14
   

Write to the American Catholic Bishops...

 
 
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2012 03:35 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
and I'm waiting for you to write anything with substance.

quite the coincidence, no?
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2012 03:37 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You really are a crotchety old fool CI. Are you heading back to your childhood via dementia?

Telling everyone who disagrees with you that they don't know or understand anything is hardly a debate tactic to be proud of, or to take seriously.

It's an adult equivalent of calling us all poopy heads.

Rockhead
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2012 03:40 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I see from all the 2s and zeroes that your boy squirt has returned. you kids have fun beating up the lefties, I need to go work this afternoon...
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2012 03:50 pm
@Rockhead,
More silly banter.

It might be interesting and worth engagement, if you didn't always end up whining about negative postings.

Do you enjoy your role of an annoying gnat on A2K?

Please...spare me the predictable "I know you are but what am I?"

Are you a teacher?

What you imagine is clever repartee must work very well with pre-teens.

0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2012 04:39 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
What I wrote,
Quote:
@Finn dAbuzz,
You don't understand labor laws in this country about working for religious or non-religious organizations.


That's pretty clear English. Not my problem you're ignorant on the subject.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  3  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2012 05:12 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I would never argue that you use anything but clear English CI.

My mother-in-law , suffering from advance dementia uses clear English when she speaks. It just doesn mean anything of importance.
spendius
 
  3  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2012 06:15 pm
@Rockhead,
Quote:
you kids have fun beating up the lefties.


There are no lefties Rocky. There are frustrated righties using leftyism to get power. As soon as they do they morph into ******* fascists.
cicerone imposter
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2012 06:38 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
It seems your mother-in-law and you live in the same level of dementia; figures.
0 Replies
 
teddyb9
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 01:16 am
@Joe Nation,
To Joe Nation, The reason all of these edicts or directives will not be read during lent by Catholic priests at masses during Lent or any other time is that they simply would be ignored. Some people will actually get up and leave. You say that is fine, then we'll have a leaner more faithful church. That could be argued as valid however on the issue of artificial contraception alone, that would reduce the number of American Catholics in the pews from roughly 70 million to at most 14 million, in lieu of the fact that right at 80 per cent of all Catholic women regularly practice birth control that is not approved of by the church. Furthermore in lieu of the fact that as many as 98 per cent have at one time or another used it, unless they go to their priest and confess this as a sin then only 1.4 million Catholics would even be eligible for the sacraments. I would actually agree with you that in fact the Church should do all the things you say they should do, but you see Joe, they just don't have the guts. They know exactly what would happen if the Church seriously, and I mean VERY seriously enacted some kind of vow of allegiance a la King Henry to the laity. Sign this and mean it, and then don't go to communion unless you do mean it under penalty of your immortal soul. It's called there goes the money. No, the Church will go on as they do with the Bishops attempting to pressure the laity into "Properly" forming their consciences, attempting vainly to guilt trip the great masses of people who no longer respect or trust the hierarchy, or rely on them for their validation of their Catholic beliefs as they see them. Sorry Joe but that's just the way it is.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 02:24 am
@spendius,
Quote:
you kids have fun beating up the lefties.
spendius wrote:
There are no lefties Rocky.
There are frustrated righties using leftyism to get power.
As soon as they do they morph into ******* fascists.
I am a rightist.
I support weak n feeble government
in subjection to the Individual citizen
, as much as possible.

I advocate laissez faire captialism. In your mind, that is "fascist".





David
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 04:25 am
@OmSigDAVID,
A lot of it is, you favour giving even more power to the rich and powerful, so they can better exploit the common man.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 06:22 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I advocate laissez faire captialism. In your mind, that is "fascist".


You need to define laissez faire capitalism Dave. It is not just a buzz expression to be dropped in conversation for the purpose of making you sound superior. I don't believe for one moment that you advocate laissez faire but that you rather like thinking that you do for some reason that needs an explanation.

The "playpen" personality is fascist. To the extent that such a personality is so often retained into adulthood the fascism is retained. Left and right are irrelevant.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 07:26 am
@teddyb9,
A more than usually interesting post teddy.

It raises the difficult question of the Church being both a secular institution and a repository of orthodoxy at the same time. Can the orthodoxy survive if the organisation is a business failure? Is a business success justified because it allows the orthodoxy to be promoted and protected.

