Something Promising From The Clergy

[Not A Real Name]

*sighs externally*

[ST BERNARD]

Sort of. I know you're new so you're not familiar with the "phatmass tone" yet. I'm pretty sure you were being serious and didn't think it sounded rude or belittling. Well, it did. There are posts by people decades older than FP that are consistently crazy and all over the place that I don't even bother to read, yet no one says "well they're old (or mentally disabled or whatever), better keep that in mind." No, that's rude. One should address the issues, and if the person is just being off the wall for whatever reason- age, mental issues, emotional issues, rough life, politely state what you need to state. No need to bring attention to their age or whatever factor you think is contributing to their views. Completely dismissing someone else's point of view because of their age is also a logical fallacy. 

 

I'm pretty sure this sounds a little short. Please don't take it the wrong way, I'm just trying to explain an issue. Welcome to phatmass. 

 

 

I see. There is a 'phatmass tone' that one must adhere to, rather than stating facts (like the human brain is not formed until one reaches age 25-26). I will keep this in mind in future, if I decide to stay. The jury is still out on that one. If a person can't debate sensibly (which to me, it appears that the young future priest can't do) then I try to make allowances for them based on things like age or mental incapacity etc. I felt this was a better solution than simply not bothering to read what they post, but following your advice, I will simply not bother to read or respond to those posters who are (how did you describe it?) "consistently crazy and all over the place". If this is the preferred 'phatmass tone', then I will try to adhere to it. Thank you for your helpful advice.

 

*sighs externally*

 

I can see that particular subject has been either raised before or is a point of contention - I am not quite sure how to read some of these subtle comments yet. This place is certainly very difficult to understand. I wonder if it gets better over time?

[ST BERNARD]

 

I'm pretty sure this sounds a little short. Please don't take it the wrong way, I'm just trying to explain an issue. Welcome to phatmass. 

 

 

Excuse me - I just read your profile. you are only one year older than the young man, so no wonder you got so defensive. I can see that a simple fact like that could be disturbing if you read it as a slur rather than a fact. I'm sorry, but it is a fact, and does influence your thinking and logical processes. But perhaps you are right and that as it does seem to push some hot buttons, I should not have mentioned it - just thought it.

 

Mea culpa.

[PhuturePriest]

I see. There is a 'phatmass tone' that one must adhere to, rather than stating facts (like the human brain is not formed until one reaches age 25-26). I will keep this in mind in future, if I decide to stay. The jury is still out on that one. If a person can't debate sensibly (which to me, it appears that the young future priest can't do) then I try to make allowances for them based on things like age or mental incapacity etc. I felt this was a better solution than simply not bothering to read what they post, but following your advice, I will simply not bother to read or respond to those posters who are (how did you describe it?) "consistently crazy and all over the place". If this is the preferred 'phatmass tone', then I will try to adhere to it. Thank you for your helpful advice.

 

This is an ad hominem and is against the rules. Your attitude isn't particularly promising, given the fact you have so far succeeded in doing nothing but questioning a person's views due to age and following that up by making an ad hominem, both of which are logical fallacies and the latter of which is against the rules.

 

I'm arguing logically. I'm giving a view and backing it up with examples. I'm not sure what it is that I haven't answered and what exactly you think I'm not being sensible about other than the fact that I don't agree with you.

[veritasluxmea]

I see. There is a 'phatmass tone' that one must adhere to, rather than stating facts (like the human brain is not formed until one reaches age 25-26). I will keep this in mind in future, if I decide to stay. The jury is still out on that one. If a person can't debate sensibly (which to me, it appears that the young future priest can't do) then I try to make allowances for them based on things like age or mental incapacity etc. I felt this was a better solution than simply not bothering to read what they post, but following your advice, I will simply not bother to read or respond to those posters who are (how did you describe it?) "consistently crazy and all over the place". If this is the preferred 'phatmass tone', then I will try to adhere to it. Thank you for your helpful advice.

