BS: The Pope in America

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 12:51 PM

"Because he is a person of great influence with millions?"

People with great influence with millions: Genghis Khan, Ivan the Terrible, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Francisco Franco, Adolf Hitler, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, Augusto Pinochet, Ayatollah Khomeini. Yep, that's the criterion we should apply before we listen to people, Keith. Their "great influence with millions." Good job we hang on to their every word and act according to their edicts, eh, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 12:35 PM

"Because he is a person of great influence with millions?" quoted KAOH

For once I completely agree with Keith.

I doubt if there's another single person with so much financial clout.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 11:50 AM

"Because he is a person of great influence with millions?"

Why?

"Should anyone pay attention to your pronouncement on him?"

Of course they should ... but I'm sure that they won't!

I believe, Keith, that one should question everything. Asking questions is not a crime - although, I suspect, that you would like to make it one (?)You think that asking questions is presumptuous, don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 10:52 AM

why, in the 21st century, is anyone paying attention to the pronouncements of a glorified shaman?

Because he is a person of great influence with millions?
Should anyone pay attention to your pronouncement on him?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 09:39 AM

...the Pope or his spokespeople have denied the words allegedly attributed to him by Kim Davis.

Kim Davis is a proven liar several times over, no problem there.

HOWEVER, the Pope meeting with her AT ALL is an act of extreme stupidity on his part.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 08:54 AM

Going back to the subject of this thread, what puzzles me is: why, in the 21st century, is anyone paying attention to the pronouncements of a glorified shaman?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 07:00 AM

And before Michael wades in, I acknowledge the solecism in my last post. :-(

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 09:13 PM

I have seen a theory that the Pope was left unbriefed on the Kim Davis issues by a malcontent within the US catholic church, as part of opposition to the Pope's wider agenda which seems at times to advocate social justice.

It seems that the Pope or his spokespeople have denied the words allegedly attributed to him by Kim Davis. I'm more likely to believe him.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 07:26 PM

"just stating a fact, a fact that is obvious on every thread."

As I don't post on anything like every thread, it can't possibly be obvious on every thread. Also, as I post to threads that are entirely non-controversial, such as the 2015 joke thread for example to name but one, your stricture would not apply in those cases. As I have often corrected myself or apologised for something I've said, to stand corrected is not an alien concept to me at all. As usual, you think you have a monopoly on the truth and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. As one of the people here who have the most to apologise for or correct themselves over, it ill behoves you to level that particular criticism at anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 05:02 PM

You told me that you had a problem, ake. Remember? It was Keith who asked us to take it easy as you had enough on your plate. Remember? I will continue with my part of the bargain, even though you feel that it gives you the right to misrepresent me and what I say. I realise that you have no idea what the term troll means in this context and I understand that you have difficulties with today's world so I will make allowances. Maybe you can understand that other people may not?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 04:49 PM

Not picking fights,

just stating a fact, a fact that is obvious on every thread.

My problems are my affair, I have confided a medical problem pertaining to a family member to a moderator who is an expert on the subject and two trusted friends. I would be interested to know where you get your information.

"We have been asked to take it easy on you"..... only one thing worse than condescension, condensation!

I don't need any of your kind of easy.....I congratulated Steve on becoming a grandfather and received nothing but a stream of abuse on other threads, you never admit when PROVEN wrong, and have not an original idea in your head. I have said you are a troll and I see nothing to make me change my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 03:51 AM

What Steve said.

Ake. We have been asked to go easy on you because you are having a bad time. I am more that happy to do that as you well know but when you purposely pick fights it does not help anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 05:50 PM

If I make a mistake on this forum I always admit to it and apologise straight away. I have done this a good number of times. All my posts to this forum are available to you if you have the energy to research. You should do that before guessing or lashing out. I would thank you for not misrepresenting me if you don't mind.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 05:48 PM

and very effective, if I may say so!   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 05:20 PM

It's the Jeremy Corben effect... For a kinder Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 04:29 PM

Mr McGrath has the grace to say that he "stands corrected".

