What Kind Of Seminary Is This?

[Dave]

[quote name='thedude' post='1089685' date='Oct 12 2006, 01:11 AM']
There are a lot of clean avenues for jokes; I maintain that mushy mud pie jokes are the best!
[/quote]

Let's not forget fluffy air extraction jokes!

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I apologize for failing to inlcude all bodily functions. mushy mud pie, fluffy air extractions, etc. All good by me. Nothing better than a good rip out in public I say.


Look where this thread has degenerated...

[Guest CMSseminarian]

Hi, I just want you all to know that not every seminary is like that. It disturbs me to hear that this actually goes on at some of them. I don't want you to label all seminaries because of a few bad eggs. The seminary that I attend is a very good one. Nothing like that goes on here. Sure, we are human and we do like to tell jokes that are clean, but I can honestly tell you that we have good men at the seminary I attend. It is easy to tell because we only have 21 seminarians at ours. So we have a strong brotherhood around here. A few of us will go out once a week and have a couple beers, but never have we gotten drunk. We just like to go out for a couple hours and have a good time. Our conversations are always good; we like to talk about the graces we received and just talk about God in our lives. If anyone ever started talking like that around here, they would be in the rector's office before they could blink. That kinda thing just wouldn't fly around here. And we do have a very busy schedule. It is not a cakewalk by any means. We wake up and have morning prayer and mass at 7 am. We eat breakfast and then head to classes until about 3pm. Then we will either have spiritual direction, meetings, or do homework until 5pm. Next, we attend adoration and night prayer until 6:05, then go to supper. After that, the night consists of either formation, house meetings, liturgy meetings, apostolic works, house duties, homework etc. Then we will usually pray a Rosary and then off to bed. I never knew how easy I had it until I got here. Don't get me wrong, I love it with a passion and find it very fulfilling. We are not even allowed to have tv's, or watch dvd's on our computers. Our only free time that we really have to do whatever we please is on Sat. after 11:00am. until midnight. And again on Sun. between Mass and Adoration. I can barely even get out hunting and fishing, which is my favorite hobby. We have curfew at 10:30pm every other night. It is very demanding, but very rewarding. I cannot even explain to you how much God has blessed the guys here and the community we live in with graces and positive remarks from the surrounding city. So please do not be quick to judge all seminaries and label all seminarians as unpure people. Thank you for all your prayers. God Bless!

[Winchester]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1089615' date='Oct 11 2006, 10:19 PM']

It depends on the nature of the "off-color" joke, but I'm not a fan of sexual jokes in general. And what I may say to one or two people in private I wouldn't necessarily say to an audience or strangers.

Like the alcoholism, it depends on the context. If they're joking about being unchaste, like "Haha, we're Seminarians and we're unchaste", then that's unacceptable. And if it's happening all the time, then something is wrong there.

Besides, since when do guys joke about themselves like that? Most impure humor is about others, not yourself. Who wants to talk about themselves with another guy?
[/quote]

I engage in self mockery quite often. I make those sorts of jokes and so do the other guys I work with because we're comfortable around each other.

If they're not actually unchaste, then what would be the problem? If someone has a problem, then joking about it can lighten the burden. There's too broad a brush being used here.


[quote name='Anomaly' post='1089623' date='Oct 11 2006, 10:27 PM']
Alphonsus was a party pooper.

Era,
Guys do make those type of jokes. After almost 30 years in construction, hiring all types of people from bank robbers, rapists, murderers, perverts, and child molestors, you get exposed to a broad spectrum of people. Sometimes people who know better do so because it makes them 'earthy, blue collar, and one of the guys'. Others do it because they know no better. I'm saddenned that seminarians show such little class or lack of effort and that it's defended.
[/quote]

Well, I'm sorry I'm among the perverts you described and that I have such low class. I reckon I'm jest a dumb hick.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1089631' date='Oct 11 2006, 10:38 PM']
Drunkeness=state of being drunk.

One can drink without drinking to the point of drunkeness.

(As a general statement, it's a little hard to debate what was going on at that seminary and whether it was sinful, or how sinful, when none of us has actually witnessed it - this is all going on vague hearsay.)
[/quote]

I define drunkenness as the habit of remaining drunk, so I don't agree with your usage in this instance.

At what point, exaclty, is one drunk as opposed to, well, what is it when your judgement is impaired but you're not vomiting? Inbriated?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1089778' date='Oct 12 2006, 07:17 AM']
I engage in self mockery quite often. I make those sorts of jokes and so do the other guys I work with because we're comfortable around each other.

If they're not actually unchaste, then what would be the problem? If someone has a problem, then joking about it can lighten the burden. There's too broad a brush being used here.
Well, I'm sorry I'm among the perverts you described and that I have such low class. I reckon I'm jest a dumb hick.[/quote]LOL. I'm a certified hick, I'd never call anyone that and mean it as an insult.