 

 

I can see that particular subject has been either raised before or is a point of contention - I am not quite sure how to read some of these subtle comments yet. This place is certainly very difficult to understand. I wonder if it gets better over time?

What I meant by tone is that: when I read your post, I could tell you were being serious. If someone else had said that, or stated it differently, they might have just been being sarcastic. That's... kind of the phatmass tone, I guess. It's hard to explain. I've been here a few months and I still don't know if it gets easier with time. 

 

If you want to read and respond to people who you think can't debate sensibly, go for it. Since I don't really have anything to say about it I usually just ignore it. However, I'd recommend not announcing that you're dismissing their views based on their brain. You went beyond stating a biological fact to claiming that fact is a reason to dismiss someone's point of view. That doesn't seem like sensible debate to me. There are plenty of people, here and in the world, who feel that way about younger people. If that is seriously what you think, that's ok. Just know that I read that and think it's a little rude as well as a bit of a fallacy. 

 

As for Not a Real Name, I think he was just joking and trying to lighten the mood or something. Jury's still out on that post. 

 

(Also, you're mistaken about the "brain fact" as well. Biologically speaking, people are capable of reason and higher thinking usually finishing around age 10 to 12. The rest of the development is related to impulses, emotions, and future decision making, frontal lobe stuff, not logic and reasoning.)

[veritasluxmea]

Excuse me - I just read your profile. you are only one year older than the young man, so no wonder you got so defensive. I can see that a simple fact like that could be disturbing if you read it as a slur rather than a fact. I'm sorry, but it is a fact, and does influence your thinking and logical processes. But perhaps you are right and that as it does seem to push some hot buttons, I should not have mentioned it - just thought it.

 

Mea culpa.

I see what you're saying. I am more interested in the issue because this isn't the first time someone has dismissed FP's point of view because of his age. Hasn't happened to me yet, but here I am. 

 

If I was, say, 30 and writing this, would you have seriously treated this differently than if an 19 year old wrote this? If so, you are choosing to debate the person, and not the ideas. Congratulations on the ad hominem. Is that sensible debate? What about +25 people who hold the same views on age I do? If it's not their brain at that point, why are they wrong? 

[ST BERNARD]

What I meant by tone is that: when I read your post, I could tell you were being serious. If someone else had said that, or stated it differently, they might have just been being sarcastic. That's... kind of the phatmass tone, I guess. It's hard to explain. I've been here a few months and I still don't know if it gets easier with time. 

 

If you want to read and respond to people who you think can't debate sensibly, go for it. Since I don't really have anything to say about it I usually just ignore it. However, I'd recommend not announcing that you're dismissing their views based on their brain. You went beyond stating a biological fact to claiming that fact is a reason to dismiss someone's point of view. That doesn't seem like sensible debate to me. There are plenty of people, here and in the world, who feel that way about younger people. If that is seriously what you think, that's ok. Just know that I read that and think it's a little rude as well as a bit of a fallacy. 

 

As for Not a Real Name, I think he was just joking and trying to lighten the mood or something. Jury's still out on that post. 

 

(Also, you're mistaken about the "brain fact" as well. Biologically speaking, people are capable of reason and higher thinking usually finishing around age 10 to 12. The rest of the development is related to impulses, emotions, and future decision making, frontal lobe stuff, not logic and reasoning.)

 

 

Like the young future priest, you misread my original post as well. what I actually said to him was:

 

"You misread my post completely but that's just part of being on the Internet of course.

 

Actually, I am quite familiar with the state of the clergy today, and reading your profile it seems that you are still quite young, so that might explain some of the things you have posted. Not to say that the young don't have much to offer - they are the future after all, but your brain won't even be fully formed until you are around 25-26, so I will take that into consideration in my replies."

