# Priest psychology: why do men become Priests? **URL:** \ **Category:** General\ **Created:** [January 21, 2025, 8:12pm UTC](https://forum.catholictalk.net/t/priest-psychology-why-do-men-become-priests/1996 "2025-01-21T20:12:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 10
**Author:** ![Cade\_One](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex015/user_avatar/forum.catholictalk.net/cade_one/32/34_2.png) [@Cade\_One](https://forum.catholictalk.net/u/Cade_One)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2025, 4:58pm UTC](https://forum.catholictalk.net/t/priest-psychology-why-do-men-become-priests/1996/10 "2025-01-24T16:58:13Z")
> [@MrCurious](#): > > I gather that you believe that "if we are here by accident, ‘nothing’ matters’ ". I do not see how the first idea implies the second one; and I do not know what you mean by “nothing matters”. If we are nothing more than a bunch of atoms bumping into one another, then what we do to one another is also nothing more than atoms bumping into other atoms. Human beings have value, because of who we are in God’s image. My point is that if we are not created by God, but simply a result of particles evolving over time then we are more like jewelry, which are just shiny rocks. > [@](#): > > To the best of my knowledge, “the golden rule” is timeless and is found in all religions and philosophies. I believe in it. It seems to me that you believe morality is a consensus. If the majority believe something to be true, then it is more likely to be true. Whereas I believe that truth is objective, in spite of how many individuals believe something to be true or not. If 99% of individuals believed something to be moral, it does not make it so. And maybe you agree. The problem with _The Golden Rule_ is that it is kind of subjective in of itself. Do unto others as you would want done unto you. It is by this rule that I tend to mind my own business and leave people alone when they are dealing with things. It is why I dislike that show, “What Would You Do,” where they put people in certain situations and then tell you that you are wrong for not intervening, when I don’t think it is any of my business to intervene. Apparently the producers of the show do believe it is more moral to intervene. I once asked a _moral relativist_ a question about a topic that I thought everyone agreed upon, namely that rąpe is evil. I used this extreme example, because I thought pretty much every human being agreed that this act against another human being is morally wrong. But, he argued that it depends on the circumstances. In some cases, rąpe is not only morally acceptable, but even good. He said that in the case that the human species was not procreating at a sustainable rate, then it is okay. I disagree. Even in these circumstances, it would be wrong to commit such an evil act. You brought up the Society of Jesus (better known as _The Jesuits_). They have been known to teach a thing known as situational ethics, which is where you pit two immoral things to one another and force one to choose which is the _right_ choice, based on the outcome of said choice. Don’t get me wrong, I find the thought experiment fun, like playing the “Trial by Trolley” board game, but it does not make a wrong choice right, but rather necessary. If my family is starving and I go to a market and steal bread, it does not make my actions morally good. It simply makes my actions necessary. Does this make sense? > [@](#): > > It is undeniable that the history of the Catholic Church, _as an organization_, includes lots of bad stuff. Yes, as any human organization does. Governments, government schools, corporations, etc. Anywhere you have fallen human nature, you have corruption. It also does not make it right. > [@](#): > > Show me where the church apologized for the wars against Muslims. Let me recommend a few boobs by [Steve Weidenkopf](https://shop.catholic.com/search.php?search_query=Steve+Weidenkopf§ion=product). He gives context to some of these dark times in the Church’s History. > [@](#): > > Please tell me where the church apologized for burning Joan of Arc. The Catholic Church did actually exonerate her through a retrial and has canonized her as a Saint. The Church ruled that the original trial was biased and did not follow proper procedure. > [@](#): > > Please show me where the Society of Jesus apologized for publishing the most idiotic anti-Semitism for 100 years in its periodical LaCivilta Cattolica. I don’t really know much about this. What I do know is that the Jesuits are sometimes referred to as “the Jews of the Catholic Church” (a derogatory term), which is ironic, since you claim that they are anti-Semitic. Rather than paint everyone of a particular order with a wide brush, I like to look at the behavior of individuals. Who authored the articles that you are offended by? Was this individual(s) anti-Semitic? Maybe so. The publication you are referring to was long before my lifetime, and I am not a fan of the Jesuits, so it is not a publication that I would read today. _America_ Magazine is a Jesuit publication that I do not read today. > [@](#): > > I am always interested in learning more about the beliefs and behavior of others. Same. You are in good company : ) > [@](#): > > Apologies for poor quoting etc, I am still learning how to use this site. No worries. You’ll get there. Did you know that there is [a training](https://forum.catholictalk.net/t/have-you-completed-the-catholictalk-forum-training/236) you can take to better understand how to use this site? --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.catholictalk.net/t/priest-psychology-why-do-men-become-priests/1996)._