"Ethical" embryo stem cells still horrify Vatican

[acmejack]

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Catholic Church is rejecting claims in the United States of new "embryo-safe" stem-cells, pouring cold water on hopes by many scientists of ending ethical uproar over their research.

A U.S. company says it has developed a way to create the stem cells without harming the original embryo, which the Vatican holds is a full-fledged human life.

The breakthrough technique was meant to answer critics at the papal palace, the White House and beyond, who have long argued that it was ethically reproachable to attempt to save one life by taking another.

But the head of the Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life, Bishop Elio Sgreccia, told Reuters in an interview that the new method by Advanced Cell Technology Inc. failed to overcome the Church's many moral concerns.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-08-26T184816Z_01_L26692021_RTRUKOC_0_UK-RELIGION-STEMCELL.xml&archived=False

[babylonsister]

1. No offense to anyone, but SCREW the Vatican!

Let the rest of us have the option of using these stem cells to try to cure our loved ones.:grr: :grr:

[soothsayer]

3. eh, Japan's breakthrough with adult stem cells will make this moot

[yellowcanine]

25. How so, or were you being sarcastic?

[saigon68]

7. Don't forget to BURN COPERNICUS at the STAKE TOO

lol

Imagine someone saying the earth revolves around the sun

[yellowcanine]

24. Eh - anytime you follow "No offense" with "SCREW the Vatican"

someone is bound to be offended. Just thought I would point that out.

[anotherdrew]

26. well, the Vatican offends me, where do I go to complain?

Is there a line forming somewhere?

[yellowcanine]

54. I guess you could try the local company rep - err - priest.

If that doesn't work - try the bishop and work your way up. Good luck with that.

[saigon68]

186. The line forms where the alter boys change their clothes

[babylonsister]

30. If you're offended I apologize. But this article is basically saying

under no circumstances will anyone's family get any kind of relief through science if the Vatican has anything to say about it. What's to like about that? I don't even understand their stance if they supposedly worship life.

[yellowcanine]

55. Oh I am not offended. Just pointing out the irony.

[Seabiscuit]

128. I'll second that. SCREW THE VATICAN AND SCREW BUSH AND

SCREW THE FUCKIN' FUNDIES!!!

I turned in my Catholic "credentials" a long time ago. And now under the Sith Pope, in league with Little Lord Pissypants, it has become a thoroughly corrupted retrograde institution without any dignity whatsoever and unworthy of any respect anywhere.

[rustydog]

196. Hey now, let's be fair...isn't this the same ETHICAL

catholic church that just shuffled child rapists to different parrishes and did nothing to stopthe sin of homosexuality, rape, bearing false witness?

What else would you expect from fundamentalists of any religion?

[rfranklin]

2. Forget science! Let's stick to using leeches!

It worked back in the Middle Ages (well, except when the patient died). What do we need antiseptics, innoculations, and antibiotics for?

[KittyWampus]

19. modern medicine is, in fact, using leeches & maggots again for certain

conditions.

[Ezlivin]

4. Uh, wait, we've got to think of another reason to resist science again!

Since our original argument is now moot, we have to change our reason for opposition.

The Church (read: organized religion of any kind) always resists science and technological change. And every single time they are dragged forward, kicking and screaming, in culture's wake.

[Demeter]

5. The Church Fathers Are Into Pain--Other People's Pain

Cause pain is redemptive, you know, saves you all that time in purgatory for the sins you didn't repent or forgot to mention....

The Holy See is amazingly blind, and as far as Ethics; I have two words: Holy Inquisition.

[Zhade]

154. IIRC, Mother Theresa said something along those lines.

Reprehensible, isn't it?

[Betty]

6. I see they think it's "invasive" to the embryo

to take a cell from it. Why don't they think it's "invasive" to force a woman to go through with a pregnancy against her will? Just wondering.

[dxdem]

8. Because the church is run by men. n/t

[Eugene]

9. "Embryo-safe" was never going to satisfy the Catholic Church.