 

 

Where you read that I was being dismissive of his opinion, in actuality, I was stating that because of his age, I would be more lenient of his views, whereas in an adult poster, I might be more critical if I felt they were being inconsistent and off-track in their arguments (which we all do, of course). I do acknowledge in my reply as well that the youth are the future, so instead of simply dismissing their views, it is important that we try to be understanding of them, even if we disagree or wonder how or why they came to such concrete thinking in response to an abstract comment. In fact, it is my views that are being dismissed in his statement that I must not be aware of the state of the clergy. From what did he draw this assumption? I am new and have not posted of my experience (or lack thereof) with the clergy. So wasn't he just trying to belittle my opinion by making it seem as if I had no experience and he was well versed in the topic? That comment alone made me wonder about his age, so that I went to look at his profile.

 

As for the human brain - there have been many studies done on this, but the one from MIT on the Young Adult Development Project  very clearly states that:

 

 

... "the rental car companies have it right." The brain isn't fully mature at 16, when we are allowed to drive, or at 18, when we are allowed to vote, or at 21, when we are allowed to drink, but closer to 25, when we are allowed to rent a car.

 

The web link and article are below. I am always interested in the views of youth today, but there are ways of arguing that do seem to be a trait of the young adult, as opposed to those of a more mature mind. That being said, it is not to be assumed that all adults are mature or logical or even un-biased in their views, as we are all shaped by our culture and beliefs and environment and upbringing.

 

I love to hear opposing viewpoints, especially if they are well thought out and challenge my own in a way that makes me want to think and reconsider my ideas and opinions. I do not, however, appreciate being ignorantly told that I don't have experience in a field where I do (in this case, 'ignorant' meaning that the person has no knowledge of whether I do have a specific knowledge or not, but just presumes to make such a statement).

 

I also know that I need patience when a person does not address the issues I raise, but tries to take the conversation off onto a tangent because they are just trying to prop up their own beliefs without considered thought. But that is something I need to work on. With the young (and this is not meant derisively, as I have worked quite extensively with young adults) I try to be even more understanding. If, as you say, phatmass is a place where it is more PC not to mention a person's youth, then I will certainly try, but then one who is declaring their age on their profile might want to be a little less 'know-it-all' in their posts, as it certainly is surprising (at least to me) to see someone so young claiming to be an authority on almost everything.

 

But of course, as this is my first day here, I have much to learn about the culture of the place. It may be that I won't fit in, but I will give it a little while to see if I can learn the politics and 'tone' of the place.

 

 

 

http://hrweb.mit.edu/worklife/youngadult/brain.html

 

YOUNG ADULT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

 

 

 

 

 

Setting the Stage--Adolescence
The limitations of the "teen brain" has been well publicized in the mass media, helping parents, teachers, and others understand why it may be difficult for teens to meet our expectations and demands for managing emotions, handling risks, responding to relationships, and engaging in complex school work or employment. In early- and mid-adolescence, the brain undergoes considerable growth and pruning, moving generally from back to front areas of the cerebral cortex.

 

Changes in Young Adulthood
At the same time that young adults are experiencing new levels of sophistication in thinking and emotional regulation, their brains are undergoing changes in precisely the areas associated with these functions. While it is not possible to determine cause-and-effect, brain and behavior are changing in parallel.

 

• Prefrontal cortex: The most widely studied changes in young adulthood are in the prefrontal cortex, the area behind the forehead associated with planning, problem-solving, and related tasks. At least two things affect the efficiency in its functioning:
  1. myelination: the nerve fibers are more extensively covered with myelin, a substance that insulates them so that signals can be transmitted more efficiently, and
  2. synaptic pruning: the "briar patch" of connections resulting from nerve growth are pruned back, allowing the remaining ones to transmit signals more efficiently.

 

• Connections among regions: At the same time, the prefrontal cortex communicates more fully and effectively with other parts of the brain, including those that are particularly associated with emotion and impulses, so that all areas of the brain can be better involved in planning and problem-solving.

 

 

• "Executive suite": The cluster of functions that center in the prefrontal cortex is sometimes called the "executive suite," including calibration of risk and reward, problem-solving, prioritizing, thinking ahead, self-evaluation, long-term planning, and regulation of emotion. (See Merlin Donald, Daniel Keating, and others in References.) It is not that these tasks cannot be done before young adulthood, but rather that it takes less effort, and hence is more likely to happen.

