Costello Catholic References

Pretty self-explanatory
LittleFoole
Posts: 743
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:25 pm
Location: TN, USA

Postby LittleFoole » Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:26 pm

alexv 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.

.
Love that song lots'n'lots......although mrs. foole was not real happy in the past when I referred to her in that way ;) ... LOL...yet, she married me anyway - dames....go figure ;););)

User avatar
Mr. Average
Posts: 2031
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 12:22 pm
Location: Orange County, Californication

Postby Mr. Average » Mon Nov 28, 2005 3:04 pm

Who Shot: I did not expect you to understand. It is unfortunate that you have been suckered in, but with time you will understand. Whatever devices I use to try to explain are not working/not understood, so I will abandon the effort.

It is interesting to me that a poster can be summarily excoriated for his views, yet others with more disparaging and deceitful views are left unscathed. Fascinating game of some people playing others like a fiddle. I am not playing anyone. I am stating my opinions and exposing the obvious, but because it is too much of a mental stretch for some, the preferred response is to run (read: ignore) all future comments.

That's the spirit. When you disagree, hide. Converse only with those who have like opinions. Ridicule those who have divergent opinions. That is the unfortunate evolution of the 'feel good' approach to conflict. Instead of facing the issue, just side with consensus and attack...then...ignore.

Sorry, but I won't allow my opinions or commentary to be supressed by the mindset that hides and ignores disparate opinions. I am a person of strong personal conviction, and I don't shift my morals to fit the moment.

Watch. Be Prepared. He is coming.
Happy Advent and Merry Christmas.
"The smarter mysteries are hidden in the light" - Jean Giono (1895-1970)

User avatar
noiseradio
Posts: 2295
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Postby noiseradio » Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:16 pm

Um, I don't know if I shoudl jump in here or not, but I genuinely took mug's original comments here to be basically that it's not very difficult to spot Catholic references in songs by EC. He uses those metaphors often and effectively. The Beach Boys wrote a lot of songs about cars, and going through looking for the references isn't that remarkable. It's so obvious as to be nearly unnecessary to point out. Of course, if people have never considered EC's many religious references and tried to figure out what they may or may not mean, that could be very interesting. Still, I never assumed mug meant anything disparaging about religion or religious beliefs from her comments here. It was like she said "trying to find Catholic references in EC is about as hard as finding eggs at a chicken farm." I'm not sure anyone should be offended by that. But maybe I missed something.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
--William Shakespeare

selfmademug

Postby selfmademug » Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:34 pm

noiseradio wrote: maybe I missed something.


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).

Seriously, yes, Noise, that's all I meant. As I've stated many many times on this board I have a great personal respect for the Catholic faith and many of its tenets (one being that it eschews judgmental evangelical bullshit) even if I disagree with others. If you want to believe MY take on my own beliefs, that is.

alexv
Posts: 772
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 2:32 pm
Location: USA

Postby alexv » Mon Nov 28, 2005 5:08 pm

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.

SMM and BWAP: on the Castro reference, I do tend to go overboard on him for purely personal reasons (he destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of families in Cuba, and has imprisoned and or killed hundreds of thousands more). I know the numbers killed pale in comparison to Stalin, but when the killing/imprisonment started the total number of Cubans was roughly 7 million. Anyway, not trying to convert anybody, and this is one topic on which I find it impossible to engage in dispassionate discourse, so I'll drop it. I threw into my list of pet peeves without thinking.

On Pedro Luis (not Jose) Ferrer, if any one here likes Cuban music and has checked out the Buena Vista Social Club and the like, I urge you to check out a record called "Rustico" by Ferrer.

User avatar
Otis Westinghouse
Posts: 8856
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 3:32 pm
Location: The theatre of dreams

Postby Otis Westinghouse » Mon Nov 28, 2005 6:09 pm

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.

