BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 02:07 AM

Peter K (fionn) sez: As has been explained to Joe many times, and I'm sure he understands, millions of Catholics worldwide, if not on the US west coast, still take papal pronouncements to heart.

Peter, your misguided rhetoric is truly impressive, but allow me to reiterate: the vast majority of Catholics worldwide don't know and don't care what the Pope says (unless, of course, the Pope happens to validate what they already think). They get what they know from the media, and the media prints what sells newspapers. They could read Catholic publications or go to www.vatican.va if they wanted to, but very few do. They go to church to worship God, not to get involved in political issues.

And that's the point. I'm sure many of you don't believe this, but the Catholic Church is not a propaganda organization. Certainly, some of what it publishes could be considered propaganda* - but that's not its primary purpose. Its primary purpose is the worship of God by a very diverse variety of people. I belong to the Catholic Church because of its liturgy and sacraments and community and tradition, not because of its doctrine. I agree with most Catholic doctrine, but it is not of primary importance to me or to most Catholics. Doctrine is a secondary element, far behind the other four elements in importance - people can't understand that because liturgy and sacraments and community and tradition are experiential things that cannot be defined with words. And in that liturgy and sacraments and community and tradition, I experience an overwhelming sensation of the presence of God - and that makes it all good. I'm sure if I were a Jew or a Methodist or a Unitarian, I would find God in other ways - but I come from the Catholic tradition, and that is where I find God. Not in the doctrine, not in the rules, not in the politics - but in the liturgy, sacraments, community, and tradition. For me, the doctrine, rules, and politics are secondary matters, "necessary evils." They are not and have never been the essence of Catholicism.

So, that's the deal. The Catholic Church is where I find God. Others find God elsewhere, but the Catholic Church is what works for me.

Now, back to propaganda. I give out a substantial amount of money every year in donations, mostly to organizations that give service to the poor. I donate to Catholic activities, but I don't give my money to programs that oppose abortion or express prejudice against homosexuals and women. I think abortion is always a cause for extreme regret and for grieving the loss of a life, but I think there are certain situations where it is the only choice. I wouldn't donate a nickel to most "pro-life" organizations because most are rigid, aggressive, and unforgiving. (and my pastor and a large number of priests and even more nuns would agree with me, by the way). I guess I wouldn't donate to Planned Parenthood, but I certainly don't object when my sainted wife sends in her annual contribution. I would object if she gave our money to most "pro-life" organizations I know of. I know of Catholic antipoverty programs that regularly (but quietly) refer clients to Planned Parenthood because Planned Parenthood offers good medical care to women for little or no cost.

---

John P asks, Or are you saying that the Catholic Church is not, as a whole, officially anti-gay and anti-abortion rights? And that it doesn't officially spend money promoting its policies in the political sphere?

Well, John, I suppose you're right. Whoever writes the checks, can be considered to be "official," I suppose. But it's not all that simple. Like I say, I don't donate if I know the money is going to be spent on anti-gay and anti-abortion programs, and I check out the use of my money quite carefully. You will find very few Catholic priests and bishops and nuns who vehemently and unforgivingly oppose gays and those who receive abortions, but of course there are some extremists who make the others look bad. I haven't read the Pope's statement on gay marriage, but I'm guessing that it was probably far milder and far more balanced than was presented in the press. And in general, I think you will find that the truly official Catholic statements on homosexuality and abortion, are far less harsh and rigid than you would expect them to be. Lots of assholes purport to speak for the Catholic Church, but that doesn't mean they are truly official spokespersons. Randall Terry is one particularly notorious and obnoxious individual who purports to speak for the Catholic Church, and former priest John Corapi is another. Actor/director/antisemite Mel Gibson is another who purports to speak for true Catholicism, but he belongs to a splinter group. Oh, and the Catholic League is an organization often quoted by the press as presenting the Catholic point of view - but it's not "official" anything. Most insidious of all are the well-financed Eternal Word Television Network and Ave Maria Radio, propaganda organs that speak only for the extreme right wing of the American Catholic Church.

And yeah, I guess the Catholic Church does officially spend money promoting its policies in the political sphere. I'm sure the Catholic Church spent millions promoting Solidarity in Poland. It put a lot of effort into opposing the U.S. war in Iraq, and into opposing capital punishment in the U.S. I'm an unpaid volunteer in a local organization that has a $40,000 grant from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development to promote social justice in our county. Yesterday, I spoke on behalf of that organization to our County Board of Supervisors (click), promoting fair and humane treatment of people who are released from our county jail. Is that a horrible thing, that the Catholic Church is paying to lobby county government for better treatment of jail inmates? It's true that some "official" Catholic money is spent on abortion and gay marriage; but far more of the "official" money is spent promoting social justice and immigrant rights, and opposing poverty and discrimination. Do you think the Catholic Church should be prohibited from speaking out on those issues?


-Joe-

*"Propaganda" is what the speaker disagrees with. "Information" is the same thing, but the speaker agrees with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 03:23 AM

I just found out that a woman friend of mine has been recently ordained as a priest. It is legal if a woman is ordained by an ordained bishop..in good standing or not, as I understand...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 04:38 AM

---"The term PROPAGANDA is a 17th century coinage, from the Latin neuter plural gerundive of propagare "to propagate", originally in Congregatio de Propaganda Fide "Congregation for Propagating the Faith", a committee of cardinals established in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV."---
.,,.

Is it not, tho, of interest that the word originated within the Church, as above [from wikipedia, sightly edited for clarity] demonstrates? I do not wish to make too tendentious a point of this, but feel it should be realised that both the concept and the name of this phenomenon, which Joe so vehemently disowns and wishes not to be associated with, originated within Catholicism.