 

 

20s and beyond
According to recent findings, the human brain does not reach full maturity until at least the mid-20s. (See J. Giedd in References.) The specific changes that follow young adulthood are not yet well studied, but it is known that they involve increased myelination and continued adding and pruning of neurons. As a number of researchers have put it, "the rental car companies have it right." The brain isn't fully mature at 16, when we are allowed to drive, or at 18, when we are allowed to vote, or at 21, when we are allowed to drink, but closer to 25, when we are allowed to rent a car.

 

 

[PhuturePriest]

Like the young future priest, you misread my original post as well. what I actually said to him was:

 

"You misread my post completely but that's just part of being on the Internet of course.

 

Actually, I am quite familiar with the state of the clergy today, and reading your profile it seems that you are still quite young, so that might explain some of the things you have posted. Not to say that the young don't have much to offer - they are the future after all, but your brain won't even be fully formed until you are around 25-26, so I will take that into consideration in my replies."

 

 

Where you read that I was being dismissive of his opinion, in actuality, I was stating that because of his age, I would be more lenient of his views, whereas in an adult poster, I might be more critical if I felt they were being inconsistent and off-track in their arguments (which we all do, of course). I do acknowledge in my reply as well that the youth are the future, so instead of simply dismissing their views, it is important that we try to be understanding of them, even if we disagree or wonder how or why they came to such concrete thinking in response to an abstract comment. In fact, it is my views that are being dismissed in his statement that I must not be aware of the state of the clergy. From what did he draw this assumption? I am new and have not posted of my experience (or lack thereof) with the clergy. So wasn't he just trying to belittle my opinion by making it seem as if I had no experience and he was well versed in the topic? That comment alone made me wonder about his age, so that I went to look at his profile.

 

As for the human brain - there have been many studies done on this, but the one from MIT on the Young Adult Development Project  very clearly states that:

 

 

... "the rental car companies have it right." The brain isn't fully mature at 16, when we are allowed to drive, or at 18, when we are allowed to vote, or at 21, when we are allowed to drink, but closer to 25, when we are allowed to rent a car.

 

The web link and article are below. I am always interested in the views of youth today, but there are ways of arguing that do seem to be a trait of the young adult, as opposed to those of a more mature mind. That being said, it is not to be assumed that all adults are mature or logical or even un-biased in their views, as we are all shaped by our culture and beliefs and environment and upbringing.

 

I love to hear opposing viewpoints, especially if they are well thought out and challenge my own in a way that makes me want to think and reconsider my ideas and opinions. I do not, however, appreciate being ignorantly told that I don't have experience in a field where I do (in this case, 'ignorant' meaning that the person has no knowledge of whether I do have a specific knowledge or not, but just presumes to make such a statement).

 

I also know that I need patience when a person does not address the issues I raise, but tries to take the conversation off onto a tangent because they are just trying to prop up their own beliefs without considered thought. But that is something I need to work on. With the young (and this is not meant derisively, as I have worked quite extensively with young adults) I try to be even more understanding. If, as you say, phatmass is a place where it is more PC not to mention a person's youth, then I will certainly try, but then one who is declaring their age on their profile might want to be a little less 'know-it-all' in their posts, as it certainly is surprising (at least to me) to see someone so young claiming to be an authority on almost everything.

 

But of course, as this is my first day here, I have much to learn about the culture of the place. It may be that I won't fit in, but I will give it a little while to see if I can learn the politics and 'tone' of the place.

 

Your study proved Veritas' point: None of that has anything to do with logic and reasoning skills. To quote the article:

"

1. myelination: the nerve fibers are more extensively covered with myelin, a substance that insulates them so that signals can be transmitted more efficiently, and
2. synaptic pruning: the "briar patch" of connections resulting from nerve growth are pruned back, allowing the remaining ones to transmit signals more efficiently. "

None of that mentions anything about logic or argumentation skills.