They are against everything in-vitro as a matter of belief.
As the Church is against artificial interference in human
reproduction of any kind, this stand was to be expected.

[0007]

10. Wasn't the church concerned about folks in the old days that

thought the world was round instead of flat?

[patrick317]

11. It is simple

The Church believes that all human beings are sacred (even those who have just begun their lives). The Church will not change its position on that and imo it would do the world good to see matters the same way.

[MGKrebs]

12. As long as life begins when you say it does, right?

[patrick317]

13. Life begins at conception. That is what the

Church believes and teaches. It should not be surprising that the Church does not want experimentation on embryos, because in the eyes of the faith those embryos are every bit as much a human person as we are.

[MGKrebs]

14. It's not surprising. It's the "imo" part I was referring to.

[patrick317]

15. We all have opinions on these matters, why is

it a surprise that I have an opinion too? IMO, the world would be a better place if every human person was highly valued...in that case there would be little room for war or for starvation.

[Occulus]

18. The church does NOT see all human beings as sacred

In fact, there are many, many people in the church- including some 'church fathers' as you put it- who would have no problem seeing people like me exterminated, and have on occasion publicly and shamelessly admitted to the fact.

christianity. Does. Not. Value. Me.

You really need to open your eyes. That cross around your neck, to me and others like me, means "I might beat you to a pulp." That religion, across its many varying sects, has made the world a worse place for me, and made my life 'less' in a lot of ways.

Oh, but they believe, and its what the church teaches, so that makes it okay.

Gotcha.

[patrick317]

56. False.

[cap]

169. so who is going to pay for the 400K "babies" from artificial insemination

somebody has got to pay for their upkeep...You dont want to raise our taxes to pay for those "babies" do you?

[Demeter]

174. Never Heard It Put Better!

Actually, the Church would probably beat everybody to a pulp, starting with the meek and working their way up until the biggest, meanest bastard was the only one left.

The whole concept of revolutionary theology, which was the Church's one saving grace was totally repudiated. Anytime anything resembling Christ's teachings get started, the Church repudiates it...

Cognitive dissonance--not just for the mentally able.

[bitchkitty]

179. Whoa -

Stop and listen to yourself. Do you think that all Muslims are terrorists? No? Then why in your eyes are all Christians unfeeling hypocrites?

That said, I have to agree that many use their religion like a club.

[MGKrebs]

36. It is not a surprise for you to have an opinion.

Why do you keep saying that? I am challenging your opinion. That is how people have discussions.

But perhaps you weren't really connecting your opinion as closely to the church's opinion as I thought. In any case, I am confident you will find plenty of takers if you want to continue the conversation.


Welcome to DU.

[AngryOldDem]

71. Herein lies the difference

You said above that the world should follow Church teaching on the matter of stem cells. Period, end of sentence. That, to many of us here, is not the basis for substantive discussion, nor for the sharing of diverse opinions.

The definition of when conception occurs is wide open to debate. As it should be.

With all due respect, what you are saying is, the Church's opinion (and by extension, yours) is the only one that is valid.

[Auntie Bush]

166. But there wouldn't be any room for the people!

There wouldn't be enough food either.

[iverglas]

39. "It should not be surprising ...

(html fixed)

... that the Church does not want experimentation on embryos, because in the eyes of the faith those embryos are every bit as much a human person as we are."

Really???

I've obviously missed all those Roman Catholics lobbying for the law to "guard" their morality (?) ... by making it the offence of HOMICIDE to destroy embryos / terminate pregnancy.

C'mon. Consistent life ethic. Seamless garment. Let's see some, eh?

[patrick317]

57. The Church views embryos as human persons, not as cells.

[iverglas]

74. if you're going to reply to my posts

you need to start saying something that has something to do with my posts.

You say:

The Church views embryos as human persons, not as cells.

and you might note that I had already answered this gobbledygook, when I said -- in the post you purported to reply to:

I've obviously missed all those Roman Catholics lobbying for the law to "guard" their morality (?) ... by making it the offence of HOMICIDE to destroy embryos / terminate pregnancy.

