Celibacy and immature men being drawn to the priesthood.
Where marraige is allowed in clergy like in the Ukrainian Catholic church these things are virtually unheard of.
Navy CO Trashed his Career
- Thread starter GMAN
- Start date
Celibacy and immature men being drawn to the priesthood.
Where marraige is allowed in clergy like in the Ukrainian Catholic church these things are virtually unheard of.
Why is the child abuse in the priesthood almost exclusively male on male and not male on female (or vice versa)?
Celibacy and/or "immature men" does not, by itself, explain the child abuse.
Foreign to me - the fact that the Israeli army has mandatory service - no way shag - I know a couple who both served in the Israeli army -
Your groundwork in this aspect is flawed. So, connect the dots - If you stop in the middle of your 'groundwork' how am I suppose to know. Are more points forthcoming? You didn't state that. You gave me 'dots' - and I started to question those 'dots', giving you ample opportunity to defend them.
You didn't fully articulate your stance - well, excuse me - please articulate away. I thought you were done. There wasn't a 'to be continued' at the end of your post. There wasn't a 'more to come'. There wasn't "same Bat-time, same Bat-channel".
I thought your broader point had been articulated - that when comparing armies, you can't compare Israel's to the US's. And these are the reasons why... So- you gave 4 reasons, why can't I go in and 'delegitimize' those reasons? I am not subverting anything - I am taking your points, and discussing them in good faith.
And quid pro quo - you cannot know the full effects of DADT being repealed, but, by God, it is change, and as a conservative - you hate change - you wish to conserve the status quo (my god, the latin is just flying
). I didn't 'cavalierly dismiss mandatory service' - I wanted to know why you think that would make a difference - why that point would create an atmosphere that is conducive to gays serving openly in the military. You have yet to answer that shag.Really - the charade I see being furthered here shag is of your own making - you can't answer outright questions, you hide behind accusation and misdirection.
So, if you are laying the groundwork - how about defending that groundwork?
Foxy, I suspected you were not interested in honest inquiry here and you just confirmed it. Otherwise, you wouldn't have started grandstanding like this...
Let me be clear, the ONLY reason to question the validity of the basic premises and points of an unfamiliar argument BEFORE that argument has been fully articulated is to subvert honest discourse. Honest, critically inquiry requires first understanding an argument before you critically examine it.
If you were truly interested in honest discourse, then your reaction to finding out that the broader argument had yet to be made would have been to make sure that the argument was made before you started looking to poke holes in it. Instead, you simply doubled down on the attempts to deconstruct by comments like, "as a conservative - you hate change - you wish to conserve the status quo" which inherently misrepresent conservative thought (as has been pointed out numerous times on this forum) and set up a flimsy straw man misrepresentation of that thought.
Thanks for highlighting the fact that your sole purpose on this political subforum is to obstruct any legitimate discourse.
- Foreign to me - the fact that the Israeli army has mandatory service - no way shag - I know a couple who both served in the Israeli army
- you cannot know the full effects of DADT being repealed, but, by God, it is change, and as a conservative - you hate change - you wish to conserve the status quo
Let me be clear, the ONLY reason to question the validity of the basic premises and points of an unfamiliar argument BEFORE that argument has been fully articulated is to subvert honest discourse. Honest, critically inquiry requires first understanding an argument before you critically examine it.
If you were truly interested in honest discourse, then your reaction to finding out that the broader argument had yet to be made would have been to make sure that the argument was made before you started looking to poke holes in it. Instead, you simply doubled down on the attempts to deconstruct by comments like, "as a conservative - you hate change - you wish to conserve the status quo" which inherently misrepresent conservative thought (as has been pointed out numerous times on this forum) and set up a flimsy straw man misrepresentation of that thought.
Thanks for highlighting the fact that your sole purpose on this political subforum is to obstruct any legitimate discourse.
philly0420
Dedicated LVC Member
Seems to me this is making a mountain out of a mole-hill. This has become a two page clusterfcuk of arguing about :q:q:qs, jews, and the israeli army. Oh and pet-er-ass clergy men. I can't believe his career is in the :q:q:q:qter because of this and that you all are so wrapped up in this.
So shag, I will need to ascertain if you have finished stating your 'case' before I start to question your points? Otherwise you will always have the 'out' of claiming that you have yet to articulate your broader point. "So are you done?" That will be the statement that will need to follow every single one of your posts, unless you deem to impart that information voluntarily.