Does she have a thing about our very own 'Boo and entertains a fantasy that she might one day be fetching him skinny lattes?
Last edited by Otis Westinghouse on Mon Nov 28, 2005 6:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There's more to life than books, you know, but not much more

laughingcrow
Posts: 2476
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 8:35 am

Postby laughingcrow » Mon Nov 28, 2005 6:19 pm

Interesting fact -

If you put all EC lyrics into the computer, pay 12.99 for my book The Costello Code, and stare at them real hard.......

you go boss-eyed.

Is EC a direct descendant of JC?

User avatar
ReadyToHearTheWorst
Posts: 956
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 5:44 am
Location: uk

Postby ReadyToHearTheWorst » Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:05 pm

Mr. Average wrote:Whatever devices I use to try to explain are not working/not understood, so I will abandon the effort.


That's disappointing, I was interested in the arguement for the defence.

laughingcrow wrote:Is EC a direct descendant of JC?


Johnny Cash?
"I'm the Rock and Roll Scrabble champion"

User avatar
noiseradio
Posts: 2295
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Postby noiseradio » Mon Nov 28, 2005 9:58 pm

You know what I noticed about Johnny Cash? In a certain light, he looks like Elvis.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

--William Shakespeare

User avatar
El Vez
Posts: 2085
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 4:44 pm
Location: Heart Attack & Vine

Postby El Vez » Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:31 pm

noiseradio wrote:You know what I noticed about Johnny Cash? In a certain light, he looks like Elvis.


I was gonna say Walter Matthau after lost weekend....

User avatar
noiseradio
Posts: 2295
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Postby noiseradio » Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:16 pm

Who doesn't look like Walter Matthau after a lost weekend?
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

--William Shakespeare

User avatar
so lacklustre
Posts: 3180
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 2:36 pm
Location: half way to bliss

Postby so lacklustre » Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:00 am

A bit of a side note but..........

Vatican renews ban on gay priests


Homophobia continues to rule in the catholic church.

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.
signed with love and vicious kisses

selfmademug

Postby selfmademug » Tue Nov 29, 2005 7:58 am

Ahh, finally something the Pope and Castro can agree on! (Yes, I know that keeping homosexuals out of the priesthood and killing them is not the same thing. But to paraphrase my alter ego, I have a personal thing about this issue.)

User avatar
noiseradio
Posts: 2295
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Postby noiseradio » Tue Nov 29, 2005 10:51 am

Really not trying to argue here, but I don't get why anyone would expect the Catholic Church to allow gay priests. The church has taught that homosexuality is wrong since its inception. I understand why people might disagree with those beliefs, but asking the Catholic Church to ordain gay priests is like asking Hasidic Jews to have pulled pork sandwiches on Yom Kippur. I could better understand the argument that priests should be allowed to marry, since the church used to allow that anyway. There are denominations which teach that homosexuality is not a sin. Why should the Catholic church change one of its deeply held beliefs to suit those who aren't even followers of Catholicism?

This isn't addressed to any particular person, even though it follows your post mug. But I'd be pleased to hear your response (and anyone else who wants to chime in). And if my tone in the previous paragraph seems too confrontational, it's not intentional.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

--William Shakespeare

selfmademug

Postby selfmademug » Tue Nov 29, 2005 11:08 am

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.

selfmademug

Postby selfmademug » Tue Nov 29, 2005 11:15 am

noiseradio wrote: The church has taught that homosexuality is wrong since its inception.


Also, there are scholars who would argue this point.

User avatar
so lacklustre
Posts: 3180
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 2:36 pm
Location: half way to bliss

Postby so lacklustre » Tue Nov 29, 2005 11:37 am

My knowledge of the bible and of catholic doctrines is minimal but I'd like to know on what basis it is a 'deeply held belief'.

Why should the Catholic church change one of its deeply held beliefs to suit those who aren't even followers of Catholicism?

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.
I've realised that my earlier quotes could be taken out of context so here is the full article.