Joe, you are still talking of all those highly educated, informed, in touch, with-it fellow-Catholics of yours in the developed western world: in the US in particular. You seem to take the Catholics you happen to know, of whose community you are a part, as ubiquitously typical. How insular! You seem to me to be wilfully ignoring my reiterated question as to how far you think that such statements of yours as

"They get what they know from the media, and the media prints what sells newspapers. They could read Catholic publications or go to www.vatican.va if they wanted to, but very few do. They go to church to worship God, not to get involved in political issues"

would have any application to e.g. the enormous Catholic population of E Nigeria or other such 3rd World countries where your church has such a hold. Do you really think they all have your easy access to newspapers and the media and the WWW? Or the ingrained, thru their education, habit of questioning authority such as that of their priests, typical of those brought up in the western tradition of Cs20-21?

I do think you should face up to these questions, please. If you think my impression that you are evading them is erroneous, please direct me to where you have offered any answers to them.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 04:58 AM

Sez Mike: Joe, you are still talking of all those highly educated, informed, in touch, with-it fellow-Catholics of yours in the developed western world: in the US in particular. You seem to take the Catholics you happen to know, of whose community you are a part, as ubiquitously typical. How insular! You seem to me to be wilfully ignoring my reiterated question...

Well, Mike, as I said before, my "highly educated, informed, in touch, with-it fellow-Catholics...in the developed western world" don't know what the Pope says, and generally don't care. Why is it that you think that Nigerian Catholics will be better informed and more concerned? My point is that the doctrine is not of the primary importance that you assign to it. What IS important to Catholics is worshiping together as a local community. The Pope rarely comes into consideration, among American Catholics, English Catholics, or Nigerian Catholics - and Catholics rarely know more than disconnected snippets, sound bites, of what he has to say. As an absolute monarch, the Pope is not very effective. Catholics (other than right-wing papal cultists) rarely pay much attention to him. They like seeing him on the balcony and getting his blessing when they visit Rome, but that's about it. Oh, and they think the popemobile is cool.

The essence of Catholicism is to worship God and love your neighbor. All this other stuff is rarely discussed.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: Musket
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 05:09 AM

I hesitate to wade into a me vs Joe Offer argument, not least of all because of my respect for Joe.

But..

Joe, what you must bear in mind is that whatever your personal thoughts, your church openly operates a hierarchal system where the big boss in Rome speaks for you. By association, by membership, by whatever, it rings hollow to dismiss your Pope as a German of an age. That would seriously piss off many true humanitarian people in a large country.

Either the Catholic church has no leader and he is deluding himself, or his speeches represent the stance of the organisation. Regardless of how constitutions of local branches, churches whatever, are worded, all Catholics are happy to have this bloke and his predecessors represent them when it suits them.

His comments are repugnant, reckless and disgraceful. Whatever the technical reality and whatever your personal respectable views, the continued propping up of the old fool by decent people is something I have problems getting my head around.

This is not because I have problems getting my head around religion. I can relate it to politics too. I left The Labour Party many years ago, when the stance on most issues left me too uncomfortable. I remain committed to the social justice ideals and see the heritage of the party as much mine as those still in the party. But there comes a time when verbal disassociation from aspects of something you are associated with rings hollow.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 05:12 AM

It IS important to those 3rd world Catholics, Joe, because their priest will have told them [his selective version of] what the Pope said and how important it is. That is how they will be 'better informed', i.e. as to what His Holiness has said,as glossed by their priests, and 'more concerned', because they accept the authority of the Pope's words, as told by their priests that they had better. I am afraid I am to be convinced that you know enough about Nigerian Catholics, as distinct from the American & English ones you cite alongside them in your 4th sentence above, to be able to make the assertion in that sentence so positively. Do you honestly believe them, in their remote E Nigerian villages, to have the same access to the media, the Web, and the organs of modern thought, which you have attributed to western co-religionists throughout this thread? Honest, now!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 05:35 AM

Mike, read what I said. I said American Catholics know very and care very little about what the Pope says, and most likely Nigerian Catholics know and care even less. The Catholic Church is centered in the local parish community and Rome is largely irrelevant to most Catholics.

And as a matter of fact, I know a good number of Nigerian and Rwandan Catholics who are recent immigrants to the United States, and I have asked them about parish life in their home countries.

So, how is it you know and I don't know how these poor, abused Catholics in Africa are constantly brainwashed with propaganda from the Pope? I have studied worldwide Catholicism with a critical eye all my life. I know with a good amount of certainty that the central authority in Rome is far less powerful than it seems to outsiders. Few Catholics have concerns that reach beyond their home parishes, and few priests spend time relaying orders from Rome. Sunday Mass primarily revolves around worshiping God, not getting marching orders from Rome.

---

Ian sez: His (Benedict's) comments are repugnant, reckless and disgraceful.

Gimme proof, Ian. Give me a direct, in-context quote from Benedict, at least one paragraph long. Here are his published remarks - pick something. I will wholeheartedly agree that the sound bites the press (especially Reuters) extracts from his speeches are "repugnant, reckless and disgraceful." But when you read what Benedict says in complete paragraphs, he generally makes pretty good sense - even when I disagree with him. John Paul II was a different story - I could characterize many of his statements as "repugnant, reckless and disgraceful." And nonetheless, JPII was wildly popular, which drove me crazy.

Benedict has been pope since 2005. Since then, he has made two brief statements on condoms (one cautiously favorable) and one statement on homosexual marriage (which I haven't seen yet). He has made many more statements on peace, on economic justice, on the rights of immigrants, and a long list of other social justice issues. I would guess that condoms, homosexual marriage, and abortion might constitute five percent of what the Pope has said. Social justice issues are far more important to him, and to the Catholic Church in general. How much coverage does the press give to Catholic positions on social justice?


