pope in the 2000 year history has ever been wrong on matters of faith and morals.

Wasn't it church doctrine that the sun revolved around the earth? I've a sneaking suspicion that one may just have been proved wrong.

How about the selling of indulgences? You know, where you pay money to the church in order for your sins to be ignored, giving you a better chance of getting to heaven?

Cantab. wrote:

I'm not saying your opinions are any less valid. But unfortunately, you as an individual, just don't have any clout against a Church of 1 billion members and a 2000 year history. Believe what you like, it's your opinion and are entitled to it in democratic society, just don't expect me to take what you say as being correct.

Then similarly I trust you will not expect me to take as correct anyone elses oppinions.

Asiaprod

Cantab wrote:

On matters of faith and morals, yes. No Pope in the 2000 year history has ever been wrong on matters of faith and morals.

Does the Spanish Inquisition ring a bell for you?

hairyheretic

Cantab. wrote:

They can claim beliefs contrary to my own, but why should I listen to a mere individual?

The pope is still just an individual, yet you seem quite happy to listen to him.

Cantab. wrote:

I accept the enlightened authority of the Church on matters of faith and morals. How is an individual's sense of what is right and wrong more correct than that of the Church?

How is it any less?

Does the church know you? Does it know your life, your thoughts, your experiences, your feelings, in fact eveything that has gone into to making you the person you are today?

No? Then how can it possibly know what you can consider right or wrong?

Cantab. wrote:

Even if they choose as a result of a deperate situtaion? This is not human suffering?

Then how do you help them? Are you going to give them money to get them out of their financial straights? Are you going to give them emotional support to get them through this traumatic period? Or are you just going to loudly proclaim "That's wrong" and do what you can to stop them?

Cantab. wrote:

You talk about people being forced in to prostitution against their will; these are the very types of individuals who end up working as prostitutes and not well educated young women who wake up one day and decide 'I think make my career out of being a prostitute'. Sure next the DIT will be running degree courses on prostitution! When was the last time you heard a little girl declare 'I'd like to be a prostitute when I grow up'?

I recall seeing a story a couple of months ago about a reporter who went to the Bunny Ranch (thats a famous brothel in the States) to interview the girls who worked there. She ended up liking what she saw so much she joined them.

Cantab. wrote:

As I said before, priests are subject to civil law just as anybody else is. Of course in the Catholic Church there is the added complication of the seal of secrecy of the Sacrament of Penance and if the penitent who has abused children comes forward to confess in the confessional, the confessor cannot break his vow by discussing what was said with the civil authorities. Priests never blab about what they hear in the confessional. No priest has ever revealed the secrets they knew from hearing confessions - look at St. John Nepomucene (1340-1393) who was put to death for his unwillingness to break the seal of secrecy. This is not a 'cover up' as the popular media and people like yourself like to think. Legal professionals and their clients are similarly bound to confidentiality, as are doctors to their patients.

Then do you consider it acceptable for a priest to break the law and try and escape the consequences of their actions? Why should they be treated any differently from anyone else?

Cantab. wrote:

Just because there are a few corrupt politicians (and we've had quite a few here in Ireland) doesn't mean society as a whole is bad because of the failings of the minority (let's not forget, the paedophile ex-priests are a minority and have been weeded out). Similarly just because there are a few bad, immoral, unethical and unscrupulous priests (many of whom have left or been thrown out of the priesthood) does not mean the the Faith is dead. To Catholics, this is a great sign of the power of the Holy Spirit in protecting the dignity and sanctity of its members.

What of the higher ranking churchmen who covered for those priests? The ones who tried to silence their victems, or move the priests on to other parishes?

These abuses were concealed for decades.

Cantab. wrote:

Yeah, whilst conveniently ignoring the infintely greater amount of good that the Catholic Church does throughout the world. You talk about being held accountable for its actions, what do you mean by this?

I mean that those who broke the law face the consequences of their actions. Not just the ones that abused the children. Those who tried to silence their accusers. Those who colluded in moving the abusers on so they could continue their activities. Those who were informed of these activities and chose to do nothing to see justice done, but who instead tried to cover it up.

The exact same thing that would be done in any secular organisation if the same thing happened.

Cantab. wrote:

Of course some people will never be happy until the Catholic Church is wiped off the face of the planet just like Hitler tried to do to the Jews.

How many people has the catholic church wiped off the face the planet? How many were given the choice of convert or die as christianity spread throughout europe and the americas? How many sacred sites were destroyed, with churches built on top of their remains?

Look at how the church has dealt with anything it has considered competition in the past. Absorb or destroy. Tell me, are you familiar with the phrase "Kill them all, God will know his own"?

As for the jews, the catholic church led its share of pogroms against them, when it wasn't using them to finance itself.

That being said, I know that the catholic church has done a lot of good in its more recent past. I also know its done a lot of evil. If I acknowledge the good, will you acknowledge its evil?

Cantab. wrote:

Correct this? The implication being that there is some grave discontinuity in the Church's teachings?!

No, in their actions.

Cantab. wrote:

My calling in life is not to be a priest nor a theologian nor an expert on morals (as you seem to think I am for some reason), so how could I influence Church affairs directly? And those in power have my full support in the trojan work they do, day in and day out, whether it's by me practicising my faith, giving to Catholic charities, supporting local parish initiatives and looking out for all in my community to name but a few. I guess being a living witness to God is the best way to show gratitude and love to our Church.

If someone in your company was commiting fraud or embezzelment, would you notify someone? Or would you still give them your full support?

Cantab. wrote:

Why does the Catholic Church bug you so much? You obviously have a massive chip on your shoulder from somewhere.

The catholic church doesn't bug me that much. What bugs me are people who are convinced that theirs is the one true whatever, based only on the religion they belong to. I can't say I have a particularly high oppinion of any organised religion, the fundamentalist types less than most.

Oh, and to clarify something .. it's not the faith that I have issues with. Your connection with who- or whatever you believe in is no ones concern but your own. I have a problem with all the man made stuff that grows up around a faith. Most good ideas tend to get spoiled when man gets involved with them.

robindch

> Most good ideas tend to get spoiled when man gets involved with them.

I'd qualify that by saying that most good ideas get spoiled when people stop questioning them and themselves, and start believing that both are incapable of error.

Anyhow, I think my question from the top of the thread has been answered -- there are still a few people around who do believe what the pope says about sex. Amazingly, in my view, but there you go -- we're all different.

Excelsior

cantab wrote:

The Church forgives sinners.

With all due respect to your church, it isn't The Church and the Bible is clear that "forgiveness" from a church is not going to cut it. The reason people can't

cantab wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, prostitution is obviously morally wrong and such practices should remain outlawed in civilised christian countries.

Whether it is obvious to you or not is moot since you obviously have a large number of people who do not even comprehend Christian sexual ethics, nevermind agree with them. Also, there has never been a Christian country and therefore never has there existed a "civilised Christian country".

I am by the way, so impressed that Asiaprod, the Buddhist, was able to make both these points much more succinctly than I.