[ST BERNARD]

Dear PhuturePriest and veritasluxmea

 

I can see that this hole is getting deeper and deeper and completely off the original post. You both obviously feel under attack, although that was not my intention, so I am going to take veritasluxmea's advice and simply not read or respond to those posts that I find inconsistent or irrational (I think her word was 'crazy' but I am not going back to read back over all these posts and check - her words not mine). Believe me though when I say that a long life has more in it than just an Internet forum so in the grand scheme of things, this is small potatoes and I have devoted more than enough time to it. I am sure there are other, equally interesting (if not more so) topics to read on this forum. I have stated my opinion here about the clergy group and will leave it at that for now.

 

For both of your sakes I will make every effort not to mention age ever again (although I may think about it but thinking hasn't been censored yet, as far as I know). I am wondering what the average age around this place is though that this should be such a hot button.

 

pax verbatim

 

(wines of flavor) :)

 

 

Edited January 13, 2015 by ST BERNARD

[veritasluxmea]

Like the young future priest, you misread my original post as well. what I actually said to him was:

 

"You misread my post completely but that's just part of being on the Internet of course.

 

Actually, I am quite familiar with the state of the clergy today, and reading your profile it seems that you are still quite young, so that might explain some of the things you have posted. Not to say that the young don't have much to offer - they are the future after all, but your brain won't even be fully formed until you are around 25-26, so I will take that into consideration in my replies."

 

 

Where you read that I was being dismissive of his opinion, in actuality, I was stating that because of his age, I would be more lenient of his views, whereas in an adult poster, I might be more critical if I felt they were being inconsistent and off-track in their arguments (which we all do, of course). I do acknowledge in my reply as well that the youth are the future, so instead of simply dismissing their views, it is important that we try to be understanding of them, even if we disagree or wonder how or why they came to such concrete thinking in response to an abstract comment. In fact, it is my views that are being dismissed in his statement that I must not be aware of the state of the clergy. From what did he draw this assumption? I am new and have not posted of my experience (or lack thereof) with the clergy. So wasn't he just trying to belittle my opinion by making it seem as if I had no experience and he was well versed in the topic? That comment alone made me wonder about his age, so that I went to look at his profile.

 

As for the human brain - there have been many studies done on this, but the one from MIT on the Young Adult Development Project  very clearly states that:

 

 

... "the rental car companies have it right." The brain isn't fully mature at 16, when we are allowed to drive, or at 18, when we are allowed to vote, or at 21, when we are allowed to drink, but closer to 25, when we are allowed to rent a car.

 

The web link and article are below. I am always interested in the views of youth today, but there are ways of arguing that do seem to be a trait of the young adult, as opposed to those of a more mature mind. That being said, it is not to be assumed that all adults are mature or logical or even un-biased in their views, as we are all shaped by our culture and beliefs and environment and upbringing.

 

I love to hear opposing viewpoints, especially if they are well thought out and challenge my own in a way that makes me want to think and reconsider my ideas and opinions. I do not, however, appreciate being ignorantly told that I don't have experience in a field where I do (in this case, 'ignorant' meaning that the person has no knowledge of whether I do have a specific knowledge or not, but just presumes to make such a statement).

 

I also know that I need patience when a person does not address the issues I raise, but tries to take the conversation off onto a tangent because they are just trying to prop up their own beliefs without considered thought. But that is something I need to work on. With the young (and this is not meant derisively, as I have worked quite extensively with young adults) I try to be even more understanding. If, as you say, phatmass is a place where it is more PC not to mention a person's youth, then I will certainly try, but then one who is declaring their age on their profile might want to be a little less 'know-it-all' in their posts, as it certainly is surprising (at least to me) to see someone so young claiming to be an authority on almost everything.

 

But of course, as this is my first day here, I have much to learn about the culture of the place. It may be that I won't fit in, but I will give it a little while to see if I can learn the politics and 'tone' of the place.