Some thing alien to Mr Shaw or Mr Gnome

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 02:36 PM

I suspect we are, D. :-(

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 02:06 PM

I hope we are not about to get into the difference between "licenced to act as a registrar for marriages" and "being a registrar". :(

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 02:04 PM

I stand corrected. I've never been to a Catholic wedding where a registrar wasn't there on the wide to do his stuff after the couple had said their vows.

In any case there'd be no requirement to carry out a civil wedding on request.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 01:53 PM

I'm pretty certain there won't be any cases of a priest being a registrar.

In England, many (most?) are.
The priest who married Steve would have been one, as was the (Catholic) priest who married one of my sons.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 01:46 PM

Elected as a Democrat (whatever relevance that has) and proven to be a bigot, to have abdicated the responsibilities of her job, to have violated the law of the land, and to have refused other Americans their Constitutional rights.

And all to the greater Glory of God.

Hallelujah.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 01:25 PM

I'm pretty certain there won't be any cases of a priest being a registrar. Either in England, where they are appointed as a job, or in the States where they get elected. (I gather Kim Davis was elected as a Democrat.)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 06:21 AM

Exactly, Kevin. The point being is that the two are entirely different things. Unless of course he priest is also a registrar as stated above. A registrar refusing to do what they are supposed to do is in breach of contract. Likewise a priest. Either can get sacked for it but a priest is not expected to perform same sex marriages while a registrar is. Comparing the two is, as I said before, silly.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 08:02 PM

And vice versa. The state makes the marriage legal, but the church makes it valid, for Catholics.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 04:57 PM

Yep, that was my understanding, Kevin. If a Catholic priest is also a registrar, fine. But it still means that it is the state, not the church that makes the marriage legal. Which is the point I was making. The church has no status in law but the registrar does.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 04:33 PM

At a Catholic wedding in England a registrar will be present to register the wedding, after the couple have made their vows. If he or she drops dead before that has been done, they would still be married in the eyes of the Church, and presumably themselves, but if they wanted to make it legal, they'd have to pop round to the registrars.

If they had a big row before doing that and split up, they'd have no need to get a divorce. But they wouldn't be able to have a Catholic wedding to anyone else unless they were able to get this one annulled by the Church.

I think the same kind of thing would apply for all religions in Englad, apart from Angiicans, whose vicars can register marriages themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 04:19 PM

Checked up after that, Steve, and it seems some but by no means all priests are licenced to act as registratars. So your marriage is legal.


I assume you are happy to hear that!

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

Huh? We were married in a Catholic Church in 1976 but there was no registrar present, unless Father Burke was also a registrar or something. I have an exceptionally official-looking marriage certificate ( er, somewhere...). Have I lived in sin for 39 years? I want all those bloody anniversary presents back!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 03:44 PM

Hair splitting is what Keith does best, D. :-( A Catholic wedding without a registrar is not a wedding in the eyes of UK law. Which is what I said.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 03:38 PM

At the risk of hair splitting, a registrar is essential at a Cathloic wedding to make it legal. On the other hand the actual declaration using the legally prescribed words is administered via the priest. So whether a Catholic wedding is a legal marriage depends very much on how you want to view it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 03:10 PM

We were married in 1973 and the Catholic priest could not officiate. We had to have a registrar to make it official. As far ad I am aware, nothing has changed ant,therefore, I believe that a marriage conducted by the Church is still not official in law. I am happy to be corrected if that is no longer true,

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 02:40 PM

Well perhaps the pro cancer stick lobby would be campaigning for said salesperson to be sacked, and she should have resigned !

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 02:16 PM

Didn't she lose her job? I can imagine that if a sweet shop started to sell cigarettes, quite legally, a shop assistant who had strong principles about that might decide, rather than resign, to refuse to sell tobacco to customers, in order to make a point, knowing that they could anticipate being sacked.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 02:15 PM

A church marriage, performed by the Catholic church, in England, is not a legal marriage

Yes it is.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 01:38 PM

Its more than silly, its ignorant and idiotic.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 01:15 PM

A church marriage, performed by the Catholic church, in England, is not a legal marriage so, over here, they are not breaking any laws anyway! Marriages can only be legalised by an official registrar or, I believe, a C of E vicar. I don't know the position in the US but I guess that Davis is the equivalent of a registrar and, as such, was breaking the terms of her contract. I am sure a US friend will correct me if I am wrong. Comparing the Catholic church with a civil registrar is silly.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 12:32 PM

Why then does the Church have a dispensation on performing homosexual "marriage"?