-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: Silas
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 06:10 AM

"Silas, this is the official teaching of the Catholic Church on original sin. I don't agree with all of it because I have a brain of my very own and I was taught in Catholic school and seminary how to use it. Nonetheless, I think you will find it quite rational and balanced, and quite different from what you think is the teaching of the Catholic Church."

Please don't patronise me Joe, I don't do it to you and I don't expect it from you.

The 'Official teaching' has changed over the centuries as you well know. However, whatever the official teaching, families have been told, till very recently that their dead children, if not baptized before death, would not be able to share a place in heaven with them, at one time they went to hell, later they went to 'limbo'.
There is nothing 'rational and balanced' about the teachings of the RC church. It is a case of brainwashing and indoctrination from birth and a life shrouded in a man made guilt.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 06:30 AM

I could characterize many of his statements as "repugnant, reckless and disgraceful." And nonetheless, JPII was wildly popular, which drove me crazy.

Only because JPII was Ratty's puppet. Now Ratty's pope himself, perpetuating the same old 2000-year-old regime of subjugation and oppression along with the usual horrors integral to the RC myth - child rape, AIDS, and the promotion of lies, ignorance, misogyny, homophobia and superstition. Before he was Pope, Ratty was heading up the Spanish Inquisition, wasn't he? At least the modern day version, built on such a noble tradition of righteous persecution of all so-called 'heresy', hot pokers and all.

In the end, people are only Catholics because they've been mind-fucked as kids into believing that shit. Even those who manage to reject it in later life still carry the scars. One guy I knew freaked out one day when I lit up some Prinknash Incense - he actually ran out into the garden in a cold sweat - a rational academic too, given the fear by the old bells & smells and associated horrors of The Church. Happily I had a secular childhood - far more conducive to spirituality I find - but I love burning the old Prinknash, just as I love a good High Mass, but only in terms of its Camp Gothic Theatricality. I know a few Catholics who lapsed when they started doing the mass in English because it no longer made any sort of sense to them. I like some of the Grail Psalm translations though, but they're not a patch on The Book of Common Prayer.

Each to their own, but if you're going to be a Catholic, for God's sake don't pretend to be humanitarian too.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: GUEST,Shining Wit
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 06:39 AM

"Here are his published remarks - pick something."

Thanks for the link Joe, but great wodges of this are in latin. Not for us lowly sheep to read then (online translation is rather inaccurate to say the least).

That which is readable is interesting in terms of seeing how the Vatican communicates it's teachings, although I think any criticism of some of what I've read would be superfluous as it seems rather pedantic to trawl through looking for statements to argue with. I saw plenty but didn't note them, but that's because I'm a non-believer and therefore (as I 'refuse' to hear God's word) a hopeless sinner as my world view is so vastly different, my personal basis for spirituality and morality is based in science.

Fascinating thread. I'm signing up for Mudcat again full time.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 07:52 AM

my personal basis for spirituality and morality is based in science.

There's a fascinating feature in the new Fortean Times about how the human brain is hardwired for sprituality, just as it's hard-wired for science, language and music. Religion and Spirituality are, of course, two different things and it would be folly to confuse them. Religion insists on a uniform compliance to a doctrine of exclusive, correct and corrective truth for the ends of political control and wholesale oppression. Spirituality, on the other hand, belongs to each and every one of us equally and without exception to each experience in their own unique way. We are born alone; we suffer alone, we will die alone; and our personal Spirituality is a manifestation of this essential uniqueness - it exists between us and the stars. Holy Communion is that of human commonality: it is language, sexual intercourse (of which procreation is by a very random byproduct), music, drinking, community, and the other joys of our glad & common earth. It says, the only TRUTH is no truth at all unless it is common to all. In this sense, the lowest is so very often the highest...

*

A classic example of the turgid inhumane righteouss bullshit of the Roman Catholic Church may be found in the Good Friday Mass in the form of of prayer for the enlightenment of The Jewish People. It runs thus:

Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men. (Let us pray. Kneel. Rise.) Almighty and eternal God, who want that all men be saved and come to the recognition of the truth, propitiously grant that even as the fullness of the peoples enters Thy Church, all Israel be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.

Let us vomit. Keel over in our utter despair.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 08:07 AM

Each to their own, but if you're going to be a Catholic, for God's sake don't pretend to be humanitarian too.

Each to their own indeed. While this
New Humanist article is about religious groups in general, not Catholics, it is worth a read. I got to it through remembering the Roy Hattersley article it refers to, in which he felt '"faith comes with a packet of moral imperatives that influence enough of them to make them morally superior to atheists like me"'. Before you leap in, I don't agree with him, because it's too much of a simplification. People are more complicated than that. But I also feel that assuming the religious are all 'mind-fucked as kids into believing that shit' is at least as severe a simplification.

I find the figures in this paragraph from the article a bit difficult to reconcile, unless it is making a distinction between those who call themselves humanist and those who call themselves athiest and/or between those who 'support charity giving' and those who actually give. You may find it clearer than I do. In any case, the number of chrities given to isn't a very good proxy for the amount given to charity. But hey-ho, its a magazine article, so its best not to expect too much from it!

Humanists are generous with their time and money. A survey conducted by the BHA in 2000 showed that less than 1 per cent of respondents didn't support charity giving - and on average, the humanists surveyed regularly gave to six charities each. This compares pretty favourably to the general public; in the same year, just 36 per cent of Britons contributed to five or more charities.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: GUEST,Shining Wit
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 08:33 AM

"Spirituality, on the other hand, belongs to each and every one of us equally and without exception to each experience in their own unique way"

Spot on.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: Musket
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 09:06 AM

Joe, if he isn't saying anything, then he might as well not be quoted. If he is always being quoted out of context, then he should simplify his messages.

if he is uncomfortable with how his comments are interpreted, I should be able to search on all the many corrections, clarifications and qualifications. But I can't. Mainly because there aren't many.