And, once again, was the poor judgment of his managerial style or because of the content of the video. Was it poor judgment to merely allow such videos to be produced, or was the mistake his appearing in them and, arguably, reducing the dignity and authority of his position?
So you are now equating sophomoric videos to a scandal that involved sexual assault and cover-up?
Again, you're saying it was wrong. You're equating these videos to sexual assault of nearly a hundred women..
Were the videos "wrong" or were they "stupid" and poor management (in your estimation)?
But you were and are comfortable with him representing the entire nation.
The XO who made a silly video to boost morale should have his career finished and be vilified while you embrace a publicly recognized pervert and liar? That seems wildly hypocritical and lacking any kind of proportionality.
Frankly, it makes me wonder why Honors is under such scrutiny, because it must surely be something other than just this story.
What's more interesting is how you continue to white wash a disbarred, perjured, impeached, unfaithful politician to this day.
And if the Navy thought it was bad enough to end the guys career,they would have done so. Instead, as it turns out, they did say, "cut it out." And the issue was a non-issue.
Which actually speaks more to the agendas of the "watchdogs" in the media than anything else.
I don't know much but Honors, but based on what I do know, I don't see any reason to think he's a bad example for his men to follow.
Again, your "judgment" phrase is a catchcall.
I think it's a good judgment to check your tire pressure before going on a long drive. However, failing to do so is not the same kind of bad judgment as being involved in a covering up sexual assault. You don't seem to be making that distinction.
Unlike you, I've been perfectly clear in this thread. I see nothing offensive in the video posted in this thread. My initial response is that they are a bit undignified for the XO to be appearing it, but I've never spent time in the Navy so I don't presume to know what the affect those tapes had on morale or the way the crew respected Honors. However, he was promoted to Admiral, so I'm inclined to observe that it didn't hurt him.
However, because we are aware of the hyper-sensitive PC times we live in, the victim culture, and the media that tends to be hostile towards military sub-culture, being associated with "blue" humor is clearly a political mistake.
Was it bad judgment? It was certainly a mistake.
Did the Navy respond at the time. Yeah, and it would appear they respond properly. They said, "cut it out." And the videos being broadcast on the ship stopped. And the harmless and sophomoric videos weren't to be shown or circulate again. Problem solved.
I'm not equating a media personality to an elected representative, I merely provided a recent multimedia example of a public figure expressing a very similar sentiment. Earlier posts had stated how "tea party" and "conservatives" opposed any kind of restructuring or budget oversight of the military, so that is a clip of a high profile private citizen expressing such a sentiment.
They were just sworn in the other day. We'll have to wait and see.
....according to your calculation. But the issue of a top heavy military, even 10 years ago, was not.
The story is nonsense, I'm now more interested in WHY this story has come to the forefront. There are only 11 carriers, Honors was put in charge of one of them. That's an incredibly competitive position in our brass heavy Navy. I still suspect someone released the video, so long after the fact, to left-leaning reporter in Virginia, for political and career motivated reasons, NOT out of concern about Honors judgment.
And I'm interested in why the political class and media are so interested in it. Is there something else about Honors, or is he just a collateral damage in their social battle that is also coinciding with the DADT hysteria?
One - He shouldn't have used his paid time, using government resources to create videos like that. It then looks like the Navy approves of the content of the videos, since they were produced by an officer of the line, starred the same officer and shown over the ship's TV network. This is poor judgment.
Two - Being an XO he needs to set an example for the people serving under him. These videos are hardly a good example.
Three - An officer is expected to garner respect, and to be obeyed by his subordinates. These videos do not foster an atmosphere of respect that is due the second in command of an aircraft carrier.
And yes, finally, he certainly threw dignity out the window.
No - I am saying that the Navy has a habit of covering things up - or ignoring things that they should address. Tailhook was far worse - but the history of 'being the boys' needs to come to an end.
I am equating the fact the Navy allows the boys be boys - and they need to stop doing that at a command level. In small groups - when it is just the 'boys' that is different...
Define 'wrong'.
But - the Navy needs to understand this is an issue - they will learn, albeit slowly apparently. They made a poor decision 4 years ago not looking into this matter more fully, and removing Honors from command line.
And I have been extremely clear - in the very first response I stated I don't find the videos that offensive, and I have stated that over and over again. They are not 'conduct becoming an officer'. You might not understand that cal - but I do. Officer are held to a higher standard, or should be. Conduct involves respect, judgment, appropriate behavior. An XO has a code of conduct that is expected, and Honors has fallen way short of that expectation. If nothing else - this only happened 4 years ago - that isn't like it happened 25 years ago. DADT was already on the front burner, Tailhook was 16 years old. These officers get lots of training on what is appropriate and what isn't appropriate, there is no way these videos would fall into appropriate behavior by an officer.