I can simplify it. If they RC church views embryos as "human persons", why does the RC church not advocate that persons who destroy embryos be tried for murder?

What kinda big old drooling hypocrites populate this RC church, anyhow?

Feel free to RESPOND to what I said. Please don't waste my time with parrot-squawking.

[patrick317]

98. I have responded to you. The Church teaches that

abortion is the taking of innocent human life. You add it up.

[iverglas]

102. you haven't mastered simple arithmetic yet?

The Church teaches that abortion is the taking of innocent human life. You add it up.

Is that how it works at RC schools -- the teacher says "what's 2+2, Paddy?" and you say "You add it up, Teach"?

Or oh my, maybe it's what I was just saying to my old friend Jabberwacky -- how come the RC church doesn't seem to teach manners?

And what's all that noise one hears about having the courage of one's convictions?

When RCers throughout history were asked by hostile interlocutors what religion they professed, did they say "You add it up"? Does this commonly lead to sainthood? Hard to be persecuted for one's beliefs when one won't even own 'em, ain't it?

[patrick317]

119. I have been very honest and forthright. I have said that I feel

abortion is murder. I have stated in many threads (perhaps not here because I am answering a plethora of thse things) that I feel abortionists should go to jail. That is as pointblank as it gets.

[iverglas]

123. "as pointblank as it gets"

according to the dictionary of how to avoid taking responsibility for the nasty things one is trying to do to other people, I guess. That the one they use in Sunday school?

[Lindacooks]

172. Fine. You don't like abortion, don't have one.

Oh, wait, that's right - you're a man.

'Nuff said.

[AngryOldDem]

184. Even if they are medical doctors and the abortions are performed...

...for valid, medical reasons?

Do you not see the need for abortion as a medical procedure to remain legal, so it remains safe?

No. Of course not. Pardon the silly question.

[zreosumgame]

16. well, 'sacred' as long as they tithe...

[patrick317]

17. No, sacred no matter who they are.

[patrick317]

20. Newsflash: It turns out the Pope is actually Catholic.

How'd that happen? :)

[NoSheep]

21. Does the war horrify the Vatican?

[patrick317]

22. The Church has spoken against the war.

[yellowcanine]

23. If one accepts that a fertilized egg is a human being ...... it is the

only consistent position. Think about it - The embryo can't "consent" and the parents can hardly consent on an embryo's behalf to an invasive procedure that has risks but no benefit to the embryo. I disagree with the premise that the embryo is fully human in the first place, but I would consider it hypocritical for right to lifers to take any other position.

[iverglas]

38. if one accepts that there are faeries at the bottom of my garden

then I get to prohibit you from playing the radio in your yard, because it disturbs them.


If one accepts that a fertilized egg is a human being ...... it is the only consistent position.

Start with a silly premise, and see where you end up?

Violating other people's rights, quite often.


I disagree with the premise that the embryo is fully human in the first place, but I would consider it hypocritical for right to lifers to take any other position.

And I consider it evil for them to attempt to influence public policy with their nonsense.


And in any event, I've yet to see a single one of them actually be "consistent" about fertilized eggs. The day when they call for the destructions of embryos and the like to be TREATED LIKE MURDER is the day when they'll get to be called consistent. Meanwhile, they're just misogynistic self-righteous assholes.

Until then, they're actually the poster children for hypocrisy.

[patrick317]

52. Pro-life people do think abortion is murder.

[iverglas]

73. bully for them

Unfortunately for you, we're not talking about what anyone thinks. We're talking about public policy.

A few things you've said on the issue:

It should not be surprising that the Church does not want experimentation on embryos, because in the eyes of the faith those embryos are every bit as much a human person as we are.

So damn, isn't it just amazing that the Church isn't lobbying to have the destruction of embryos, not to mention abortion, TREATED IN THE SAME WAY AS ANY *OTHER* HOMICIDE?

The baby has rights too.

