BS: At last a Pope talks some sense

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 12:32 AM

I can sympathize with your experience, Ed. My experience as a Catholic was different, and I'm not sure why. I spent eight years in a seminary in Milwaukee, studying to become a priest. I left because I wanted to get married.

Yeah, I remember some people teaching "only Roman Catholics could go to heaven" - and I thought it was a delicious irony when the Catholic Church excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre, who taught just that.

I suppose I encountered a fair number of Catholic priests and nuns who were less-than-admirable people - but to me, they were just bad people, and not representative of the Catholic Church. And I'm not sure what causes the different perspective. It seemed to me that the good people were representative of the Church, and the bad ones were just bastards.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: olddude
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 12:03 AM

I am a catholic, I also feel right at home in any denomination. I have attended services at everything from Baptist, Lutheran, Assembly of God and so on ... When one believes in God one doesn't worry about what building the go into to worship ... I practice the Catholic faith because I as of yet have had no reason to abandoned the church. However those that have there is nothing wrong with that either. One is free to follow God where ever they find themselves closer to him. Do I blindly follow the leaders of the Church, heck no ... any church has its good and bad since it is run by people. Faith in a church will always let you down, faith in God never does ...

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Feb 10 - 11:46 PM

beeliner

Yes I was a Catholic for 40 odd years....and in fact I am very proud of my decision, and the right one, not to be directly associated with this church anymore. My chouice to leave was after such shameful priest actions with children and the coverup at highest levels.

When I left I became free and it opened my eyes and mind directly to Gods teachings the the Bible. ...not through the foggy lenses I once wore as an obedient member of the RC church. ...btw, Gods words directly guide all humans,not just Roman Catholics.

I recall when I attended RC catechism as a teen, our Priest openly tought us children that only Roman Catholics could go to heaven. I was the only person to speak up that this can not be the message of a kind God. I was ignored. And, this has been repeated in words and writings of more senor RC officials through the RC history. These are not the words of God....but of those who have strayed from Gods messages....for some other reasons.

When I words like "with which God expected Catholics to comply", I am reminded of the narrow vision I was taught as a RC....that God only speaks to Roman Catholics.

I do respect the choice of other loyal members of the Rome ruled church. and their dedication to their faith. However, if RCs expect respect from persons with other convictions, they must extend a similar respect to those with different views on religeon and Gods teachings.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Feb 10 - 10:17 PM

Royston, I think I more-or-less see things the way you do. I have my own spiritual path, and I have no desire to impose that path on anybody else. I don't want to defend that path, become moving into defensive mode takes something away from it.
Still, I think there are many here who feel compelled to attack the spiritual paths that others take, without fully understanding those paths.
I grew up in the Roman Catholic tradition, and I made it work - for me, and for a number of people who attend the classes I teach at church. I know other Catholics who follow paths that are completely foreign to me, particularly when their faith leads them to injustice and intolerance and blind obedience.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 13 Feb 10 - 09:52 PM

"with which God expected Catholics to comply"
Kind of an odd statement - EdT

Perhaps odd-sounding to a non-Catholic, but Ed, you claim to be - or to have been - a Catholic, so you should be aware of the source of the Church's mandate to 'bind and loose' in ecclesiastical matters like laws of fasting and abstinence. Few Catholics would dispute the Church's authority in such matters. The laws regarding, for example, mixed marriages have also changed over the years.

Whether that authority extends to matters not related to worship, such as which methods of birth control or fertility enhancement are acceptable, is another matter.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Feb 10 - 02:53 PM

:0)

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 13 Feb 10 - 01:52 PM

"Oh what a tangled web of hypocrisy we weave, when we attempt to rationalise "rights", "equality", "legality", "health issues", "the real world".....Ake"

Or to quote the original: "When first we practice to deceive".

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Feb 10 - 12:09 PM

Royston ,

Often people see (not to be confused with the Holy See) what they wish to see, that reinforces...even justify, a decision taken for a variety of reasons...and ignore the rest. I would never suggest that any Holy Father from any religeon (just in case there is more than one) missed any piece of information or doctrine...as some may causuall, or otherwise, suggest.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Royston
Date: 13 Feb 10 - 11:44 AM

Well, Ed.T. I didn't know that was in the RC Catechism. I wonder how the Holy Father and so many others managed to miss it. How can we bring their error to their attention?

