BS: The Pope in America

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 10:25 AM

"The Church's official position is to discourage the use of contraception. But, as long as you carefully consider your own context and read the reasons for the Church's stance (here's a link...), and always act with good will and conscience, you will not be condemned for going against this position, and you will not be in sin."


There. That'll do. Meet Pope Steve I.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 10:18 AM

I would point out, just in case, that I was not quoting that website to further my argument about the Church's position but to show the lack of clarity about what Catholics should and shouldn't be doing. This notion of saying something vague and circumlocutory in a catechism, or in Humanae Vitae, or anywhere else, in order to conceal the real feet-dragging dinosaur inside, placing all the onus on the flock who are then frequently at the mercy of priestly middlemen, displays a basic dishonesty. Many millions of Roman Catholics are simple souls who need to have things put to them in simple, straightforward language. It wouldn't hurt the cleverer ones either, come to think of it. We're not all products of years in a seminary or lengthy courses in theology and philosophy.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 09:56 AM

The audacity ...........

Audacity? Naah, that's WISDOM! See other thread.....

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 09:30 AM

It would have to be a list DMcG because lust is a sin!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 09:25 AM

... Ie in the early sixties, some two decades before he was born. And I find it difficult to find any rationale for that except a list for power over his parishioners.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 09:21 AM

(still using my phone!)

Whatever the topic, simply searching the Internet and hoping it gives some sort of authoritive answer is asking to be confused. But if you were to look at Wikipedia 'catholic church and HIV/aids' there is a reference to Benedict's 2010 statement. Not that you should accept Wikipedia either but that gives q clue how-to track down the actual article.

As a Catholic I'd be automatically wary off any article that says something is declared infallibly because few things have. So that would be enough to make me suspicious of the site Steve quoted.

I totally agree about priests over stepping the mark. Even if we had no other examples, Raggy's account of how a priest treated his father would be enough, but we all know it goes far wider than that.

And it continues. I heard of a priest in a nearby parish at.the weekend who is mid thirties but insists on practices that were dropped in Vatican II

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 08:41 AM

Well in the last couple of days St Joe has called me an absolutist who doesn't understand balance and has accused me of being bereft of facts and logic, and has patronised me with a "Steve, Steve, Steve...."


Nobody's perfect I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 07:57 AM

From Ake: "I'm sure Joe did not mean his remark to be taken personally you are too quick to jump into "highly offended mode""

The post from Joe read: "Try having sex with somebody you really love, Raggytash. Then maybe you'll understand how sex can (and should) be sacred"

Just how more personal can you get than to mention someone by name.

You are correct about one thing though Ake, I am highly offended.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 07:47 AM

I'm sure Joe did not mean his remark to be taken personally you are too quick to jump into "highly offended mode"

Joe has no way of knowing the depth of any of our relationships...and I'm also sure you knew that very well.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 05:36 AM

It really is.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 05:34 AM

From the website catholic.com:

Ignoring the mountain of evidence, some maintain that the Church considers the use of contraception a matter for each married couple to decide according to their "individual conscience." Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly.

There is no way to deny the fact that the Church has always and everywhere condemned artificial contraception. The matter has already been infallibly decided. The so-called "individual conscience" argument amounts to "individual disobedience."

Now I haven't a clue how legitimate this lot are. Could be a bunch of nutcases for all I know. But a Catholic who wants clarity on the matter and who googled like I just did would likely come up with this too. Sinful or not? Don't you think the Church, after all it's said down the years about contraception, owes its members clarity? It seems to me that leaving things vague and open to interpretation is the Church's evasive way of avoiding looking like the dinosaur ort really is.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 04:49 AM

Just for the record Joe my wife and I have been together for nearly 37 years. Ups and downs through thick and thin. Do NOT preach to me about loving someone. The audacity ...........