(I have to ask: are you 12 years old? "The baby"?)

So ... if the embryo / zygote / fetus thingy has rights ... how come the RC church is not lobbying to have those rights protected exactly the same way as every *other* human being's rights are protected -- like by TREATING THE DESTRUCTION OF IT AS HOMICIDE?

The RC church really does just seem to think that some "lives" are more equal than others, doesn't it?

If I thought that people who claim to "think abortion is murder" were honest, I might ask what they think.

They aren't. And I don't. Not interested.

And the RC church and all the rest of the anti-choice scum in the world who claim "to think abortion is murder" are still, as I said, the poster children for hypocrisy.

[patrick317]

97. The Church teaches that abortion is the taking of an

innocent human life. Period.

[bperci108]

136. Which is one reason of many...

...that their religion is dying worldwide.

Most catholics I have known swear fealty to the pope and his decrees publically, and do as they see fit privately.

[Arugula Latte]

200. Patrick137. The Church also taught that the sun revolved around the Earth

It has no credibility on scientific matters. Plus, dogma and fairy tales from long ago are not a basis for public policy.

The Vatican should shut the fuck up on this.

[Zhade]

155. Then they don't need to have abortions.

Try to restrict women's rights, and they'll have a fight on their hands - a fucking bloody one if need be.

Your backward mythical bullshit doesn't get to run our lives. PERIOD. Try, and you'll be really fucking sorry.

[Hosnon]

143. I don't think the premise is silly...perhaps accepting it as true is silly

[Hosnon]

142. I agree. The logic is pretty much airtight if that initial premise is

accepted as true.

[Auntie Bush]

170. If a fertilized egg is a baby...then do we all eat baby chickens

for breakfast?

[Demeter]

175. Most Modern Factory Farm Eggs Are Not Fertilized

Go now and eat in peace!

[Crowdance]

27. Walking us backwards through history, is the Pope.

Science and its methods mean nothing to this man. Check out his buy-in of the "intelligent design (sic)" fol-de-rol: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2479011#2479198

It would be amusing if it weren't so dangerous; watch for a declaration from his good friend Bu$h that he and the Pope agree that even this method of holding zygotes harmless won't meet their very lofty moral criteria. Then watch for new legislation prohibiting this, too. The truth is that these folks crave control over every aspect of our existence and if we could create these cells from the collision of inanimate matter and antimatter they'd still find objection.

[Book Lover]

28. You know, Benedict, I left the Church

Haven't made my Easter duty in nearly 20 years. Please remind me again why I am supposed to listen to what you have to say now that I am outside the body of the Church? Isn't there supposed to be a place where I can go where the Church doesn't follow?! You know, *civil* society, where we have to accommodate all faiths and lack thereof.

[patrick317]

31. And...

in civil society Catholics exist, and they have every right to push for things they feel are right for this country, just as you do.

[Lindacooks]

35. Wrong.

Nobody has the right to tell anyone else what they can do with their own body. Abortion is a privacy issue, plain and simple.

When 'pushing for things they feel are right' means trampling on another person's rights, they do NOT have the right to do that.

[patrick317]

44. The baby has rights too.

[BigDDem]

49. But those rights

shrink as they become children who are raped by priests.

[patrick317]

51. No, and that is beneath you.

[bperci108]

66. No, he's dead-on correct.

The cult of Rome has enabled thousands of molestations over the decades and has obstructed justice by shuffling pedophile priests around to hide their crimes.

Every priest, cardinal and church official who was involved in any way with enabling these monsters should be imprisoned and the church should be financially liable in a class-action suit.

It's time they were held accountable. :grr:

[patrick317]

67. Many Priests have been charged and up to a billion dollars

of lawsuit money has already been awared and there is going to be plenty more of that. In nearly all cases the Priests were reassigned based on reports given to them by independent medical professionals who stated in writing that the Priests involved were cured and safe. If the Church ignored medical reports they would have been attacked, yet they listened to the reports and those Priests went on to do horrible things to minors. There needs to be a balance of facts on both sides, not just the anti-Church side.