But, if Honors cared about his career in the Navy, why did he make those videos. They were a bad decision 4 years ago. They certainly don't reflect command material. Do you want someone in command who displayed such poor judgment? Once again, I also blame the brass - Honors should have been removed from the command track as soon as they viewed these videos. This 'problem' didn't ever need to happen.
Why is the media so interested - Cal - did you see those videos? It is incredible to think that an XO of a carrier not only made them, but 'starred' in them as well. It is sensational media fodder (just look at the 'hits' this gets all over the web). Once again, if the vice president of Home Depot made these - it too would be all over the news. That is the 'rank' that you can compare Honor with. This is a train wreck, and the media loves train wrecks.
Why they were released now - who knows. An unhappy officer, someone who was uncomfortable serving under Honors, a disgruntled lover, we might never know - anonymous source is sacred.
lincolnx2
Dedicated LVC Member
What you fail to realize is Armed Forces Members are on duty 24/7. Anything that we do can be scrutinized and considered a waste of taxpayers dollars. Most of the time when morale videos are made, military equiptment is involved. I think it hard for civilians to understand what it is like during deployments, and unfortunately civilians run the military.
All service members are expected to carry themselves in a certain manner when in the eyes of the public.
When are we to unwind? When do we joke? I walk around with a serious look on constantly because civilians will take any story they can and blow it up. We should be allowed to have fun, more people seen Tom Greene humping a dead moose, then this video, and everyone thought that was hilarious. The military is being destroyed by people who never had the want to serve their country. I wish we had Gen. Franks still, he would tell everybody to F'off, if you don't serve, you don't matter!
Ok let me break it down. In the military there are Officers and Junior enlisted. The officers are broken into two catergories, Non-Commisioned (the backbone) and Commisioned (the xo). I could go farther into it, and I will if you want me to. I did that to show that ALL ranks are held to the same standard. I have been held to high standards ever since I joined at 19 years of age, we deseerve to "let loose" sometimes. Clinton used government assets to have sex with an ugly women, his career was ruined! And she was UGLY. Give us a break!
I don't agree with that at all. Boys should be allowed to be boys, provided they're not hurting good people and are getting the job done when it really matters.
In my experience of military service, the very best officers (non-commissioned and commissioned) were the ones who were down to earth and didn't follow all the BS bureaucracy and rules. Those officers always put their men before their careers and were well respected because of that.
Honors even knew what he was doing was wrong – at the beginning of the videos he explains how the CO and other officers don’t know that he is doing this – and that they shouldn’t be held responsible for his bad behavior. If he knew what he was doing was wrong –why did he go ahead and do it – plus, put it on video tape for prosperity? Terrible judgment. Plus – do you really expect young sailors to understand what is ‘over the line’ when their XO is obviously ‘over the line’ when he did these videos.
It is classic, ‘I am just like you, I wanna be one of the gang’ except, he can’t be, he is the XO, and he isn’t going to be your friend, he is going to be your commanding officer.
Remember, this isn't something Honors did as an ensign 20 plus years ago. This is something he did as an XO only 4 years ago. He screwed up, and he's being held accountable, late, but nonetheless it's happening.
However, Honors’ won’t be suffering, he’ll be forced to retire which means over 80K a year and amazing benefits (I think that is what O-6 is going for these days). And he doesn’t even have to get out of bed.
It is classic, ‘I am just like you, I wanna be one of the gang’ except, he can’t be, he is the XO, and he isn’t going to be your friend, he is going to be your commanding officer.
Remember, this isn't something Honors did as an ensign 20 plus years ago. This is something he did as an XO only 4 years ago. He screwed up, and he's being held accountable, late, but nonetheless it's happening.
However, Honors’ won’t be suffering, he’ll be forced to retire which means over 80K a year and amazing benefits (I think that is what O-6 is going for these days). And he doesn’t even have to get out of bed.
I was a Captain’s wife, and my father was a Senior Master Sergeant in the USAF – I know the break down lincolnx2. And officers are held to a higher standard, period. To quote Admiral Harvey when he relieved Honors of his command…. "It is fact that as naval officers we are held to a higher standard. Those in command must exemplify the Navy's core values of honor, courage and commitment, which we expect our Sailors to follow. Our leaders must be above reproach and our Sailors deserve nothing less.”. All soldiers and sailors are held to a high standard, as you stated – but officers are held to a higher one.
