You were saying that since some term (or many terms) used by the Catholic Church can also be used as a sexual term, that may have something to do with the sex abuse scandals. Here is what you said again so that people may see it in its full luncacy:
This is fascinating. Thanks to nws for enlightening us on Romanist terminology.
Quix- I’m thinking this goes a long ways to explaining the pedophile problem that exists amongst Romanists. If their theological language is coterminous with sexual language this association can lead to actions in which a person believes that the act in the natural sphere somehow relates to a theological goodness. This would be especially prevalent amongst those involved in priestcraft because they are always working in both spheres.
What say you?
Here is what you said just now:
This is instructive as to the collectivist mindset of Romanists. For Collectivists there is no differentiation between individual parts and the general class. All individual aspects are merely in relation to the class and those individual aspects must submit to the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is no wonder then that a majority of Romanists have an affinity for socialistic political ideologies.
Are you bringing up a new topic, or is this supposed to have anything to do with what has been previously said in our conversation?
OK, let me spell it out for you. I was contemplating whether a term that has one meaning in a theological sense might get confused with it’s normal secular meaning amongst those within the Romanist priestcraft. So while the term in the dogmatic sense might have a different meaning it may be the case that these different meanings become conflated in the mind of an individual who then applies the secular understanding in a theological sense.
So as you can clearly see I was not discussing the merits or demerits of any particular Romanist dogma but rather the psychological effects that may occur to someone who deals with a term that has multiple meanings in the course of their craft.