[bperci108]

86. That is white-washing bullshit.

It may fool the "faithful" but these were CRIMES.

"In nearly all cases the Priests were reassigned based on reports given to them by independent medical professionals who stated in writing that the Priests involved were cured and safe."

Every single one should have been reported to the police by his superiors for immediate prosecution.

"There needs to be a balance of facts on both sides, not just the anti-Church side."

:puke:

Peddle that "balance" crap over at Faux Nooz; the facts say that your priests were buggering little boys and their "church" was obstructing justice to hide them and continue the charade that the church were somehow still "God's servants".

"By their fruits, ye shall know them..."

Their fruits are ignorance, misogyny, guilt, mental illness, misery and millions dead in the name of "god".

That's proof enough for me.

[patrick317]

91. okay-crimes...call it crimes if you want...yet

you are not displaying any balance or any knowledge of the facts.

[bperci108]

105. The facts speak for themselves:

The Roman church has been complicit in the crimes of child-rapers.

I have a firm grip on the facts; facts that you can't face up to.


I'm sorry the truth is such a hard hearing for you. :eyes:

[patrick317]

110. There are facts on both sides...

[bperci108]

134. But none on the side of Rome for excusing child-rape.

n/t

[AngryOldDem]

132. You don't think sexual abuse is a crime?

Especially when it is perpetrated on a child by a person in authority, whom that child is told to respect, revere, and trust because the priest is Christ on earth? Are you THAT much of an apologist for the Church?

[AngryOldDem]

130. A billion dollars...

...is nothing, really, not when you look at the depth and breadth of this scandal.

I would guess that much more than a billion has been spent by many archdioceses in terms of PR damage control, as well as buying the services of lobbyists at state legislatures to make sure their interests are still well protected. Many survivors of abuse have been shut out of any legal action because of archaic statute of limitation laws, and many archdioceses (including my own) have fought tooth and nail to ensure that clergy do not fall under ANY mandatory-reporter-of-abuse law. (It is galling that they hide behind the sacrament of confession for this, but that is another discussion for another thread.)

And yes, while some in the Church did rely on bad psychology when it came to sex offenders, many bishops blatantly ignored those priests who had a documented and lengthy history of inappropriate contact with minors, and just moved them from parish to parish when the complaints got too loud. Do the names Geoghan and Shanley come to mind? Bernard Law even transferred a known pedophile to the West Coast, without telling the West Coast bishop of this priest's history.

Bottom line: The Church knew it had a time bomb and sat on it for 20 years. There is NO excuse for that.

[Lindacooks]

58. It's not a baby, it's an embryo, or a fetus.

And no, it doesn't have rights.

Ever read your Bible? Know what the penalty is for causing a woman to miscarry?

[patrick317]

59. It a human person.

[iverglas]

77. what's a human person?

"Person" is a legal construct. A human person is presumably a person that is not a corporate person. Hardly a useful concept in this discussion.

"Human being" is the term applied by human beings to that which is human, born and alive.

Too bad those little feties fail on that one point, eh?

Otherwise, I imagine we would see you and your obedient co-religionists and fellow travellers out lobbying for abortion to be punishable as murder.

Given how you apparently aren't, I'll just take this "human person" bafflegab as another example of the forked tongue with which the lot of you never fail to approach the issues.

Do as you say -- for reasons that you can't begin to state coherently, and yet that you demand that other human beings be compelled to live by.

[patrick317]

84. okay--then for you: human being

[iverglas]

89. and for you:

You have adequately demonstrated your complete disdain for sincere, honest discussion, in a spirit of goodwill, of an important public policy issue (as I'm not the first to notice and point out).

So I would suggest that it's time to run along and stop trying to annoy people who are genuinely concerned about the lives and rights human beings. Your prattling and bobbing betrays no such concern at all.