But seriously, is not the point about religious or spiritual practice that adherents must consider the options - if they see any - and make a choice to stick to?

For a believer, the "right" spiritutal practice is the one they feel, instinctively, brings them to God or as close as possible to that instinctive spiritual "home", a spiritual place of safety and security.

People who find that in their spiritual practice rarely, in my experience, are the type to get concerned with spiritual dogma or any sort of absolutism and generally are the least loudly proselytising.

People of different faiths and practice who have experienced that spiritual fulfilment share an idiom for describing it that cuts through a lot of the sort of internecine conflict that is often assumed to exist between people of differing religious practice.

So transubstantiation, consubstantiation, buddhist meditiation, jewish or muslim prayer. Different routes to the same place. Nobody should feel the need to justify any of it, and if you don't "get it", then it is unlikely anyone could rationalise it for you. If the practitioner doesn't use their experience as a weapon to attack others, what harm can there be?

One of the religious dogmas that bothers me most, is Atheism - as practiced by Dawkins et al. The fervour and zeal with which they strive to prove a negative - against all scientific principles that say such proof can never exist - and attack and demean and ridicule people for generally being good and nice, or for just finding a way through life that works for them, is every bit as disturbing as the worst zealotry that the main religions can offer.

Everyone seeks to find some internal understanding of their place in this universe and for a raison d'etre. Some people get it through religion, some people get it from a sense of their accidental and brief place in an impossibly awe-inspiring accidental universe, some people get it from their own place, daily life and family; and need look no further. Dawkins et al seem to be needing to find their's in a rather different and troubled way. Just my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Feb 10 - 11:09 AM

Paragraph No. 2358 of the RC Catechism : "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Feb 10 - 11:07 AM

Oh what a tangled web of hypocrisy we weave, when we attempt to rationalise "rights", "equality", "legality", "health issues","the real world".....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Feb 10 - 09:16 AM

"with which God expected Catholics to comply"

Kind of an odd statement

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 13 Feb 10 - 06:07 AM

"In our community, even eating meat on Friday and women wearing head cover at church was considered a commandment of God....and of course the church. EdT"

The first was never a commandment of God but a precept of the Church (with which God expected Catholics to comply). In fact, it remains so - the only change is the schedule - now it's only on Ash Wednesday (coming up next week - buy that salmon filet now before they're gone!) and Fridays in Lent.

The second was neither, only a custom of the times.

Also, I'm not sure that many Anglicans were willing to die over the denial of transsubstantiation as a previous poster claimed. Anglicans like to stress that they believe in CONsubstantiation rather than TRANS, but that is largely a matter of semantics. Both Churches believe in the Real Presence, and the best explanation is that we believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist becasue He told us that He would be. Those of faith require no further explanation.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Feb 10 - 03:42 AM

The idea of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist dates to early Christian times, most notably to the writings of St. Justin, Martyr, about 150 AD. Chapter 11 of I Corinthians is also referred to with regards to this, and Chapter 6 of the Gospel of John.

The doctrine of transubstantiation put this belief into the language of metaphysics. The doctrine was promulgated by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215.

I took a semester of metaphysics, and it just isn't the way I think; so I prefer the less-theoretical and less-legalistic concept of Real Presence. But yes, I believe that when I receive communion, I receive Christ. And as I said before, this is sacred to me - my faith is part of who I am and where I come from. I wouldn't expect others to believe this unless they are Catholics or members of other faiths that believe in the Real Presence, but it is something that is very sacred to me.


-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 10:29 PM

In our community, even eating meat on Friday and women wearing head cover at church was considered a commandment of God....and of course the church. EdT
                   ================

Such old habits die hard. When the then Pope abolished the Friday abstinence in 1964, my Stevenage school went on providing a fish alternative on Fridays. "You know, John," I said to one boy, "you don't have to get that fish any more; The Pope has said it's OK to eat meat on Friday." ~~ "It isn't The Pope, Sir," he replied cheerfully; "it's my mum."