The Church can never come out and positively approve of artificial contraception (artificial conception) because it views, and rightly, such a thing as contrary to women's welfare. All organisations have the same problem. It is that their mission statements are utopian and never become perfected in practice.

The idea that artificial contraception is beneficial to the welfare of women is simply taken for granted by those who find it useful to themselves and they repeat the mantra so often that they have come to believe it. A close and delicate examination of the issue is avoided for obvious reasons.

The Church actually takes no position on the matter. It is the promoters of artificial contraception who take a position and it is, obviously, that the mechanical, surgical or chemical interference with the female reproductive system is a benefit to women's welfare. The Church opposes that. Just as the authorities only oppose chemical interference with athletic performance in response to the promotion of such interference. Before such interference became possible, or widespread, no view was taken by the authorities.

And just as chemically enhanced athletic performance is a perversion of athleticism so also is artificial contraception a perversion of the natural relations between men and women. As such the Church is never going to give it official approval no matter how much its pragmatists turn something of a blind eye to the practice of it by people tempted into using it for their temporary convenience. The Church cannot police the use of AC as it can with regard to divorce, adultery and male homosexuality. Abortion being an aspect of AC of course. It is significant that the Church has had very little to say about female homosexuality. If anything.

A pure Church is a powerless Church and that results in handing the victory to the other side. Politicians have the same problem. They trim in order to stay in the game. As we often do in our social relations.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 08:22 am
Classic:
Quote:
The idea that artificial contraception is beneficial to the welfare of women is simply taken for granted by those who find it useful to themselves and they repeat the mantra so often that they have come to believe it. A close and delicate examination of the issue is avoided for obvious reasons.

The Church actually takes no position on the matter. It is the promoters of artificial contraception who take a position and it is, obviously, that the mechanical, surgical or chemical interference with the female reproductive system is a benefit to women's welfare. The Church opposes that.


The Church in fact does take a position on artificial contraception, it's use, it's benefits, it's effect on the welfare of women. Their position is not complicated. It's a sin. A sin which can be elevated to a Mortal Sin once the knowledge that Artificial Contraception is a sin and the communicant continues to use it for any purpose, not just birth control.

You're right about the Roman Catholic Church wanting to protect its business interests, that's about as cynical a position as any supposed faith can take and it exposes Mother Church for what it is.

Joe(a fraud)Nation
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 10:10 am
@Joe Nation,
Quote:
Joe(a fraud)Nation


I wouldn't go that far Joe. I wouldn't say you're a fraud. Talking through your dick maybe.

Quote:
The Church in fact does take a position on artificial contraception, it's use, it's benefits, it's effect on the welfare of women.


Did I go to the trouble of discussing performance enhancing drugs in sport for nothing? If you are against such things you are in the same position as the Church vis-a-vis AC. You would have no position on the matter until PEDs came into use. Your position against them, which I am assuming, requires the appearance of them and that they are a problem. Both AC and PEDs are obviously anti-evolutionary.

A sin may be defined as behaviour which the Church thinks is inimical to general welfare. Gluttony, for example, is a sin because it is bad for us and not easily discouraged by legal procedures. How would you legislate against gluttony? Or against lust?

I also explained that the Church, in order to discourage behaviours which it sees as inimical to welfare, needs to be powerful. It's business operational aspects are necessary. You are asking us to be naive. It has powerful forces to oppose.

And it's business operations are entirely voluntary. Nobody is constrained to make offerings as they are in other aspects of life through taxation. The Church taxes nobody who is unwilling to be taxed.

It is a sin to spit on the carpet in the pub. It is a mortal sin if the practice is continued and the offender is excommunicated.

The Church has no problem being exposed for what it is. I see no reason for your self-righteous indignation and particularly when an explanation has been presented to you which you have disdained to rebut.

I don't see how AC could be used for any other purpose than birth control. A recent report claimed that the Church provides nuns working in parts of Africa with the pill in case they are raped. I'm not sure it ought to do strictly speaking but pragmatism is a factor. Withdrawing the nuns from their work is a possibility. But once again, as always, you take the exceptional cases in order to try to show that the policy in relation to millions is wrong. You could shut down all the roads with such a view. There were 370, 000 road fatalities between 2001 and 2009 in the US.