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.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4480588.stm
signed with love and vicious kisses

selfmademug

Postby selfmademug » Tue Nov 29, 2005 11:44 am

This is an interesting piece from a Catholic news source, which pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter (actually I see now that parts of it overlap with what SLL posted, but it's worth reading in full):

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=17759

User avatar
noiseradio
Posts: 2295
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Postby noiseradio » Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:21 pm

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.


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.

You poitn out that some scholars would argue that homosexuality has been against the teachings of the church all along, and I'm sure you're right. But it's safe to say that the overwhelming majority of Catholic scholars and religious historians would agree that that tenet has been around since about the third century at least. I wasn't trying to suggest that no one thought differently.

Again, thanks for your response.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

--William Shakespeare

selfmademug

Postby selfmademug » Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:27 pm

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.


Yes, for me that's the heart of the matter.

User avatar
noiseradio
Posts: 2295
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Postby noiseradio » Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:29 pm

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.


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.

Of course, I find myself in the odd position of attempting to discuss the Catholic viewpoint when I don't actually know what it is that well. So I might be full of crap on all this. Thanks for your reply, though. I appreciate getting some other viewpoints to ponder while I try to figure out my own.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

--William Shakespeare

User avatar
noiseradio
Posts: 2295
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Postby noiseradio » Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:29 pm

selfmademug wrote:
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.


Yes, for me that's the heart of the matter.


Then I think I agree with you.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

--William Shakespeare

selfmademug

Postby selfmademug » Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:40 pm

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.



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!

User avatar
noiseradio
Posts: 2295
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Postby noiseradio » Tue Nov 29, 2005 3:35 pm

See, I didn't know that. That's very good to know. And thanks for sharing it.

My upbringing was in a denomination called the Church of Christ (not the Mormons, who are the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints). In the C of C, the Bible is the only source anyone is allowed to use to prove or disprove any doctrine. "Speak where the Bible speaks. Be silent where the Bible is silent." That's the official answer anyway. How my dad figured that rock n roll was evil based on that I never will know.

P.S. I don't attend a C of C anymore, and I think the experience of God can't be limited merely to reading te Bible.

P.P.S. My Dad mellowed out. He even likes Elvis Costello.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

--William Shakespeare

User avatar
Boy With A Problem
Posts: 2714
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 9:41 pm
Location: Inside the Pocket of a Clown

Postby Boy With A Problem » Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:01 pm

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 ..."enslave blacks"


Not exactly "blacks", but as I understand it, the bible very much condones slavery.

I found the following:

In Exodus 21 the guidelines for the buying, selling and treatment of slaves is given. God says in verse 4 that if a male slave marries, his wife and children shall remain with the master when the slave departs because technically speaking they belong to the master. How's that for family values? Now if the slave is imprudent enough to protests because he loves his wife and children and wants to stay on, the consequences can be pretty drastic. In verse 6 the master is directed to "Bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever". This is all repeated with some minor alteration in Deuteronomy 15:16-17. Here the master is told to "Do likewise to your maid slaves." In Exodus 21:7-9 God even instructs men how they are to go about selling their own daughters into slavery.

in Joel 3:8 God warns that, “I will sell your sons and your daughters to the Judians, and they shall in turn sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off.” In case you are still unconvinced, try 1 Tim. 6:1-2; “Let slaves regard their masters as worthy of all honor." Matthew 10:24 and John 13:16 remind us that slaves are never better than their masters. Women take note that in Titus 2:9-10 slaves are ordered to, “Be submissive to your master and give satisfaction in every respect." Also check Ephesians 6:5 and Colossians 3:22 which say, “Slaves obey your master." Of the venerated Ten Commandments, numbers four and ten recognize and therefore give tacit approval to slavery. In fact, neither the Old or New Testament contains an outright condemnation of this infamous institution.


http://home.inu.net/skeptic/slavery.html
Everyone just needs to fuckin’ relax. Smoke more weed, the world is ending.


Return to “Elvis Costello General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 52 guests