He is, from what I have read, the most progressive Pope of recent times, and he is trying, to be fair, to place the relevance of his church's teaching in temporal terms, and is proactive in reaching out to other faiths and lack of faiths. Fair play to him on that.

But;

1. Embracing and welcoming with open arms the Anglican bigots who feel UK decency and equality is contrary to Christianity.

2. Many speeches by him and by others expressing the official Vatican position on being gay.

3. Complaining that UK equality legislation seeks to marginalise religion. (A case of hitting the target whilst missing the point if ever there was one.)

4. Sorry, I have visited The Vatican. I have seen the wondrous glories erected in the name of their God. I have also visited countries in Africa, South America and many parts of poorer Europe where the Catholic church is gilded with gold whilst the children run around bare foot and starving. I have been to villages where aid from NGOs affiliated to religions is subject to being allowed to spend most of that aid building a church / mosque / whatever.

It isn't a case of infallibility, it doesn't even reach credibility. I have looked at many of the articles you refer to, and to be honest, both you and I seem to be taking our baggage with us when we read it, I admit.

Perhaps if he were to spend less time telling governments (and in a democracy, that means all the people) that they should stop marginalising religions, he might get a better reception by the rest of us. After all, he is a supposed man of peace, and that can't be a bad thing. Especially from somebody whose past has meant anybody can be redeemed.. A positive message if ever there were one.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 09:10 AM

Each to their own, but if you're going to be a Catholic, for God's sake don't pretend to be humanitarian too.

To which one might add:

because it's an insult to the countless thousands of victims whose liberties and rights and ultimately their lives have been denied them by a religion founded on the wholesale promotion of evil in a 2,000 year Reich that lies over our humanity like a funeral pall.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 11:49 AM

That's an awful lot of hate you're slinging, Suibhne.

~ Becky in Long Beach

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 12:27 PM

Hate? Dear God! Is it not reasonable to despise such wilful inhuman evil, or would you have us love the Nazis too?

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 12:32 PM

Depends. There are many in this thread - MtheGM, Silas, Ian Mather and others - who, putting words in their mouths 'despise such wilful inhuman evil'. However, the way they express it and the way you express it is markedly different.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 12:58 PM

Joe asked for a quote from Ratzinger's recent speech. I've taken the one below from the English-language translation on the Vatican website for which Joe gave the link. In this extract Ratzinger manages to say exactly what he thinks about gay marriage, without actually mentioning it.

The speech was given to an audience of diplomats, for some of whom the extract below must have been manna from heaven. In particular it would have brought beams of delight from any Ugandan diplomat present. In Uganda gays are routinely abused, insulted, blackmailed and disadvantaged in every conceivable way, with complete impunity. Homosexuality is an offence. Practising it is punished with up to 14 years in prison. There is a bill before parliament that would introduce the death penalty for some homosexual activities. How can any civilised, educated individual with an ounce of conscience help to sustain an organisation whose leader fuels such prejudice? (And no ordinary leader. To his flock this one is the Holy Father, and millions accept unquestioningly that he is indeed holy.)

Here's the relevant quote:

[....] pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman. This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 01:25 PM

Heaven forfend I should let 2,000 years of human abuse upset me, eh? Much less that it continues to this day or has apologists who think it's all for the common good.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 01:53 PM

DMcG ~~ Back to How Far can You Go?...? you said, in reply to my saying that I recalled no "entertaining exaggerations and unlikely scenarios",

"on the other hand there was one dilemma avoided, as I recall, by a heart attack at a critical moment [third parties will have to read the book to decide why that scene, out of all of them, stuck in my memory! *smile*]"

I recalled no such scene. So I have reread the book to check my recollections.

The only death by heart attack is brief & offstage & occurs to Polly's no-longer-young father - scarcely an 'unlikely scenario'; its point in the plot is to suggest 'Death' to her as topic for her next feature column. I do not find this in any way contrived or 'unlikely'. The only significant death, really plot-related, is the very sad death of Angela & Dennis's 4-year-old daughter in a street accident, which is unhappily only too realistic and unexaggerated an instance of the sort of thing that does happen.

Are you sure you were not thinking of Nicholas Nickleby? If there is another such scene which I have unaccountably overlooked, perhaps you would PM me to explain 'why it so stuck in your memory! *smile*'

Regards

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 03:11 PM

Maybe its time I re-read it as well - I may be attributing more of Lodge's general style to this paticular book. Have you read "Nice work" and (my personal favourite) "Small world"?

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 03:28 PM

So, Suibhne quotes a prayer from the Good Friday service, neglecting to state that the prayer is used only in Latin, by the ultraconservatives who insist on using the 1962 Latin Missal:

Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men. (Let us pray. Kneel. Rise.) Almighty and eternal God, who want that all men be saved and come to the recognition of the truth, propitiously grant that even as the fullness of the peoples enters Thy Church, all Israel be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.

This is a recent (2008), toned-down version of the original prayer, which was truly horrible. Here's the original, abandoned in 1955:

Let us pray also for the faithless Jews: that Almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts; so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord: Almighty and eternal God, who dost not exclude from thy mercy even Jewish faithlessness: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Here's the standard prayer, adopted in 1970 and used by the vast majority of Catholics:

Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant. (Silent prayer) Almighty and eternal God, long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity. Listen to your Church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption. We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen.