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 09:44 PM

BTW, if anyone is interested in reading up on RC Popes in History, and their involvement in the history of many countries, this is an OK (quick) source....that does not give you too much overload:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 09:35 PM

I grew up as a RC, and never questioned any of the church dogma. In our community, even eating meat on Friday and women wearing head cover at church was considered a commandment of God....and of course the church.

Because of the Priest scandal, I left the RC church and am loosly associated with the Anglican Church....because it feels more RC than the others....though, I would feel comfortable inside any Christian Church.

Even though I do not consider myself part of the organized RC church, part of my essence is from my early learning...which is RC. The more I read, the reasoning part of me says transubstantiation and the way it evolves makes minimal sense. However, being raised as a RC, I have feel quite spiritually accepting to transubstantiation...because, as Joe states, it is now an important part of the RC faith.

On a logical side, I feel, why not? What do I know, or any of the material that I read. So, what would be the downside of believing in transubstantiation. If it makes you feel good, and gets you close to God and your spiritual side....why not go with the flow.

However, if you have not been steeped in the RC docrine in early life, I can understand that it can be difficult to buy into....and yes, its history within the RC church and outside may seem on the sketchy side., as I stated earlier.

So, I can joke about it and question the logic....if it serves a puirpose. But, the RC side of me (which will likely always be present) is quite comfortable....and even spiritually warmed by transubstantiation.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 09:06 PM

Didn't Carly Simon once say in a song:
Transubstantiation, transubstantiation
Is making me late
Is keeping me waiting

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 09:01 PM

The more you read on transubstantiation, the more it's history seems kind of sketchy.

It seems like transubstantiation in the RC church does not date back to the Last Supper, but to Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine monk, published a treatise openly advocating the doctrine of transubstantiation in 831.

It took about four hundred years to get accepted, at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D (after about 176 RC popes sat without it, and around the time of King John and the fourth Crusade), where it was officially defined and canonized as a dogma of the RC church.

Like many of the beliefs and rites of Romanism, transubstantiation was first practiced by pagan religions...source: http://associate.com/library/The_Reading_Room/False_Teaching_n_Teachers_3/Transubstantiation.shtml


Some useful information sites:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc4.i.xi.xxi.html


http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=transub

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: pdq
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 08:55 PM

transubstantiation - A place where BART trains stop.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 08:51 PM

The question is whether it is right to impose that policy by law on every adoption society in the country

WHAT policy? How can one say if it is right to impose a policy if no one will tell one what policy is at issue? I thought that's what I had asked for; if not, mea culpa. I'd love to either emphatically agree with you or violently disagree with you, if only I knew what the issue was.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 08:47 PM

Well, yes, I believe in transubstantiation - that somehow the bread and wine becomes Christ. That's a central and sacred belief for Catholics.

Understanding is another matter - it gets into a language I don't want to speak. My understanding is what I said, that somehow the bread and wine becomes Christ. How do I explain what's sacred to me, in the words of those who don't consider those things sacred? All I can say is that it means a lot to me.


-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 08:33 PM

But that's not at issue. The question is whether it is right to impose that policy by law on every adoption society in the country.

Is that really all that different from imposing the reverse policy, and insisting that all adoption sovieties excluded gay couples?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 08:25 PM

This thread has become unmanageable. I can't determine when which subgroup enters the dialogue and who's saying what about each, short of making a little chart and I can't be arsed. Instead please allow me to ask: which people are you against discrimination against? I'm probably against discriminating against them too.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 08:23 PM

If I can borrow from Crow Sisters thoughtful reply to my earlier question:

"Where there is (an) immediate necessity of a child for a stable loving environment", why wouldn't a gay couple, in a committed and loving relationship (akin to a marrage, or a marriage, where law permits), be a good choice for adoptive parents? Just wondering where folks line up on this type situation.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 08:09 PM

The point isn't whether it should be illegal for any of those categories of people to adopt, but whether it is right that it should be illegal for any adoption society to have a policy of not placing children with them. Which isn't the case so far as smokers, or obese people, or polygamists are concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 07:59 PM

Your imagination is stunted.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 07:52 PM

Come to think of it, If I were dead (which I'm not, yet) and if I were then sentient and cognisant (which I wouldn't be) and had left minor children on earth (not the case unless I get remarkably lucky very soon), I'd be mighty pissed at the thought of them going to the home of some god-botherers to be indoctrinated rather than allowed and encouraged to think.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 07:31 PM

I don't understand why anybody gives Richard Dawkins the time of day. But people do.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 07:29 PM

Sure - I just don't understand why anyone believes it..