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 04:39 AM

And please don't tell me that priests don't overstep the mark. I've heard priests telling people to vote Tory, telling a young woman with a crying baby to leave the mass, telling us to use newspaper to wipe our bottoms.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 04:28 AM

And who decided that masturbation and homosexuality were moral issues? And whatever you say, the Church does NOT sanction the use of condoms for HIV prevention. If two intelligent and highly educated western blokes can't agree on that, how's it going to go down in remote African townships where HIV is epidemic? Play safe and avoid sin, do what the priests say, die...? Now that's what I call a moral issue.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 04:10 AM

That is an awful thing to say, Joe. To imply that someone does not really love their partner when you cannot know them that well is below the belt. Why on earth would you make that suggestion?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 03:42 AM

Try having sex with somebody you really love, Raggytash. Then maybe you'll understand how sex can (and should) be sacred.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 03:25 AM

Who decided sex was sacred?

I would have thought it was not only enjoyable but the most successful way of ensuring your genes were passed to the next generation.

Sacred? Really.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 02:34 AM

Steve Shaw, in reference to Pope Benedict's statement about condoms preventing transmission of HIV: It's all very well popes agreeing with it, but they appear to lack the power, or the will, or both, to change it.

Change what, Steve? It's an interesting challenge to carry on a debate with Steve Shaw. He has an annoying tendency to ignore two things: facts, and logic.

Steve, Steve, Steve, you must be getting your information about the Catholic Church from Murdoch or Reuters or some other horribly unreliable source. You seem to have no understanding whatsoever about Catholic moral teaching. The Catholic Church does not issue a list of rules that one must obey or go to hell - if that's what you want, you have to go to Reuters. And you're right - even the Pope can't change what's said in Reuters. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the basic document of Catholic teaching. It has a lengthy section about sexuality, a very rational and balanced discussion of sex as a sacred and beautiful gift that must be handled with care. It does present Catholic Church positions on various moral issues such as masturbation and homosexuality and sex outside marriage, but it does this within a discussion of the pros and cons. And yes, as Ake says, it errs on the side of conservatism, and rightly so. If one wishes to preserve something that is sacred, a conservative approach is often a good idea - adjusting for individual circumstances, of course. The Catechism makes no mention of punishment for any transgression of the church positions on these issues - it simply discusses them and states the church's opinion. Hellfire isn't mentioned at all.

Now, Steve, I admit that your presentation was dramatic and entertaining. However, it was a tad inaccurate.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 08:57 PM

I was describing the way it is, not the way it should be. It takes two hundred to tango.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 07:52 PM

Far more valuable to do it collectively. It needn't rule out irreverant banter. But we could do without the aggression and hostility. If we can dig down far enough there is almost always some shared ground.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 07:49 PM

So single-celled organisms, and/or the many fertilized eggs that are not implanted in the placenta but are regularly sloughed off, are "human beings".

Fascinating.

In that case, every woman alive who has had sex is to be prosecuted for murder.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 07:36 PM

We can do that privately, Kevin, whilst still being forum bastards. Human nature, innit. I can't tell you how much I've learned from the banter here.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 07:27 PM

Discussions lose an awful lot when they degenerate into debates.

In a debate we argue for a predetermined position, and set out to overcome the other side, scoring debating points along the way. The aim is to win. Enjoyable enough as a sport.

In a discussion we try to explore points of difference, looking for points where people actually agree, and try to build on that. The aim is greater understanding of the way other people see things, and greater understanding of what we actually believe, which may get modified in the process.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 07:20 PM

"Well Steve , neither you, me, or anyone else alive now was around at the flood/Carboniferous, depending on presuppositions but I am sure both sides will offer an explanation of how features form. I would guess that folded solid strata was effected under intense heat. I don't see any reason why that should not happen under the massive upheavals in the flood year. Perhaps you have some idea of a tranquil rising of water rather than the geologic activity hinted at in scripture and part of the flood geology model.   One thing I would suggest is impossible is for trees to be preserved (that is..the same trunk) in more than one layer if each layer represents vast time periods, yet this is what is found, but it certainly fits the flood model where layers were laid down in quick succession."

"Well Steve..." Blimey, I've read some ignorant garbage in my time, but this truly takes the biscuit.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 07:02 PM

Save your abuse for someone who hands it out Shim.

Mr McGrath simply has a better than average irony level. Some people never manage to grasp the humour.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 06:45 PM

"There is nothing oxymoronic about "inland submarine". There are some pretty sizeable lakes."