[patrick317]

92. What did I say to upset you?

[iverglas]

100. www.jabberwacky.com

Uh ... Upset me?
Not much.
You got it.
Do you believe in anything?
Ah, surely not demagoguery!
You're right, most of them are students.
Well, children, anyway.
Children are cruel.
Children are stupid, but not to blame.
Are good manners learnt.
Sure, so why doesn't the RC church teach 'em??
What are you talking about?
Demagoguery.
Yes, that's what I said.
No, it's what you do.
No?!?!
There ya go!
To Istanbul and back again.


See?? I've got jabberwhacked; I don't need you!!

[cap]

152. human being or not, it cant go to heaven...

it just sits in limbo for all eternity.

[Auntie Bush]

187. Now that was a smart ass intelligent answer. (not)

It really promotes conversation. (not)

That's what people do when they have no intelligent or rational answer.
Time to take your little balls and go home.

[Lindacooks]

148. Do you have ANYTHING to say beyond spouting talking points?

I didn't think so.

[iverglas]

75. A baby does indeed have rights

All and exactly the same rights as any other human being.

How sad for you that nobody's talking about babies.

Somebody been showing you too many pictures of cuddly wuddly little fetuses in Sunday school?

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

93. that sounds insulting

if only because you appear to be treating me as if I were so stupid as to think that you have just made some sense.

Go back in time and abort the fetus of you in your mother's womb and then see what happens...

I'll go you one better ... given as how mine is reality-based and all.

My mother's first pregnancy ended in a spontaneous abortion -- what the delicate call a miscarriage. I was conceived during what would have been the late gestational period of that first pregnancy.

Go back in time and prevent that miscarriage and then see what happens.

Oops! I'm not here, so you can't tell me!

I'm as big a science fantasy fan as the next human being, but I do demand a modicum of coherent storyline.

Just as in my conversations I demand a modicum of respect. But never mind, I'm always willing to join in showing the utterly disrespectful up for what they are. I'm thinking our work here is about done.

[patrick317]

95. I am disrespectful because I am against killing human beings?

[iverglas]

104. Are you orange because you read the Sunday papers?

I am disrespectful because I am against killing human beings?

I give up. Five? Beijing? Winter wheat? The War of 1812? I'm sure there's a right answer to that question, but it escapes me just now.

[patrick317]

111. tanx

[cap]

153. cept the right to go to heaven if it hasnt been baptized.

[kineneb]

194. Then let the Church pay for all those unwanted children

until they are 18. This means fully supporting the incubator (mother) to full term and then being financially responsible for the child until it turns 18. Period.

Otherwise, the Church once again shows its hypocrisy. Oh, yes, you must have the child...but we don't care what happens to it after it is born. Just like the NeoCons and other right-wing authoritarians.

And the diseases that could be cured by stem-cell research- too bad. You have to suffer. We must all go back to the Dark Ages.
:sarcasm:

[Hosnon]

144. I disagree. I don't think it is wise to completely shut down discourse

as you suggest.

[Lindacooks]

149. The other side isn't interested in 'discourse'.

They want to outlaw abortions, period. They aren't concerned about science, or facts, or privacy, or any other consideration beyond their dogma.

And their ideology comes from misogyny.

[Hosnon]

151. My point is that it is never wrong to discuss issues - especially things

as important as rights.

Why should the position that a fetus is not a human and thus has no rights be unchangeable law?

No one should have their rights "trampled" but that doesn't mean the discussion about the definition of "one" and "rights" should be foreclosed as well.

[Lindacooks]

171. I never hear any of you people talk about the woman's rights.

Ever. It's just 'fetus this', 'fetus that'. The issue is a right to privacy and a right to control your own body. If you can't even try to understand that, there's no point to this.

[Hosnon]

177. "You People"?

Saying such things is a good way to lose credibiity...fast.

And I do care about the health of the woman and her privacy. However, as ROE says, when and if the fetus is a human being, its rights have to be taken into account as well.

You see the issue as only "a right to privacy and a right to control your own body." Others see it differently because, as the saying goes: "Your rights end where mine begin." IF the fetus is a human being, it is unconstitutional to only consider the rights of the woman.

