FWIS3

code monkey wrote:st. blorp was not a patch on the beloved upwinda the saint. he never washed and whenever he walked through a town the people would call out, 'stay upwinda the saint'.


source: lives of the saints, m.s. alexander

WANTED: a copy of that book. I need something to read whilst ensconced in "the library"...

Well, ol' Frankie talks a real good game...

But they're still out there, takin' one for the loyal opposition...

cid wrote:Well, ol' Frankie talks a real good game...

But they're still out there, takin' one for the loyal opposition...

This is probably why he was excommunicated:

His 32 years of official priesthood behind him, Reynolds began operating an informal church in Melbourne in 2012. Called the Inclusive Catholics, the organization accepts homosexuality and allows women to help lead services.

They probably felt that they need to make it clear that he is NOT acting in an official capacity as a Catholic priest OR with the blessing of the church.

I have another thread in this category, denoting my distaste with some other policies of the Church.

What is the Church's position on celibate yet dedicated same-sex partnerships?
Do relationships like this count as "homosexual", or are they categorized in a different way?
If the gawdz didn't like LBGT'ers, they wouldn't have made so many of 'em...


It's too easy to take potshots at churchmen molesting children (and the ensuing coverups), so I
won't do it...while noting that the restraint shown on that basis would bring an aircraft carrier to a halt...

cid wrote:I have another thread in this category, denoting my distaste with some other policies of the Church.

What is the Church's position on celibate yet dedicated same-sex partnerships?
Do relationships like this count as "homosexual", or are they categorized in a different way?
If the gawdz didn't like LBGT'ers, they wouldn't have made so many of 'em...


It's too easy to take potshots at churchmen molesting children (and the ensuing coverups), so I
won't do it...while noting that the restraint shown on that basis would bring an aircraft carrier to a halt...

Disclaimer: I am not Catholic and I do not speak for the Catholic Church.

The general attitude of the Catholic church and the official policy is that the act of homosexuality (i.e. sex) is a sin. They frequently espouse the phrase "hate the sin, not the sinner". The more liberal amongst them openly state that god loves gays but that he hates the sin. The church openly states that as long as a homosexual person abstains from engaging in homosexual behavior they are welcome in the church. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual ... atholicism

Given this general attitude I think that if two men live together as companions they would not get too twitter pated. The challenge would arise if the men (or women) proclaimed that they were married regardless of sexual intimacy. The church also frowns on same sex marriage regardless of sexual intimacy. Marriage is reserved for a man and a woman because that is how God intended the universe to be ordered.

A lot of the church's stance is based on the precepts of morality. In their opinion some acts and behaviors lead to "intrinsic moral evil". Unfortunately, when you have a belief system that endorses that there are some absolute right and wrong principles that cannot be compromised it makes it difficult to accept some behaviors.

The basic tenant of acceptance is that even if an act is not illegal if it is immoral you are placing a barrier between you and God when you engage in that act. That barrier prevents you from receiving God grace. Therefore the only way to receive Gods grace is to refrain from immoral acts.

cid wrote:I have another thread in this category, denoting my distaste with some other policies of the Church.

What is the Church's position on celibate yet dedicated same-sex partnerships?
Do relationships like this count as "homosexual", or are they categorized in a different way?
If the gawdz didn't like LBGT'ers, they wouldn't have made so many of 'em...


It's too easy to take potshots at churchmen molesting children (and the ensuing coverups), so I
won't do it...while noting that the restraint shown on that basis would bring an aircraft carrier to a halt...

Disclaimer: I am not Catholic and I do not speak for the Catholic Church.

The general attitude of the Catholic church and the official policy is that the act of homosexuality (i.e. sex) is a sin. They frequently espouse the phrase "hate the sin, not the sinner". The more liberal amongst them openly state that god loves gays but that he hates the sin. The church openly states that as long as a homosexual person abstains from engaging in homosexual behavior they are welcome in the church. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual ... atholicism

Given this general attitude I think that if two men live together as companions they would not get too twitter pated. The challenge would arise if the men (or women) proclaimed that they were married regardless of sexual intimacy. The church also frowns on same sex marriage regardless of sexual intimacy. Marriage is reserved for a man and a woman because that is how God intended the universe to be ordered.

A lot of the church's stance is based on the precepts of morality. In their opinion some acts and behaviors lead to "intrinsic moral evil". Unfortunately, when you have a belief system that endorses that there are some absolute right and wrong principles that cannot be compromised it makes it difficult to accept some behaviors.

The basic tenant of acceptance is that even if an act is not illegal if it is immoral you are placing a barrier between you and God when you engage in that act. That barrier prevents you from receiving God grace. Therefore the only way to receive Gods grace is to refrain from immoral acts.

Disclaimer: I was Baptized and given first Communion at a catholic church. However I wasn't cool enough to hang around there anymore.

Yup the church, "hates the sin, and not the sinner", and "the sinner will always be forgiven if he/she repents". Officially anyways, forgiveness is the core of the catholicism. That's why it has the great fix-it-all called The Sign of Peace

Well, it's an improvement over the Old Testament calling for the stoning to death of gays. Or the Book of Revelations saying all effeminate will be tossed into the Lake of Fire (Hell).

If this Pope's comments serve to LESSEN homophobia, to INCREASE the acceptance of gays and their being treated/viewed more equitably, then that's a plus - right?

p.s.: I've got quite a few gay friends...I don't hear THEM complaining about the Pope's comments.

Francis now wants to rock the boat.

Pope Francis calls for power to move away from Vatican

Not as much as a lot would like though.