If the Church is allowed to break the law why not a private citizen?
She is only acting on her religious beliefs as defined by the Church.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 05:59 AM

Good job you're an atheist then, innit.

"Kim's" job was to issue marriage licences. She had no right to refuse to issue licences that fully complied with the law of the land. Her only proper recourse would have been to resign from her job. I suppose I could have pretended to be a believer, become a priest, stood at the altar then refused to say the mass. Got a job in a bar as a teetotaller and refused to supply anything other than soft drinks. Become a Muslim, get a job in a burger bar and refuse to cook pork sausages. She had plenty of time to see same sex marriage coming and consider her position. Instead, she chose to go large with her personal prejudice. She's a scoundrel and a charlatan who could use a lesson or two in democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 05:03 AM

"It has been reported that he also met with a same sex couple prior to his meeting Kim."............                      Nothing wrong with that, one of the homosexuals was an old friend.

THE ISSUE IS, AND WAS FOR KIM, "HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE".

The Catholic Church does not forbid FRIENDSHIP with homosexuals.
It teaches that homosexual practice is a sin and it refuses to validate "marriage".

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 07:42 PM

So Steve , what I believe is wicked, immoral and wrongdoing !?

No, what you believe is nonsense.

Which, as it plays out in real life, is a lot worse than wicked, immoral and wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 07:21 PM

Hmm. Maybe one day someone will tell me what my very obvious agenda is. It would be nice for me to know.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 06:46 PM

How can the Pope's encounter with Kim not be seen as support for her position?   It is also the official position of the Catholic Church!

It has been reported that he also met with a same sex couple prior to his meeting Kim.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 06:35 PM

Excellent repost pete, but Steve also has a VERY obvious agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 06:34 PM

Fine!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 05:38 PM

Well, Steve, I guess by the same token, you have the right to say ridiculous and offensive things about the scientists who don't believe what you do about origins........and can I take it.....since you keep evading the question.....that you don't have any ultimate authority for pronouncing on what is wicked, immoral or wrongdoing ?    Pretty arbitrary it seems to me.    And I don't look for protection from mockery , because should anyone look in with discernment, they might see that you have little more than mockery to offer as argument.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 05:10 PM

What you believe is what you believe. You are one of the most deluded people it's been my misfortune to encounter, but I defend to the hilt your right to harbour your delusions. You also have the right to say ridiculous and offensive things about hardworking scientists on an internet forum, but you not have the right to expect protection from criticism or ridicule for so doing. Nor do your remarks always deserve dignifying responses. That's where I am with people like you. Hope this helps.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 05:01 PM

This post will go down extremely badly with Teresa fans, but here goes anyway. You really do need to watch Christopher Hitchens' Hell's Angel. It's less than half an hour long and it's on YouTube. Nine minutes in, you can see her pronouncements on abortion and contraception from the horse's mouth. 14 minutes in, you can hear her telling the Bhopal victims to "forgive". Regrettably that clip could have been longer, but hey ho. Straight after that you can watch her legitimising the Duvaliers. Shortly after that you can watch her laying a wreath on the tomb of that evil sod Enver Hoxha. See her dealings with the criminal Charles Keating at 21 minutes. Hear her bragging about her convents, paid for by donations from people who thought they were giving to help the poor, at 22 minutes. If you don't watch it, sorry, but you can't knock it. It's not definitive, but it does have stuff that you will find hard to refute.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 05:00 PM

So Steve , what I believe is wicked, immoral and wrongdoing !? . That is your opinion, for which you offer no ultimate criteria and authority.   Sounds more like illogical, ideological ire.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 01:44 PM

Beer o'clock?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 12:33 PM

Hectorer?