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 07:20 PM

Does anybody understand transubstantiation?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 07:03 PM

"Does anyone believe in transubstantiation?"

There's one at the end of our road - it's green.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 07:00 PM

Having thought about this discussion of adoption from the point of view of what I would want for my own children should the necessity arise, I must confess it has brought out prejudices I never knew I had, and of which some might say I should be ashamed. I suggest that whatever anyone's opinions concerning adoption may be, they should first apply them to their own children. (That remark is not directed at anyone in particular)

That aside, I'm a nicotine addict but I never smoke in front of or near my boys, nor will anyone else if I'm there to prevent it. I don't see why foster parents couldn't do the same. For the record, I feel the same way about drinking too, although partial to a drop now and again.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 06:48 PM

Many people were prepared to go to the stake over their lack of belief in transubstantiation.

Does anyone believe in transubstantiation? (Be honest!)

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 04:52 PM

Ed T - I'd say yes. The immediate necessity of a child for a stable loving environment overrides any politically correct side-issies to *my* mind. Where parents that are *more* suited to a childs needs are available, then those may be preferenced. But if it's a case of white smoking stable home for a black adolescent is concerned, versus pretty much nothing, I'd go with the smoking white family. People who are trained in this kind of thing, might differ. But that'd be my uneducated take.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 04:44 PM

Should non aboriginal people be allowed to adopt aboriginal children?
There was significant abuse and loss of culture of aboriginal children in Canada and other countries through church sponsored adoption and residential school programs (Anglican and others).

And should white people be allowed to adopt black children....especially from countries of different cultures (Africa, Haiti etc).

And,,,of course, there is significant western adoptions from China.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 04:02 PM

Furthermore the inequity of such a ruling bothers me deeply. Natural parents are not dissallowed from parenting by law because they smoke. Children without parents simply need parents and stable homes far more than they need sterile smoke free zones.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 03:59 PM

"I think that smokers ought not to be allowed to adopt. Many would agree. The danger, to the child, is not abstract or subjective; it is real and present."

But the minimal health risks are surely far less than the deep psychological damage of a child remaining in an institution, because all prospective adoptive families containing smoker are ruled out of adopting?

Slicing the pool of potential adoptee's in such a blanket fashion strikes me to the core when I think of the amount of kids simply desperate to find *loving homes*.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Royston
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 02:34 PM

Well, McG, I think that smokers ought not to be allowed to adopt. Many would agree. The danger, to the child, is not abstract or subjective; it is real and present.

I can see only limited circumstances that would preclude an obese person, I see none that would preclude an 'overweight' person, I see none that would preclude a gay couple or a polygamic setup where such an arrangement is lawful.

What do others say?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 02:16 PM

My point was that it would not be considered as intolerable for an adoption society to have a policy of excluding people who smoke, or people who are overweight. And I would think that the same would be true when it came to an adoption society with a policy of excluding families where there are more than two parents, in countries where arrangements like that are legal, such as South Africa or Pakistan.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Royston
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 01:57 PM

Ah, yes, Richard.

Please excuse the erstwhile apostrophe, it is the blackberry taking on a mind of its own.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 12:55 PM

Actually, Royston, I was thinking of a certain mother who could not.

Beeliner, it was you who used the word "filthy" - and that gave you away. You are simply trying to thrust your puritanical (or papal - I don't really care which) inhibitions onto other people.

For the reasons I gave, people are going to take their sexual pleasures. Those who willingly join them are their own custodians and the only appropriate condemnation is of those who take their pleasures from those who do not consent, or who are not fit to consent, or are tricked or pressed into apparent consent.

Keep your nose out of other people's bedrooms.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Royston
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 12:33 PM

Ah yes, Richard, I should be more precise.