The prayer has evolved through the last sixty years. Ceretainly, one could question the 2008 revision, but it's a compromise and seemed to be the best the ultraconservative Latin-Mass people would accept. I would guess that far fewer than five percent of Catholics use the prayer Suibhne quoted. There's an interesting article on this in Wikipedia.

---

Ian says:

Joe, if he isn't saying anything, then he might as well not be quoted. If he is always being quoted out of context, then he should simplify his messages.

So, Ian, are you saying the Pope is required to "dumb down" everything he says so it's palatable to the Reuters reporters seeking sexy sound bites? He seeks to give a rational, balanced explanation. Reuters allows him ten words or less. Maybe it's time for Reuters to start quoting paragraphs.

Ian also questions this:

Embracing and welcoming with open arms the Anglican bigots who feel UK decency and equality is contrary to Christianity.

All I can say, Ian, is that I agree with you completely. I find this acceptance of bigotry-driven Anglicans to be very distressing. Same with the influx of evangelical Christians into the Catholic Church - many former Evangelicals are mainstays of Catholic broadcasting in the U.S. These are people who used to say the Pope was the whore of Babylon, and now they're taking over Catholic broadcasting.

---

With his usual dramatic rhetoric, Peter K (fionn) posits that the Pope's speech is sure to drive Ugandan tyrants to slaughter homosexuals, despite the fact that the Pope's mild-mannered statements have never encouraged the slaughter of anyone. Heck, Peter, the popes stopped encouraging slaughter way back in the 16th century. Now, it's very true that homosexuality is a strong taboo over most of Africa - but this is a longstanding cultural thing that was present long before the arrival of Europeans and Christianity in Africa. When the Ugandans slaughter homosexuals, it's certainly not because the Pope told them to do so. Click here for the Reuters article. From what I gather from the article, the Pope didn't actually say anything about gay marriage at all. He simply spoke in favor of families rooted in the traditional male-female marriage. Did he condemn homosexuals or homosexual marriage in his statement? It doesn't appear that he did - he simply showed preference for heterosexual marriage.

Oh - I did find the speech (click). Here's the entire passage on marriage:

Among these, pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman. This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself. The family unit is fundamental for the educational process and for the development both of individuals and States; hence there is a need for policies which promote the family and aid social cohesion and dialogue. It is in the family that we become open to the world and to life and, as I pointed out during my visit to Croatia, "openness to life is a sign of openness to the future".[3] In this context of openness to life, I note with satisfaction the recent sentence of the Court of Justice of the European Union forbidding patenting processes relative to human embryonic stem cells, as well as the resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe condemning prenatal selection on the basis of sex.

Yes, you can read between the lines and clearly see that the Pope doesn't approve of gay marriage, but this is hardly a strong condemnation. How Fionn takes that statement and interprets it as a call for the slaughter of homosexuals in Uganda, I'll never know.

OK, so it's clear that the guy doesn't approve of gay marriage - and I disagree with him on that position and would speak otherwise if I were Pope. Lots of people don't approve of gay marriage, and that doesn't mean they're horrible people. Gay marriage is something new in society, and it's ridiculous to think that the whole world is going to accept it without having some time to get used to the idea.

Whatever the case, the Pope's mild statement hardly seems worthy of all the dramatic rhetoric posted above. So the guy opposes gay marriage. So what? I suppose it would be nice if he favored gay marriage, but would you really expect that?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: John P
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 04:46 PM

C'mon folks, the level of nasty language being directed toward the Catholic Church is unnecessary. We can disagree with the church without slinging insults while in a discussion with a person who we all respect and who is a strong Catholic. Please keep it more polite. Take a moment to find some different words.

The past of the Catholic Church is really not pertinent to any discussion about the church. Just leave it. Yes, there are atrocities in the church's past. But guess what? All of society was one big atrocity back then. Life was cheap, death was quick, and any lower-class person's life was completely owned by any upper-class person. And don't forget that great non-religious custom of droit du seigneur.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 05:27 PM

Silas and others, here (click) is a pretty good article in the Jesuit America Magazine on the concept of limbo. It's quite interesting reading.
A quote:

So what happened to limbo? Nowhere in the current catechism is there any treatment of a belief that was part of the common teaching of the church for over 700 years. Traditionally described as an intermediate state between heaven and hell, limbo was a place of “natural” happiness free of suffering and pain but a place without a share in the eternal life that God promises to those who die in grace.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 05:51 PM

DMcG ~ Indeed; have read all Lodge's fiction; know him very slightly ~ my first wife knew him better. I agree with your judgments; very fond of the two you mention, also Changing Places, Paradise News, Thinks, Deaf Sentence ~~ all the academic ones, indeed; esp those featuring Philip Swallow & Morris Zapp.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: GUEST,999
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 06:11 PM

Limbo.

#############################

There is more on Limbo and the church at

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/18025/limbo

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 06:33 PM

Interesting views on homosexuality and the RC.

pre pope perspectives

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 07:29 PM

My experience as a Catholic has not led me to believe the church is anti-homosexual. I have rarely heard it mentioned, if ever. What they seemed to be was anti-heterosexual, with the great sin being French kissing and/or beyond. The great chore of celibacy for men was to avoid women..that is why things go so wierd with young boys etc. and priests..they saw women as the greater sin.

And what is this about ultra-conservatives and Latin Mass? I would far rather have the Latin Mass than the whatever it now is...accompanyied usually by ugly music. I am probably about middle of the road, with great departures from church policy on divorce and birth control etc. But I do believe in tithing if you can, being a decent person, not eating meat on Friday, crossing yourself in front of a church, saying a Hail Mary when you hear an ambulance and collecting small statues that glow in the dark when you rub them on your hair. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 07:49 PM

""But do you, Don, honestly believe that this same level of education & enlightenment has been offered WORLDWIDE ~~ to members of your generation within that vast Catholic population of E Nigeria, for example; or Congo or Uganda? Or Turkmenistan? Or throughout the Caribbean & S America?""