Federali Aundy
Active LVC Member
Lemme jump back in on a few things here..
Israel is in a kill-or-be-killed situation in which its very survival is dependent upon everyone pitching in to keep it from being destroyed. There is no real way for them to avoid having homosexuals and women trained to fight to the death. It is a sad situation but perhaps someday Israel can be more selective about those who serve.
But speaking of "selective" - we in America have a Selective Service System in which we define the characteristics needed for those to serve in combat situations. Currently there are over 14 million men who could be elligible for service if needed - that's twice the population of Israel! So I would argue that Israel is in a much more severe situation than America. Or perhaps we have a different kind of severe situation: a severe economic situation. Sadly instead of dealing with our real problems, the Congress decided to focus on weakening our military in addition to our already weakened economy.
Nevertheless, active homosexuals in the military fall into the same category as Capt. Honors: unfit. While Honors is unfit to command the U.S.S. Enterprise, active homosexuals are clearly unfit for military service. Both have given witness to immoral behavior and this simply is not tolerable for the finest fighting force on the planet. Why should our military become as classless as our society?
Speaking of those who are unfit, active homosexuals are also unfit for another vocation: service in the Catholic priesthood. Many people bemoan the Catholic Church's view that women can't be priests (I would love to point out here that, by definition a priest is a man - so if a woman became a "priest" she is actually a priestess) but they forget that an eligible man must also be eligible for marriage and for fatherhood. This is not to say that the Church wants her priests married with children but rather that the men who become priests could also make good husbands and fathers. This is because the Church becomes the spiritual spouse of the priest and the lay faithful become a priest's spiritual children. This is why Catholics reverently call a priest "Father".
In the last 40 years, the Catholic Church did not have a pedophilia issue as much as it had a homosexual issue. Seminaries looked for actively homosexual men to become priests and purposely shunned the men who the Church actually was looking for. If we look at the abusive priests we see men who were ordained in the 60s, 70s, and 80s before the seminaries began to be cleaned up by the Vatican from above and holy young men with real vocations from below. What the priest scandal has done is not to convict Catholicism but rather to show the world the bankruptcy of liberal, worldly Catholicism. Men like Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI are signs that the Catholic Church is a pillar of truth, goodness, and beauty.
foxpaws said:
Israel is in a kill-or-be-killed situation in which its very survival is dependent upon everyone pitching in to keep it from being destroyed. There is no real way for them to avoid having homosexuals and women trained to fight to the death. It is a sad situation but perhaps someday Israel can be more selective about those who serve.
But speaking of "selective" - we in America have a Selective Service System in which we define the characteristics needed for those to serve in combat situations. Currently there are over 14 million men who could be elligible for service if needed - that's twice the population of Israel! So I would argue that Israel is in a much more severe situation than America. Or perhaps we have a different kind of severe situation: a severe economic situation. Sadly instead of dealing with our real problems, the Congress decided to focus on weakening our military in addition to our already weakened economy.
Nevertheless, active homosexuals in the military fall into the same category as Capt. Honors: unfit. While Honors is unfit to command the U.S.S. Enterprise, active homosexuals are clearly unfit for military service. Both have given witness to immoral behavior and this simply is not tolerable for the finest fighting force on the planet. Why should our military become as classless as our society?
04SCTLS said:
Speaking of those who are unfit, active homosexuals are also unfit for another vocation: service in the Catholic priesthood. Many people bemoan the Catholic Church's view that women can't be priests (I would love to point out here that, by definition a priest is a man - so if a woman became a "priest" she is actually a priestess) but they forget that an eligible man must also be eligible for marriage and for fatherhood. This is not to say that the Church wants her priests married with children but rather that the men who become priests could also make good husbands and fathers. This is because the Church becomes the spiritual spouse of the priest and the lay faithful become a priest's spiritual children. This is why Catholics reverently call a priest "Father".
In the last 40 years, the Catholic Church did not have a pedophilia issue as much as it had a homosexual issue. Seminaries looked for actively homosexual men to become priests and purposely shunned the men who the Church actually was looking for. If we look at the abusive priests we see men who were ordained in the 60s, 70s, and 80s before the seminaries began to be cleaned up by the Vatican from above and holy young men with real vocations from below. What the priest scandal has done is not to convict Catholicism but rather to show the world the bankruptcy of liberal, worldly Catholicism. Men like Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI are signs that the Catholic Church is a pillar of truth, goodness, and beauty.
bingo!