How about contributing to the debate, McGrath, instead of being a sarcastic, grinning smart-arse on the sidelines?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 06:30 PM

The scientific method is well defined...you can Google it and get a far better phrasing than I can type quickly........... but briefly, it means to me being not only open to new data and analysis, but also understanding what sort of detail, processes and techniques are necessarily involved in objective analysis. The key is 'objective'... as close as humans can get to unbiased, objective treatment of data... as well as considering ALL relevant data.

Now you keep referring to this " Both sides are influenced by a worldview that influences how data is interpreted, and both sides endeavour to present scientific arguments to affirm theirs and detract from the other."

And here I must disagree... science, properly done, does NOT seek to detract from 'the other side'......... it seeks to give as much credence to ANY side until the evidence and analysis seems to point in one way and not another. I'm not sure how to put this, but good science has, built into it's own basic procedures, the tests for accuracy and examination. When we ask "how long has mankind been mankind?", we should not assume any answer in advance. If someone starts with 6000 years or so, that needs to be tested against answers that go to 3-4 million years or so! When the test assumes 6000 to be the answer, because calculations from Genesis give that answer, THEY are then trying to " affirm theirs and detract from the other" When they do this, they are only partially acting AS scientists, no matter what credentials they may have. Other scientists, using many, many criteria just cannot cram all the evidence into such a narrow view... several different techniques for measurement demand "millions" of years.
What more can I say?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 06:29 PM

Pedantic point: There is nothing oxymoronic about "inland submarine". There are some pretty sizeable lakes.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 05:42 PM

Well Steve , neither you, me, or anyone else alive now was around at the flood/Carboniferous, depending on presuppositions but I am sure both sides will offer an explanation of how features form. I would guess that folded solid strata was effected under intense heat. I don't see any reason why that should not happen under the massive upheavals in the flood year. Perhaps you have some idea of a tranquil rising of water rather than the geologic activity hinted at in scripture and part of the flood geology model.   One thing I would suggest is impossible is for trees to be preserved (that is..the same trunk) in more than one layer if each layer represents vast time periods, yet this is what is found, but it certainly fits the flood model where layers were laid down in quick succession.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 05:23 PM

" One reason Pete & I go over the same ground again & again is that he really does not...by his own admission... understand the technical points."

Then he needs to educate himself before he starts arguing about science!

"The thing is, bill, I do believe what good competent scientists tell me, ..."

You mean 'creationist scientists', don't you, Pete? In other words people who spout pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo on creationist websites and tell you the sorts of things that you want to hear. A 'creationist scientist' is an oxymoron - remember? Like an 'inland submarine'.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 05:06 PM

"Abortion may be necessary in certain circumstances, but abortion on demand is killing another person for personal convenience...and the Church is correct to oppose it."

As far as I'm aware, the Church does not allow abortion under any circumstances. Of course, this law is a complete ass, as millions of Catholics demur and a good number ignore it with good conscience. As for your emotive claim about abortion on demand being done for personal convenience, you are declaring a blanket judgement on millions of people which simply can't be justified. In other words, you're guessing, and it's a pretty lousy guess.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 04:45 PM

It's all very well popes agreeing with it, but they appear to lack the power, or the will, or both, to change it.

Commiserations apropos of the technology. I spend more time amending my posts than I do dreaming 'em up!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 04:09 PM

Arggh
I give up until I get near a real keyboard

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 04:02 PM

Blooming Autocorrect on this phone again. "But that means" for wxamplw

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 03:59 PM

Don't you think this attitude... Is abut disingenuous?

That's a fair enough question, Steve. It is all to do with who, in the last resort, is responsible for my actions. Can I, in fact, appeal to the defence "I was just following orders?" I don't think so, which I have no alternative to being able to justify then to myself. Buttons raises a separate and equally important aspect: soean't that mean I am just doing what I want anyway? And that is a genuine risk. So it is actually the slow rate if change of the church that helps. You have already deal of what in the legal world would be case law and precedent and whatever I decide to do needs to be weighed against that. Not that I always agree with it, but I try keep the idea I may not be right.