You are (or should be, if you were paying attention) well aware that I have such issues with the teachings of the Catholic Church as led to my leaving it.

It should, therefore, be obvious to you that I am unlikely to be in any way an apologist for the organisation.

I would however claim (with reason) to know much more than most of you about the manner in which Catholicism is taught.

Your hypothetical East Nigerians etc. will certainly have been taught the Catechism, the Credo, and the Liturgy in exactly the same manner as I, Joe and almost all other Catholics were.

You make much of the controlling nature of Catholicism without realising that those most controlled are the Catholic Clergy and especially those who have a missionary role in the far flung regions of the third world.

They teach in the same manner as salesmen sell, from a carefully worded and precise script, so anybody who doesn't get the message simply isn't paying attention.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 07:52 PM

Yes, John P. the past was a bad place, but the Catholic church was surely a little bit exceptional, to the extent that it indulged in its depraved excesses in the name of a loving and forgiving god.

I respect Joe for the tenacity with which he fights his corner and I am very much aware that he is often (but not this time) a lone voice in these wrangles. But I do find some of his arguments infuriating.

In a recent post Joe said this: "With his usual dramatic rhetoric, Peter K (fionn) posits that the Pope's speech is sure to drive Ugandan tyrants to slaughter homosexuals, despite the fact that the Pope's mild-mannered statements have never encouraged the slaughter of anyone."

And that's inexcusable. Almost in the same breath as accusing me of "dramatic rhetoric" Joe claims I accused the Pope of encouraging slaughter. And for good measure he repeats that claim later in his post. In fact I came nowhere close to saying any such thing. I was just making the point - plain to anyone with an ounce of intelligence - that the Pope's comment was likely to give sucour to existing prejudices in Uganda.

Where the Pope says "policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself" the family he is talking about is that "based on the marriage of a man and a woman" (in the old celibate's own words). Putting the future of humanity on the line is nearer to "dramatic rhetoric" than anything I have said - and yet Joe can characterise the Pope's intervention as "mild mannered." Maybe Joe just didn't get the message, but he should not castigate Reuters and co because they did.

I'm not sure that Joe is right that the entrenched homophobia in Africa predates the Europeans and Christians? I can see no evidence of that. My understanding is that homosexuality has been acknowledged in Africa since the days of the Greek empire, in which it was openly celebrated, but that systemic homophobia came only with colonisation. Certainly it has been actively promoted ever since by Christians, Eropean and more recently American: primarily evangelicals, but with the Catholic church taking every opportunity to encourage the prejudice, up to and including Ratzinger's speech the other day.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Jan 12 - 08:15 PM

""Where the Pope says "policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself" the family he is talking about is that "based on the marriage of a man and a woman"""

Where, in what he actually said, do you find a cogent and specific reference to homosexuality?

You start from an anti Pope standpoint, and read that into his message which you would prefer to be his meaning.

I read the same message with the unblinkered understanding that it would more probably relate to the number of single parent families in the present day, than to the almost infinitely smaller and less significant number of single sex relationships.

Do any of you really think that the Pope is so stupid as to believe that the tiny number of homosexual relationships can actually so affect the burgeoning world population as to threaten the future of the human race?

Isn't it much more likely that he refers to the relatively huge number of females in single parent situations, combined with the number of those who, by choice or by decree, do not procreate?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: Musket
Date: 13 Jan 12 - 04:34 AM

Joe,

I admire your ability to defend the principle of your faith whilst expressing concern over the actions of people in the name of it. I wouldn't be able to do that, so I genuinely admire you for doing so.

Regarding soundbites though, it is a fact that you either write a thesis for your followers to interpret or you use a microphone / press release, or even both. But if you address the media, then you need to speak their language or have your message misconstrued. So yes, sadly, he needs to speak to Reuters in Reuters language.

Peter K notes that homosexuality was common in ancient times in many parts of Africa till the colonialists came. Two things spring to mind there;

Mea Culpa was described to me as "If you enjoy something, you should be ashamed of yourself." That is a broad brush, possibly inaccurate way of putting it, I know. But you can see the link, Christian missionaries deciding they enjoy some things too much. So, sex is for procreation only and sex that can't give us a little Christian at the end of it is banned. And that buggers that, or doesn't as the case may be.

Ironic that it is in many parts of Africa where the "West" are alarmed at how homosexuality is deemed a sin. Reaping and sowing springs to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: Silas
Date: 13 Jan 12 - 06:09 AM

Well Joe, a further quote from your artice;

"But over many centuries the teaching did touch immediately and personally the lives of parents and relatives, who found little consolation in the fact that their children who died without baptism were in limbo rather than heaven. In fact, this teaching raised questions for many grieving Christians about the eternal status of their unbaptized infants and no doubt was a cause of pain for many parents and relatives. For example, a Jesuit friend of mine told me how distraught he was as a seven-year-old when the pastor declared that my friend's recently stillborn younger brother was not in heaven but in limbo."

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: GUEST,Shining Wit
Date: 13 Jan 12 - 06:44 AM

I just finished reading the article Joe linked to regarding limbo and can honestly say I know now beyond doubt that for me the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions are not for me; that article cleared up the very few remaining doubts I have.

Love the churches, chapels and cathedrals though.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Jan 12 - 09:07 AM

So what happened to limbo?

More importantly, what became of the millions of Pagan Babies that were stuck in limbo when the Church abolished it?

Did they go up, down, or simply disappear? & if so, why?