I was an ardent smoker. I smoked with a passion that would rival the pope's for his cassocks.

But then I found the right motivation and gave up quite easily. Knowing what we know now about the danger of smoke to kids' health, I am sure that good prospective parents would find the right motivation.

I don't think smoker's can necessarily take or leave their drug as and when they like.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 12:09 PM

Two quotes from Richard:

"Filthy sexual behaviour" - give me a break, I thought stupid ideas like that died out in the early 60s.

Even if God existed the idea of a licence to do evil in the name of GOd is farcical.

Richard, you can use whatever adjective you wish. If you don't like 'filthy', substitute 'reckless', 'amoral', 'potentially lethal', or any other description you like.

The fine (artistically) young actor Ray Sharkey got AIDS from needle sharing, gave it to several young women before he died, they all died later, I would call that filthy behavior. He didn't do that because he was a Catholic, he did it because he was a contemptible, amoral louse.

The point is, neither the Catholic Church nor any other Church, except possibly the Church of Satan, is going to say 'If you commit adultery, do it this way', as poster mouse seems to believe they should.

And that, of course, brings us to your second quote above. I thought that was what I had been saying all along.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 07:54 AM

Nobody prepared to take me on about sodomite papist priests ?

Kiddly fiddler papist priests ?

papist priests who called my first wife a whore and our children bastards, because she and I got married in a register office ?

Well, beeliner - et al ?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Allan C
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 07:27 AM

"just doesn't make sense to talk about the British when what is meant is the English.

But "English" doesn't quite hit the mark either, Allan C, since quite a few of the occupiers were more French tghan English...."

But English makes much more sense than British in the fact that it was the English kingdom involved in a war against the French and Scottish kingdoms. You do have a valid point though! I noticed in another thread someone was going on about "the British" invading Ireland 900 years ago. Of course again it makes no sense to say British as it was vassals of the English King who invaded. Scotland was a completely seperate entity not involved and Wales was itself under the cosh and would soon be completely under a more thorough occupation than Ireland suffered. But you are right and certainly it makes no sense at that very early stage to lump the invaders under the description "the English" as the invaders were by and large the same Franco-Norman nobility who had invaded England itself a century beforehand and was still dominating that country.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 05:33 AM

I suppose if you believe in superstitions, and especially religious superstition, you are comfortable with using words such as "moral" and "evil." After all, they are words used to compare your sanctimony with "the others."

Right and wrong are enshrined in law, via Parliament. Any moral judgement over and above that is a personal one and only relates to yourself. Just because you feel the need to have an imaginary friend does not make your argument any stronger, (or indeed less strong to be fair.) It is your belief, but not necessarily anybody else's.

Hence the uncomfortable situation for the majority of the voting public when a church leader (even a foreign one) tries to influence law based on their moral compass. We have Anglican Bishops in The Lords as it is, and it is about time there was disestablishment, especially as they "represent" a tiny minority now.

I do accept that religious groups only want opt outs for themselves rather than oppose the whole bill on principle, but doesn't that alone seem strange to you? It does me. If they claim they are in the right, then their view is to apply to all, as they claim we are all part of their vision?

I saw a comic on the box last night who summed it up perfectly. "If we are all God's children, what makes Jesus so special?"

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 04:29 AM

"their choice to smoke, which they can change as and when they like" - is a bit of an overstatement. I'm sure you know, Royston, to whom I refer.

But current scientific views are that passive smoking is harmful, so if that be right, then reluctance for smokers to adopt is rational.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Royston
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 02:47 AM

McG. I'm note sure about your point regarding discriminations, can you clarify?

It seems obvious that smokers would be discriminated against - their choice to smoke, which they can change as and when they like, is instantly and physically harmful to the extent of being life-threatening and life-limiting for the child.

I'm not so sure about the overweight issue and I don't know of any polygamy in this part of the world. I don't really see what would preclude either of those groups, unless an overweight person was physically unable to look after children for reasons of restricted mobility or other health issues.

Stable homosexual couples, screened and pored over every bit as heterosexual couples for their suitability and demonstrable aptitude for parenting, is there a problem there?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 11:59 PM

the idea of a licence to do evil in the name of God is farcical.

Agreed.