Stubborn as hell, maybe lacking in social graces, but not a hick. Hicks is raised by 'der mommas better'n dat an' woulda taken a willa switch to you backside for mouthin'.

[Winchester]

I think there's an untrue assumption being made. The brush being used is too broad.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1089778' date='Oct 12 2006, 07:17 AM']
I define drunkenness as the habit of remaining drunk, so I don't agree with your usage in this instance.

At what point, exaclty, is one drunk as opposed to, well, what is it when your judgement is impaired but you're not vomiting? Inbriated?
[/quote]
Drunkeness means simply being drunk.
I have no idea where your definition comes from.

It is always a sin to deliberately get drunk.
For moral purposes, this is defined as drinking to the point where you are not in control of your actions, or you say and do things which you would normally never say or do.
This is not the same as just being slightly tipsy. There's not always an exact hard and fast line, but you can use common sense judgement.
And if you drink to the point of making yourself sick, or where you pass out, or where you cannot remember what you did the next day, you've definitely drunk too much.

(I thought a "Church Scholar" would know this stuff - sheesh!)

Getting drunk is sinful, not just being in a state of near-perpetual drunkeness.
That is like saying there's nothing wrong with theft, so long as one does not make a career of thievery.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1090089' date='Oct 12 2006, 07:58 PM']
Drunkeness means simply being drunk.
I have no idea where your definition comes from.

It is always a sin to deliberately get drunk.
For moral purposes, this is defined as drinking to the point where you are not in control of your actions, or you say and do things which you would normally never say or do.
This is not the same as just being slightly tipsy. There's not always an exact hard and fast line, but you can use common sense judgement.
And if you drink to the point of making yourself sick, or where you pass out, or where you cannot remember what you did the next day, you've definitely drunk too much.

(I thought a "Church Scholar" would know this stuff - sheesh!)

Getting drunk is sinful, not just being in a state of near-perpetual drunkeness.
That is like saying there's nothing wrong with theft, so long as one does not make a career of thievery.
[/quote]

My definition comes from my usage. I would think someone named Socrates would understand that part of debate involves defining words.

You have defined drunk in a particular manner. Very well. I will agree to your definition. It seems reasonable and sounds consistent with what I've heard before.

Over time, when people discuss morality, they develop peculiar usages. I've had similar discussions with a group of friends, and we found the delineations useful. Language evolves in such a manner, but problems arise when someone like me comes to someone like you and tries to apply them without explaining.

Oh, and from Merriam-Webster:

Pronunciation: 'dr&[ng]-k&n
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English druncen, from past participle of drincan to drink
1 : DRUNK 1 <a drunken driver>
2 obsolete : saturated with liquid
3 a : given to habitual excessive use of alcohol b : of, relating to, or characterized by intoxication <they come from...broken homes, drunken homes -- P. B. Gilliam> c : resulting from or as if from intoxication <a drunken brawl>
4 : unsteady or lurching as if from alcoholic intoxication
- drunk·en·ly adverb
- drunk·en·ness /-k&n-n&s/ noun

Maybe that influenced me.

There are often different definitions for words. They even vary from dictionary to dictionary.

[jezic]

Debates like these prove that many do not really know seminarys and what they are about.

[Winchester]

Actually, this debate seems to prove people disagree on the nature of the actions and whether they are acceptable or not.

Is anyone surprised that seminarians act like regular people? I'm not. Of course, I wasn't surprised when the whole priest sexual abuse story "broke." I've not had illusions of superhumans running the Church since I was 13. Weeds in the wheat.

[Winchester]

Now I think it's a bloody shame someone started a snit match and hasn't responded to my return snit...

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1094429' date='Oct 17 2006, 08:50 PM']
Now I think it's a bloody shame someone started a snit match and hasn't responded to my return snit...
[/quote]
May if offer profuse apologies if it was I, who failed to carry my portion of snit.

[Winchester]

No, no, it was Socrates. He went down the (usually unwinnable, poor dear) definition road. It was cute.

[Anomaly]

I love the definition route! It is very winnable. The trick is to get the other person to define, and then you rip it apart if it isn't a dictionary definition. Subjective opinion is such a shakey foundation.

Does drunk mean 'impaired' or simply above the legal driving limit? What is the extent of 'impairment? What is the age, maturity, and experience of the observer? The level of "drunkeness" I may display in a social setting where over 17 teens are would be different than at an all-adult party that I'm not driving.

In this thread, the points that concerned me were:
Minors drinking to the point of observable behavior changes.
Comments by persons that this activity was both typical of seminaries and common.

In today's world of priests that have a crippled sexual maturity, an over-sexed common public culture, the damage that scandal has already caused, the cultural attack on moral and decency...

But I was expecting to see snit flying.

[Winchester]

The problem with the dictionary route is the plethora of dictionaries. To cover your bases, you'd best have several copies, or you look kind of dumb.

Part of debate is ironing out definitions. It makes one look unfamiliar with this if the argument looks like something ripped out of a Scrabble tournament.