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: Silas
Date: 13 Jan 12 - 09:24 AM

They were not pagan babies.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: John P
Date: 13 Jan 12 - 10:13 AM

Jeez, I hate to keep throwing cold water, but why in the world are you trying to argue with Joe about Catholic tenets of faith? Joe has made it abundantly clear that all that stuff isn't what his religious experience is all about. My own experience tells me that most Catholics think about that stuff for about five minutes in catechism and never again, since it is so patently not important to anyone's life. If you're not a Catholic, what possible difference does it make to you? What does it have to do with the Pope speaking out against gay rights? The Catholic Church can teach anything it likes within the confines of the church. The only time the rest of us get to comment is when they inflict themselves on the rest of us, like when a world-renowned leader makes public comments or when they spend a lot of money buying laws for themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 13 Jan 12 - 12:12 PM

John, there are millions and millions of Roman Catholic adherents throughout the world. No-one could possibly suggest that what the Pope says isn't important to them, and doesn't have any influence on their standpoint. If he rejects gays and their right to a sexual life and to be in partnerships or indeed marriages, then the majority of them will subscribe to that viewpoint, and particularly those in cultures where homosexuals are already persecuted and reviled. It is a huge step backwards in the struggle for acceptance and support for gays. The same thing goes for the Roman Catholic tenets on contraception. Millions worldwide endure the strain of large families and the ensuing poverty because of this. Those who secretly practice contraception are often plagued by guilt and shame. It isn't a happy situation is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: RichM
Date: 13 Jan 12 - 12:35 PM

What makes any Christian think that their "god" is any more valid than Thor, or Shiva or any of the thousands of other mythical personae that have been offered to humanity as reality?

I am a former Catholic and altar boy, who left that belief system because of the disparity between stated beliefs and hypocritical actions.

As an atheist, I can only hope that humanity will eventually drop the rancid cloak of religion and embrace the universe for the wonderful real thing it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Jan 12 - 12:37 PM

They were not pagan babies.

But of course they were! Limbo is where all the dead pagan babies world-wide not baptised into the Roman Catholic Church were consigned for all eternity.

We used to have to say special prayers for them in and out of Mass.

So, where are they now?

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Jan 12 - 01:45 PM

It is a huge step backwards in the struggle for acceptance and support for gays.

Not really, to be honest. It's a missed opportunity to take a step forward, and one that many Catholics like myself (and by the sounds of it Joe) wish had been taken. But it would only be a step back if it reversed progress that had been made in the Church, and as far as I can see that's not the case

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 13 Jan 12 - 01:48 PM

Lets all take the piss out of those who don't have the intelligence to think for themselves eh?

Problem is, there are more of them than us for starters. Secondly, a few million lemmings can't be wrong.

Limbo, the place where you rot if your parents don't manage to baptise you. The pathetic cruelty of religious bigotry is beyond me, beyond the pail and beyond reason.

Interestingly, whilst good men like Joe Offer make excuses for it by denouncing whilst representing, we will never even begin to throw the concept of religion in the dustbin in which it belongs.

The Pope is a man. Not some deity, but a man with he same number of balls as the rest of us. Only he chooses to use his in a verbal rather than reproductive sense. He speaks of Jesus as if any church has ever represented the fabled love one another piety of the imaginary Nazerene.

Bad enough that Jesus is a product of over active imagination. I could live with that but every Pope, every Archbishop of Canterbury puts bigotry and controlling the masses above Jesus and in the name of Jesus.

Kind of cheapens the brand, don't you think?

Oh, and every religious prat who says kindness to others and altruism is something to do with religion has a permanent place on my shit list. I try to live my life with a set of moral values yet I don't believe in any religious nonsense. By that reckoning, I must be as superhuman as Jesus. Although rather than worship me, just buy me the odd pint and you will be saved. Trust me.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Jan 12 - 02:07 PM

The Pope is a man. Not some deity ... That is core to the Catholic teaching you know!

every religious prat who says kindness to others and altruism is something to do with religion has a permanent place on my shit list. And they would deserve it if they meant that religion was in any sense the origin and doubly so if they suggested it was primarily the religious who are kind and altruistic. That would be a deservedly stupid remark. But 'something to do with' ... that's pretty vague, you know. Even that humanist article I linked to says the now secular organisations like the Red Cross and Oxfam had a religious (but not exclusively religious) origin. And there are, I think, reasons for that that are to do with religion. Don't misunderstand me, the forces that propel religious groups to set up these organisations are complicated and no doubt included a great deal of self interest and perhaps at an individual level sometimes an attempt to assuage personal guilty feelings. So don't assume I think these are lily-white organisations. But 'something to do with religion'? Sometimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: John P
Date: 13 Jan 12 - 02:08 PM

Eliza:
John, there are millions and millions of Roman Catholic adherents throughout the world. No-one could possibly suggest that what the Pope says isn't important to them, and doesn't have any influence on their standpoint.

I agree with you, and did so in the post you are responding to. And in every post before that.


Everyone else:
No one on this thread has ever claimed that their god is any better than anyone else's. No one on this thread has talked about Catholic tenets about heaven and hell except to try to educate and to say that it really isn't important.

When there's a discussion about the Pope making a bigoted statement, and you all jump on with all your complaints about every facet of religion, Christianity, and the Catholic Church, you start to sound like the bigots Joe called us at the start of this thread. It really looks like many folks here are looking for a place to vent their negative opinions at any convenient target.

And before everyone makes the same mistake that Eliza made above, I agree with most every that's been said about the lack of sense and logic, and the potential harmfulness of, religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular. But do we really have to air all our grievances about all of religion on every thread that mentions religion in any way? If you want to talk about what the Pope said, or other things the Pope has said, or the Church's political positions, or how it spends its money in the secular world, I will confront Joe with you all day. But can we please leave the rest of it for a conversation where it's the topic?