The new document did not address some of the key ethical reforms called for by Catholic progressives and ruled out any change in the Church's teaching on abortion or the exclusion of women from the priesthood. However, the Pope has already set up an advisory council of eight cardinals who are due to gather in Rome for their second plenary meeting next week.

God help me, I think I'm actually starting to like this guy.

If you think that making a Leviathan like the US government do something is hard, just wait till you see the catholic church. OTOH those guys haven't lasted for 2000 years by being stupid.

And now he's Time's "Person of the Year" for 2013. Despite the fact that he's not actually done anything. Certainly nothing that would mean he had the most impact on the events of the year. Certainly not more than Edward Snowden or Egyptian general Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, both of whom were considered.

Let's all prostrate ourselves before this incredibly wonderful religious figure who has "changed everything" (while actually doing nothing but make halfway non-bigoted remarks).

Bleh.

Yeah, I had a discussion about this over lunch. No sources (yet) but word is that the average American Catholic is now more liberal than the Pope.

The Supreme Canuck wrote:And now he's Time's "Person of the Year" for 2013. Despite the fact that he's not actually done anything. Certainly nothing that would mean he had the most impact on the events of the year. Certainly not more than Edward Snowden or Egyptian general Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, both of whom were considered.

Let's all prostrate ourselves before this incredibly wonderful religious figure who has "changed everything" (while actually doing nothing but make halfway non-bigoted remarks).

Bleh.

Don't forget to kiss his ring and show him respect too.....

Gullible Jones wrote:Yeah, I had a discussion about this over lunch. No sources (yet) but word is that the average American Catholic is now more liberal than the Pope.

Unsurprising. It's actually been a fixture of Canadian federal politics since the Conscription Crisis during the First World War that Catholics in this country strongly tend to vote for the Liberals rather than the Conservatives. Hell, I went to Catholic school K-12, and the majority of people (teachers and students) were very liberal. I imagine it's similar in the US.

The Supreme Canuck wrote:And now he's Time's "Person of the Year" for 2013. Despite the fact that he's not actually done anything. Certainly nothing that would mean he had the most impact on the events of the year. Certainly not more than Edward Snowden or Egyptian general Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, both of whom were considered.

Let's all prostrate ourselves before this incredibly wonderful religious figure who has "changed everything" (while actually doing nothing but make halfway non-bigoted remarks).

Bleh.

al least they passed on Miley Cyrus...

VERY good point.

Morrolan wrote:al least they passed on Miley Cyrus...

Ha! True enough. Same goes for Rob Ford.

The Supreme Canuck wrote:And now he's Time's "Person of the Year" for 2013. Despite the fact that he's not actually done anything. Certainly nothing that would mean he had the most impact on the events of the year. Certainly not more than Edward Snowden or Egyptian general Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, both of whom were considered.

Let's all prostrate ourselves before this incredibly wonderful religious figure who has "changed everything" (while actually doing nothing but make halfway non-bigoted remarks).

Bleh.

Stealing from a comment I posted on the topic on Reddit yesterday, which ended up being the top comment on the front page for a little while (go me on my Internet points!)-

For those curious, I have a friend who worked at Time magazine for many decades and I asked him once how they choose the Person of the Year. He said that while on paper they claim to ask everyone who works there and take into account public polling, in actuality a board of editors/managers/etc with the managing editor in charge go into a conference room and try to figure out the sweet spot of "person it seems plausible we chose, but is still slightly controversial so we can sell a lot of issues." (Presidential election years are almost boring, as whoever wins is virtually guaranteed to get it.) I'm guessing, based on that, it came down to Snowden vs Pope Francis and the board decided there are a lot of Catholics who were going to buy the magazine if he was on the cover... and older people who are more likely to buy magazines."

You mean it's rigged to artificially increase controversy and sales figures resulting in more profit for a company based in New York, the pinnacle of capitalism inside a country where the almighty dollar is treated like God?

Ha, never would have figured that. LOL

Ugh. Well, there goes my hope for journalistic integrity over at Time...

You're an idealist TSC.
Nothing wrong with that.
I was one once.

I'm now a realist.
I understand that everywhere that humans get access to power they will abuse it.
It starts small and keeps getting bigger and bigger till it is totally corrupted and populated by people who have less and less morals compared to the general population of the time. They just get better at hiding it.
Of course there will be times when they are so absorbed by their own warped views that they can't even understand why the "common" folk are appalled by their behaviour.
Just read any news service to see examples. Or the OP.
Can you say automotive bailout when they fly chartered jets instead of commercial airlines to go to meetings and pay big bonuses for failed performance...until there is a huge backlash, yet they still try to justify it.

Judges paid off, politicians paid off, anyone who has influence is eventually paid off or replaced by someone who will accept to being paid off. Its everywhere, Canada as you know, Australia, the USA. Everywhere.
Welcome to the real world.

The solution is get a boat, sail the seas and not be a slave to the system any more than you have to.
We're not immigrating to Australia for example, we are escaping the USA.

How's that for a reality check! LOL

Morrolan wrote:
al least they passed on Miley Cyrus...

Hold on. Are you kidding? Was she actually considered? I mean, I'm not a Miley hater, but person of the year? Please!

SciFi Chick wrote:

Morrolan wrote:
al least they passed on Miley Cyrus...

Hold on. Are you kidding? Was she actually considered? I mean, I'm not a Miley hater, but person of the year? Please!

Why not? She had a impact, even if just as a source of ridicule. Kidding.

How about Psy? He was big.

Who is Psy?