Love that song lots'n'lots......although mrs. foole was not real happy in the past when I referred to her in that wayalexv wrote: Here I am doing a post-pandrial check of my favorite waste of time (that's a Marshall Cranshaw reference, by the way) and I must confess, Mr. A., that I have no idea what the heck you are talking about.
.
... LOL...yet, she married me anyway - dames....go figure ;);)
Well whatever it was you missed, it can't hold a candle to me missing that I am the same person (wink wink) as Alexv. I also missed the part where ignoring an asshole means you're not their mental equal (though on that point, thank goodness!!) or the part where anyone was ever trying to silence anyone. But such things do not matter if one has strong moral convictions, not that I'd know anything about that, being a deceitful and hateful person whose morals are determined by whatever she thinks will please the crowd (thus explaining the deal Hillary Clinton and I made with the devil after selling our lesbian lovechild to the infidels).noiseradio wrote: maybe I missed something.
Does she have a thing about our very own 'Boo and entertains a fantasy that she might one day be fetching him skinny lattes?alexv wrote:Mood Swung, my secretary is not a relative, and our office is not very "PC". When I do something nice for her, she calls me her "Boo". No hanky-panky going on, by the way.
That's disappointing, I was interested in the arguement for the defence.Mr. Average wrote:Whatever devices I use to try to explain are not working/not understood, so I will abandon the effort.
Johnny Cash?laughingcrow wrote:Is EC a direct descendant of JC?
Homophobia continues to rule in the catholic church.Vatican renews ban on gay priests
The document, drafted by the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education and approved by Pope Benedict on 31 August, describes homosexual acts as "grave sins" that cannot be justified under any circumstances.
Surely it should be changing to suit the priests and wanna be priests who are homosexual, not to suit anyone else. Although having said that, they are going against the mainly accepted western way of thinking. Just because something is traditional doesn't mean it is right or a group should have the right to continue with prejudiced ideals. If we all stuck by tradition blacks would still be slaves, women wouldn't have the vote and we'd still be hanging, drawing and quartering blasphemers.Why should the Catholic church change one of its deeply held beliefs to suit those who aren't even followers of Catholicism?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4480588.stm
The Vatican has published long-awaited guidelines which reaffirm that active homosexuals and "supporters of gay culture" may not become priests.
But it treats homosexuality as a "tendency", not an orientation, and says those who have overcome it can begin training to take holy orders.
At least three years must pass between "overcoming [a] transitory problem" and ordination as a deacon, the rules say.
All Catholic priests take a vow of celibacy, regardless of orientation.
The guidelines make no reference to current priests, but only to men about to join a seminary.
They are the outcome of a review ordered by the late Pope John Paul II following highly damaging abuse scandals in the US in which several men accused priests of having abused them as teenagers.
No link has been established between homosexuality and the abuse of children.
'Duty to dissuade'
The Vatican document describes homosexual acts as "grave sins" that cannot be justified under any circumstances.
"If a candidate practises homosexuality, or presents deep-seated homosexual tendencies, his spiritual director as well as his confessor have the duty to dissuade him in conscience from proceeding towards ordination," it says.
"Such persons in fact find themselves in a situation that presents a grave obstacle to a correct relationship with men and women."
But the paper also stresses the Church's deep respect for homosexuals, who, it says, should by no means be discriminated against.
Some Catholic theologians feel the document is not sufficiently clear, the BBC's Peter Gould says.
That it refers to "tendencies" rather than orientation "has left many people scratching their heads," Jesuit scholar Father Thomas Reese told him.
The 18-paragraph document was published with little fanfare on Tuesday morning. The Vatican is not offering further explanation.
Truth
The chairman of a Roman Catholic evangelical group in Nigeria, Godwin Ukachi, welcomed the publication as overdue.
"I think it is right for the Church to take a stand on certain issues, especially the issue of homosexuals. Here in Africa and Nigeria... we are not at home with such attitudes," he told the BBC's World Today programme.
"Something had to be done. I think they think that the Church is taking a step in the right direction."
Critics have long objected that gay seminarians might feel they have no choice but to lie about their sexual orientation.
The guidelines specifically address this issue, urging candidates for the priesthood to tell the truth.
"It would be gravely dishonest for a candidate to hide his own homosexuality," the document says.