It is a fundamental totalitarian position to strip language of words which suggest refinements of attitude and gradations of sensibility. And that is exactly what you do when you use an expression like artificial contraception. You make the expression fit all the widely differing circumstances to which it is applied. It saves you thinking which totalitarian systems discourage by this very process of reducing the number of words in existence.

That American bishops are not up for severe pulpit condemnations of AC has nothing to do with whether AC is wrong.

It is wrong because it is unnatural, anti-evolution, and because it leaves women at the mercy of male pressures and state interference with their most essential nature. And it is not illegal and thus I have no idea what the **** you are on about. You are as free to take advantage of the various procedures involved as you are to scoff 10,000 calories a day. Why don't you get on with it and let the Catholics get on with what they are free to choose. What's your beef? Is it that women are capable of exercising less control over men when they are spayed?
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 10:39 am
@Joe Nation,
Joe Nation wrote:

Write to the American Catholic Bishops, even if you are not Catholic, and demand the following:
• That for the remaining Sundays in Lent the subject of all sermons shall be "The Use of Any Form of Birth Control by Any Member of this Parish is Strictly Forbidden Under Pain of Mortal Sin."
• That the priests of this Parish shall not convey The Act of Absolution for the Confession of Such Sin until the Confessor has abstained from the practice and use of Birth Control for a minimum of Three Months.
• That during the time of abstention the Confessor shall not be given Holy Communion, Extreme Unction nor be allowed to participate in any ceremony of Marriage, Baptism or Burial.
•That any person, male or female, who professes to be a homosexual shall be denied the rights to any of the Sacraments and may be publicly rebuked should they attempt to participate in any of the Church rituals or liturgy.
• That any person, male or female, who is part of an interpersonal relationship in which sexual relations occur, but are not part of a Roman Catholic Consecrated Marriage shall not be allowed to participate in any of the Church's rituals or liturgy.

• Any Cardinal, Archbishop or Bishop who does not publicly demand that his priests follow the above strictures to the letter shall be picketed outside of his church and residence and rebuked at will during any appearance at Holy Mass until such time as he shall conform.

• The Catholic Church, its charities, industries and agencies shall not from the day after Easter of this year, 2012 accept a single penny of State or Federal funding for any reason until the end of times.

~~Print this out.
Mail it to your local Bishop and all of your nearby Television Stations.

Joe(discuss: What do you think would happen?)Nation






Why leave out abortion? Since I believe a fetus is a "human being in waiting" shouldn't their be some mention of abortion as pre-emptive infanticide?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 10:44 am
@Joe Nation,
Joe, a point of information, if I may,
in vu of your many years of study in this matter:
a question of nomenclature.

The Bible does not tell us that Jesus
was born to Mrs. Mary Christ. "Christ" is a title,
like General MacArthur or President Reagan or Attorney Alan Gura.
Titles usually precede a proper name.

For what reason
has Jesus's name been switched around, with the title at the end???





David
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 10:46 am
@Foofie,
FYI, there are many babies in this world "that's not in waiting," that must be fed, housed, and given medical care. What have you done for them? Or are you just interested in "controlling" women and those "human being in waiting" who you don't even know or care about? Who will take care of them once born? You?

There are over 13% of the world population who are hungry. How many of those are you really interested in helping?

Even in the US, one in five children go hungry every day. How many of those have you helped?

How can you claim to care about "human being in waiting" when you have done nothing to help those who are already alive? This world is already overwhelmed with human life and growing; that's a fact.

Do you know how to spell "hypocrite?"
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 10:51 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

FYI, there are many babies in this world "that's not in waiting," that must be fed, housed, and given medical services. What have you done for them? Or are you just interested in "controlling" women and those "human being in waiting" who you don't even know or care about? Who will take care of them once born? You?

There are over 13% of the world population who are hungry. How many of those are you really interested in helping?


Shhhh! The baby is sleeping. I do not communicate to you anyway, since your opinions are not authorized for my brain to process. [Talking in a hushed tone, so as not to wake all the sleeping babies world-wide.]
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 10:53 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
A lot of it is, you favour giving even more power to the rich and powerful,
so they can better exploit the common man.
Its simply recognizing the laws of nature;
the law of supply n demand in an environment of freedom of choice.

Let the chips fall where thay may.





David
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.14 seconds on 10/16/2019 at 08:40:01