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 13 Jan 12 - 03:10 PM

I have a friend who is an old priest, once a person asked him about Gay Marriage and he said "The Bible isn't probably the best place to look for matters of relationships and marriage, David had 500 wives"
As you can see even priest don't take him that serious in such matters

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Jan 12 - 04:35 PM

Ian Mather, I'm not picking on you, but you express your opinions rationally and fairly, and that makes it far easier (and far more pleasurable) to have a rational discussion with you.

Here's what you say about Reuters:

Regarding soundbites though, it is a fact that you either write a thesis for your followers to interpret or you use a microphone / press release, or even both. But if you address the media, then you need to speak their language or have your message misconstrued. So yes, sadly, he needs to speak to Reuters in Reuters language.

Well.....that's exactly the problem. Reuters wants to speak in simplistic, combative language - and they do it very well. The megachurches also speak in that simplistic, combative language - and they are hugely successful. Both feed on the fears and bigotries of people, and people respond. Benedict is a gentle man who plays classical music on the piano an hour a day. He is known for his gentle humor, his compassion, and his thoughtfulness. He would never, never condone violence or aggression. He certainly would not approve of any mistreatment of homosexuals. He simply expressed approval of families founded on the marriage between a man and a woman. So, in actuality, about the strongest headline you could get out of what he said is:

Pope Approves of Male-Female, Two-Parent Families

-or, if you stretch it-

Pope Implies Dislike of Homosexual Marriage

The trouble is, things like that won't sell papers. So, instead of that, we get the Reuters headline:

Gay marriage a threat to humanity's future: Pope

The Reuters headline is not actually a lie, but it's certainly an out-of-balance extrapolation of what the Pope actually said.

The trouble is, the Pope can't use Reuterspeak and say what he wants to say, in the balanced way he wants to stay it. Whenever the Pope speaks of homosexuality, he does so respectfully, with appreciation for the dignity of homosexuals as persons. He never "condemns" homosexuals or homosexual marriage - he simply states his support for traditional families with traditional male-female parents, and his disagreement with the idea of homosexual marriage. He also states in respectful, noncombative terms, that the Catholic Church does not consider same-gender sex to be a moral act. And whenever he does that he also is careful to acknowledge that homosexual orientation is not something people choose - that people cannot choose to be homosexual or heterosexual, so there is no moral right or wrong in sexual orientation.

Same thing with abortion - every official statement of the Catholic Church on abortion is written in noncombative language, expressing compassion for women who have an abortion and offering forgiveness for those who seek it.

The same thing could be said for the use of various birth control methods. It's never an outright condemnation. At most, it's a statement that the Catholic Church does not consider "artificial" birth control to be a moral act - couched in paragraphs that encourage love between married couples, the sanctity and beauty of sexual intercourse between married persons, and the importance of stable families. By the way, over the last forty years the Catholic Church has said many things to encourage the enjoyment of sex as an expression of love between married persons, not merely as a means of procreation. And in the last forty years, Church statements have never said anything which would imply that sex in marriage is not to be enjoyed.

With regards to the use of condoms to control HIV/AIDS, the Pope said that while the Catholic Church does not approve of "artificial" methods of birth control, the use of condoms can be better and more moral choice than unprotected sex.

And on top of all that, Benedict consistently emphasizes the constancy of the love of God for humankind, no matter what humans choose to do.



Now, Reuters and the fundamentalists (including fundamentalist Catholics) want everything boiled down to simplistic terms, applauding the right and condemning the wrong - but life just isn't that simple. Well, maybe it IS that simple. It all boils down to

Love One Another

That's what it's all about. Somebody want to disagree with that?

-Joe-


For the record, I respectfully disagree with the Pope on a number of issues, including the ordination of women, celibate priesthood, homosexual marriage, and birth control. I also think that the issue of abortion should be treated differently, and the aggressive actions of the so-called "pro-life movement" should be more clearly criticized by the Catholic Church.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: Silas
Date: 13 Jan 12 - 04:42 PM

Greg, they are NOT Pagan babies. Do you know what Pagan means?

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Jan 12 - 04:52 PM

Silas, it's a Catholic joke, and you need to know the back story. Catholics, like Jews, have had a history of not taking themselves too seriously. Back in the 1950s, Catholic schools had campaigns during Lent to "adopt" what they referred to as "pagan babies" - children in impoverished, Third World countries. That developed into competitions between classrooms to see who could adopt the most pagan babies, and school kids interpreted that as "buying pagan babies." Even in grade school, kids could see the silliness of it all, so there was a constant flow of pagan baby jokes in Catholic schools. In actuality, it's my understanding that most of the money was spent for food and water, not for proselytizing and certainly not for adopting children away from their parents.

Now, all this was before modern Paganism came to be, so don't be offended.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Another Classic of Papal Infallibility
From: gnu
Date: 13 Jan 12 - 05:49 PM

"relatively huge number of females in single parent situations"

Yup. I have seen it many times. Marriage, children, divorce, man pays thru the nose, woman even gets weekends off from caring for the children... nice work if you can get it. And, before I get shit upon, allow me to repeat... I have seen it many times. It sickening. The sanctity of marriage has been replaced by the convenience of divorce.

As fer yer homos, love is love, sex is sex, get over it. And, I don't just say that for the guy with the big hat and fancy gown. What adults do is their business and NObody else's. I have gay friends and they seem much more "normal" that some of my hetero friends... hmmm... even more normal than me for that matter.

I should add, if ya think Cat'lics are intolerant I could name a few others who are even intolerant of Cat'lics. Which, I always like to point out to them is not a good idea on acounta if the Cat'lics took their point of view they might have a hard time seein as how they are outnumbered.