As to use of condoms to prevent HIV I agree with you. As, you will recall from an earlier post of Joe's, did Pope Benedict.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 03:56 PM

The thing is, bill, I do believe what good competent scientists tell me, and I presume you would say the same.   However, I try not to rely on the fact that I do trust them, but rather try to only use arguments I can use with at least some understanding.   I might be as frustrated as you in your not taking my pov on board. You present this as a science against creationism debate , and I could make a reverse simplistic equation.   Both sides are influenced by a worldview that influences how data is interpreted, and both sides endeavour to present scientific arguments to affirm theirs and detract from the other. You mention the scientific method. Would you care to explain what you mean by that, and how that informs origins science?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 03:29 PM

Actually, Dave, I think it's a combination of that (evidence? Why, sign 'em up as early as you can, preferably at the mewling and puking stage) and of its being a very useful instrument of control. If there's one thing most people can't manage without, it's sex, so what better area of human activity for shoving your oar in and making a set of almost impossible to keep rules, retaining, of course, the double whammy of guilt and the threat of hellfire for failing to comply. And, for the anti-absolutists among you who think that, well, yes, there are rules I suppose, but we can take or leave 'em, tell us this: what sort of an organisation is that! With hundreds of millions of members, ranging from the very savvy in the wealthy West to the poverty-stricken and uneducated villagers in Africa, Central America and the Far East, don't you think that this attitude that the "rules are there to be interpreted" is just a little bit arbitrary and disingenuous? And, in the case of forbidding condoms even for the prevention of HIV transmission, ever so slightly murderous? Still, it's your club...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 03:27 PM

"Belief and understanding in this instance are antithetical concepts."

No... they are not- unless that's another swipe at Pete. It is quite possible to understand another's position without agreeing with him...... in fact, you cannot adequately argue with him unless you make the effort to comprehend his position & reasoning.

   One reason Pete & I go over the same ground again & again is that he really does not...by his own admission... understand the technical points. He repeats HIS reasoning, and makes links to Creationist reasoning, and he is satisfied to stay where he is.... and that's fine for private beliefs. I merely feel obligated to lay out stuff *I* have studied in detail when confronted by certain assertions in a (this in particular) public forum.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 03:00 PM

:-D

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 02:58 PM

Unless you happen to be Jesus. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 02:03 PM

Actually every aspect of human existence is associated with sex. No sex, no human existence.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 01:50 PM

The restrictions on birth control were primarily a survival plan. The more people in our 'gang' the safer we are. Same for ensuring by that the children brought about by the lack of contraception remain part of that gang. No need for it nowadays but sadly old habits die hard :-( I may get in lumber for this but I see the dress styles of orthodox Muslims as a similar ploy. The more people can see how many Muslims there are the safer they will feel and the more annoyed the bigots become. Those old blokes in frocks must be rubbing their hands in glee and sadly many still fall for it!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 01:38 PM

I tried to make the list accurate and complete. I could easily have just listed the things I don't agree with. I agree with the Church about rape and pornography. I have some issues with one or two other things and I vehemently disagree with others. Joe Offer, "disagreeing with Joe" is not synonymous with "absolutist". I could have given a different list and gone off on one. I didn't. I rather like discussing it all, actually, and I'm not swearing these days. But hey.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 12:49 PM

believe as you will.... but you should at least try to understand

Belief and understanding in this instance are antithetical concepts.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 12:38 PM

Pete.... I know exactly what you are trying to say in this: "when you assess the age, your presuppositions and worldview influence your finding. I have afore provided quotes from evolutionary scientists admitting this. "

and I do understand it and its implications.... but that is an example of exactly what I said in my long post above. I requote it: " saying "I believe what good, competent scientists tell me." is NOT the same thing as saying "I believe in what the Bible tells me." They are, flatly, NOT the same sort of thing. "