I understand what you're saying about being lenient about age and misreading the post, that makes more sense. I think it's safe to assume it's frustrating to feel like you have years of experience and reasoning behind your views and then have them "told wrong" by someone who sounds like a know-it-all, so I'll be lenient about it too. I, too, feel as though I have good reasoning and yes, even (limited) experience behind (some of) my views. (I also know I'll address new issues in the future and have different experiences which may change my approach or views.) I hope my sounding confident in them now doesn't cross the line into sounding dismissive or uppity towards other's views, no matter how I feel their reasoning or experience is limited or wrong. 

 

I apologize if I really have drawn this thread off into a tangent, but I don't really have anything to comment about priests in this topic. I just wanted to address the issue of dismissing viewpoints based on the person's age, which I feel I have. (I don't know if it's PC or not to mention age on phatmass. There are a lot of older posters who have raised/raise similar objections to age and the brain here and on deleted archives, so you're not the only one.)

[ST BERNARD]

I understand what you're saying about being lenient about age and misreading the post, that makes more sense. I think it's safe to assume it's frustrating to feel like you have years of experience and reasoning behind your views and then have them "told wrong" by someone who sounds like a know-it-all, so I'll be lenient about it too. I, too, feel as though I have good reasoning and yes, even (limited) experience behind (some of) my views. (I also know I'll address new issues in the future and have different experiences which may change my approach or views.) I hope my sounding confident in them now doesn't cross the line into sounding dismissive or uppity towards other's views, no matter how I feel their reasoning or experience is limited or wrong. 

 

I apologize if I really have drawn this thread off into a tangent, but I don't really have anything to comment about priests in this topic. I just wanted to address the issue of dismissing viewpoints based on the person's age, which I feel I have. (I don't know if it's PC or not to mention age on phatmass. There are a lot of older posters who have raised/raise similar objections to age and the brain here and on deleted archives, so you're not the only one.)

 

 

I think you sound like quite a sensible and mature young woman (I am not being dismissive with that adjective by the way) and I will certainly continue to read your posts, as you do NOT come across as a know-it-all. If, as you say, this age thing has been a sore point in the past, I have obviously stumbled across one of the hidden land mines in my 'new person' ignorant state and will have to be more careful in future how I express what I believe to be true.

 

As for being told I am wrong - this is not a problem for me - but to be told I have no familiarity with a topic when the person making this claim does not even know me - well that is a bit irritating. But I am going to follow your advice about that - thank you.  I also understand there is a block function for irritating posters too - so if I find myself getting too cranky, I will use that. In the meantime, I will simply not respond to the baiting. I have seen that there are some very intelligent people on this forum as well, so I will now see if I can engage in some meaningful discussions around the place. This topic has become a waste of time for me.

[Not A Real Name]

*sighs eternally*

[ST BERNARD]

Meh  :popcorn:

[Ash Wednesday]

I personally viewed the statement as being a response to the news media and how much confusion and distortion came about during the last synod. Either way -- one thing is true: heretics or not, lately I've noticed that we spend way more time analyzing and complaining about our clergy than actually praying for them. 

 

We can argue about their orthodoxy or intentions all we want, but it's not going to help anything as much as prayers will. 

[Not A Real Name]

Its ironic that while we debate whether or not such a confraternity is beneficial or necessary for the Catholic clergy to create, there exists at the same time a thread in the debate table about a Catholic priest who identifies as homosexual and is supporting so called 'marriage equality'.

 

 

 

“Fr. Dolan’s acknowledgement from the pulpit that he is gay and supports marriage equality has been warmly welcomed in Ireland,” Hyland wrote. “The parishioners of Francis Street have expressed a deep loyalty towards him since his brave announcement.”

 

 It appears that there is trouble within the Church's clergy.  Now take this coupled with the poor catechesis of many Catholic who wouldn't know a kneeler from a pew if they saw one, it's not hard to come to the conclusion that such a confraternity is exactly what our orthodox clergy need to create.