Observers say the new rules might lead to a dramatic drop in the number of priests, especially in the West.
The guidelines, "Instruction Concerning The Criteria of Vocational Discernment Regarding Persons With Homosexual Tendencies In View Of Their Admission To Seminaries And Holy Orders", were drafted by the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education and approved by Pope Benedict on 31 August.
Canon law experts note that they were not issued in forma specifica, meaning the Pope has not officially invested it with his personal authority, according to the National Catholic Reporter.
That might mean there is room for further interpretation or revision.
Homosexuals had already been barred from priesthood in a 1961 document.
Thanks for your response. To your question (what's the problem?), I see none in the context of celibacy. And if that's what we're talking about, then I think it is indeed inconsistent to deny gay priests the right to serve. After all, a priest who struggled with alcoholism could still serve if he denied his urge to drink. I see no difference. But I also agree with you that the abuse of children by priests MAY have something to do with repressed sexuality. I'm not Catholic (not remotely), so it's not exactly my business, but I'd be in favor of allowing priests to marry for that exact reason. Of course, that opens the can of worms as to whether or not you let gay priests marry, and I couldn't begin to know how to solve that problem.selfmademug wrote:Well, I'm quite out of the loop when it comes to current Church doctrine, but it was my understanding that the Church condemned homosexuality but not homosexuals (I thought that at one point there had even been a nod towards acknowedging that homosexuality may not simply be a 'lifestyle choice,' but perhaps I'm getting mixed up). To my mind-- obviously that's not what counts, as I ain't the Pope!-- that would mean that the Church wants those who identify as homosexuals to remain celibate in act and thought. If they are truly devout, and remain as celibate as heterosexual priests-- i.e., denying their sexuality entirely in the service of God-- what's the problem?
Of course I have other feelings about the issue-- whether pedophilia among priests has to do with suppressed homosexuality or just sexuality, period, and whether the ban on gay priests is hoped to stem that problem-- but as I'm not a practicing Catholic I'll stay mum on this here. Suffice it to say this one of the areas where I strongly disagree with the Church.
It's certainly true that blindly holding on to traditions is not always a good idea. There is a difference between the issue of homosexuality and women voting, slavery, and execution of blasphemers, though. While there is fairly straightforward biblical text on the subject of homosexuality (Paul roundly condemns sex between two men and between two women in Romans 1, and Leviticus is solidly against gay sex), there is no text that says "women can't vote" or "enslave blacks" or "draw and quarter blasphemers." I'm not saying that people didn't try to use scripture to argue in favor of those things. But there's not a verse to quote that directly supports anything like that.so lacklustre wrote: Surely it should be changing to suit the priests and wanna be priests who are homosexual, not to suit anyone else. Although having said that, they are going against the mainly accepted western way of thinking. Just because something is traditional doesn't mean it is right or a group should have the right to continue with prejudiced ideals. If we all stuck by tradition blacks would still be slaves, women wouldn't have the vote and we'd still be hanging, drawing and quartering blasphemers.
Then I think I agree with you.selfmademug wrote:Yes, for me that's the heart of the matter.noiseradio wrote: To your question (what's the problem?), I see none in the context of celibacy. And if that's what we're talking about, then I think it is indeed inconsistent to deny gay priests the right to serve.
One thing to remember in the context of a discussion like this is that Catholics do NOT consider the bible to be the sole rule of faith; doctrine comes from the Church's own authority which includes not just scripture but the entire historical conversation around-- as in before, during and after-- it. And that is now enough from this lapsed Catholic!noiseradio wrote: While there is fairly straightforward biblical text on the subject of homosexuality (Paul roundly condemns sex between two men and between two women in Romans 1, and Leviticus is solidly against gay sex), there is no text that says "women can't vote" or "enslave blacks" or "draw and quarter blasphemers." I'm not saying that people didn't try to use scripture to argue in favor of those things. But there's not a verse to quote that directly supports anything like that.
Not exactly "blacks", but as I understand it, the bible very much condones slavery.While there is fairly straightforward biblical text on the subject of homosexuality (Paul roundly condemns sex between two men and between two women in Romans 1, and Leviticus is solidly against gay sex), there is no text that says ..."enslave blacks"