My presuppositions... about the importance, use and value of science are so radically different from your presuppositions that it's almost a different language.... it certainly displays a different "worldview". I am at a loss as to how to explain the significance of that difference without resorting to technical terms in logic & philosophy which you often remind me you have not studied.
   Let me try this.... if I told you that I recite a little magical phrase before turning on my kitchen stove before turning it on, to ensure it lights, you'd probably tell me that magic has nothing to do with it; that it's just physics of electricity. Perhaps my mother always told me that. (There may be cleverer metaphors).
The point is, YOU use, or would use for everyday stuff, , the same argument I did above. My *presupposition* that a magic phrase is required is totally subjective, arbitrary and non-essential to explain the phenomenon. You might even be able to tell me how it really works... or at least refer me to someone or some book which does.You might tell me that the presupposition required is an understanding of natural processes. YOU understand what it means to keep superstitions and family or cultural 'stories' out of making odd guesses about natural laws of science. The issues is... in one area, you don't use that reasoning. You have already accepted one 'story' as truth, and because there is no way to really test it scientifically, you therefore MUST find ways to defend it."
My claim... and the claim of others... is that the story is so compelling emotionally and psychologically that it just 'feels good'.. and it is a shortcut to an answer and implies other comfortable answers (like an afterlife- good or bad). Now....perhaps it IS true, and I cannot disprove it, but it requires suspension of the reason you use everyday, usually without thinking about it, for other things.
   The thing about human beings is that they CAN **rationalize** to get answers they like! If I keep reciting a magic phrase to ensure my stove lights (or..old joke... "snapping my fingers to keep tigers away" [it's worked fine all my life... ☺]) you can only shrug... it makes little difference.
   But deeply held beliefs about some things cause we humans to behave differently and choose very different things than those who do not believe them.... and history shows the results. In 1600, Giordano Bruno was executed for not believing what he was told... and Galileo avoided the same fate by some careful wriggling. Bruno and the Catholic hierarchy had different beliefs even though they started with similar premises...they all were religious, and Bruno was a Dominican priest. The point is, when widely different views come from the same presuppositions, the first logical step should be to suspect something about one or more premises. Science does this constantly... religion very seldom. Religion rearranges concepts constantly... and gets hundreds of different views, each of which is suspicious of the others..... and there is no central formality to resolve disputes. The scientific method, carefully applied IS a way of constant self-correction. Theology, as usually practiced, is merely a very, very complex rationalization. (old remark: " Metaphysics !s the finding of bad reasons for what we believe upon instinct; but to find these reasons is no less an instinct.") People just WANT certain types of answers!

So... as I have said before, believe as you will.... but you should at least try to understand why so many get kinda argumentative when you challenge their acceptance of science as the best way to deal with certain data.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 12:24 PM

There are also huge negatives associated with male homosexuality.
Abortion may be necessary in certain circumstances, but abortion on demand is killing another person for personal convenience...and the Church is correct to oppose it.

Trouble is, some people believe that there should be no constraints on society, even when some behaviours are proved to have a negative affect......The reason is an on going campaign to weaken and destroy the Church, which they see as the home of social conservatism.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 12:04 PM

Yes, there's little doubt that the Catholic Church takes a rather conservative view of sexual morals. Steve's list is a fairly accurate representation of "the rules." But people weigh the consequences and choose to ignore rules all the time. It's not a horrible thing to have rules, guidelines, ideals, what have you. And "the rules" are presented as a discussion, not as edicts.

My point is that the Catholic Church does not make Steve's "huge thing" of the "rules" for sexual conduct. That's not a primary focus. It's not what the Catholic Church is all about.

It's a matter of balance, Steve. But then, absolutists aren't very good at understanding balance.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 11:33 AM

I'd say you are also lumping a lot of things together as 'being about sex' which, while including sex, are objectionable on other ground entirely. Adultery, for example, pretty well invariably involves lying and deceit with one part of the couple being exploited, and I'm not in favour of that. Prostitution can be between totally consenting adults, but has always included a background of pimping, violence and other exploitation of the woman, and in modern times sex-trafficking. 'Any other form of extra marital sex' can again be entirely consensual, but equally can fall into the kinds of objections to the first things I listed. Abortion a lot of people find objectionable for the reasons Kevin gave and it is reasonable for a church to express a view, whether you or I agree with it or not.

I won't go through your whole list, because like you there are some things in it which I think are right to object to and some I don't. But I do think that it is a good idea to ask whether each is objected to 'because it is about sex' or whether it is reasonable to object to it on wholly different grounds, such as one person exploiting another.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 11:14 AM

Any chance of deleting my 06.29am post, if there's a mod about? The preview button is very close to the submit button and I've got big fingers!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 10:41 AM

but at a different stage of life.

What stage might that be? The bi-cellular stage perhaps?