[Demeter]

176. It's More Than Privacy; It's Autonomy!

Either women are adult and independent, or they are minors, subject to other, "more adult" people's decisions. Or perhaps slaves.

Well, since we spent a hundred years making the case that women are equal to men legally, guess which side I'm coming down on?

[stepnw1f]

40. How about the Church Mind It's Biz

when it comes to a women's SACRED body?

And when the church treats women as equals, we can talk about sacred. Until then.... practice what you preach and live and let live. Let God make the decisions.

[patrick317]

45. Life is their business.

[stepnw1f]

68. Sure It Is

What part of life.... give me a break.

[Book Lover]

43. You and I both know that the administration of the Church and

the community of the faithful are two different things. You as a Catholic can and do (I assume) push for change in civil society based, wholly or in part, on your Catholic faith. How can I have a problem with that in our free society? In fact I do not. However, when the administration of the RC Church throws its weight around in order to effect change in US civil society (and that is what the OP refers to), then yes, I have a real problem with that. Then again, in this free civil society of ours, no one has to listen.

[patrick317]

46. Throwing weight around...?

[Book Lover]

47. Why is that confusing to you? (nm)

[patrick317]

50. How do the Church toss its weight around?

[Zhade]

158. Try Africa, where their anti-condom lies - LIES - like...

..."AIDS passes through condoms" (FALSE) contribute to the increasing AIDS pandemic?

[damntexdem]

29. Vatican interference into U.S. law should horrify us all.

They can preach whatever morality they want. What is at issue here is what U.S. law should be, what research the U.S. government should fund, and ultimately what medical treatments should be covered by public monies.

As an aside, the funniest intercessional prayer experiment I've heard of was the one that had prayers said for the success of in-vitro fertilization.

[patrick317]

32. The Vatican does not interfere

with our laws. The Vatican teaches the faithful. Faithful Catholics then choose to pursue their Catholic morality by trying to get laws passed to guard that morality. The truth is, someone's sense of morality is always going to be codified into law, and Catholics have every right to try to make their sense of morality prevail.

[acmejack]

62. No communion for those Candidates!

The Church should have it's tax exempt status revoked for screwing around in politics!

[patrick317]

63. It is not politics, it is the teachings of the faith...

Any Catholic who directly supports abortion, or has gotten ab abortion is not allowed to receive communion...the Church's rules apply to everyone. The problem is the Priests cannot tell which lay Catholics are in grave sin, so they have to allow them to receive; whereas, with a publicly open pro-choice politician the Priest knows the person is in grave sin.

[Zhade]

156. So you're a theocrat then.

You won't last long here.

[BigDDem]

33. Dont touch that embryo!

Those stem cells could become a hot alter boy some day.

[VegasWolf]

34. On this day in history ...

Nicolaus Copernicus -
By 29 August 'De revolutionibus orbium coelestium' was ready for the printer. Rheticus took the manuscript with him when he returned to his teaching duties at Wittenberg, and gave it the printer Johann Petreius in Nürnberg. This was a leading centre for printing and Petreius was the best printer in town. However, since he was unable to stay to supervise the printing he asked Andreas Osiander, a Lutheran theologian with considerable experience of printing mathematical texts, to undertake the task. What Osiander did was to write a letter to the reader, inserted in place of Copernicus's original Preface following the title page, in which he claimed that the results of the book were not intended as the truth, rather that they merely presented a simpler way to calculate the positions of the heavenly bodies. The letter was unsigned and the true author of the letter was not revealed publicly until Kepler did so 50 years later. Osiander also subtly changed the title to make it appear less like a claim of the real world. Some are appalled at this gigantic piece of deception by Osiander, as Rheticus was at the time, others feel that it was only because of Osiander's Preface that Copernicus's work was read and not immediately condemned.

Catholic Church horrified at Copernicus's discovery that earth revolved around sun. Any believers that the earth revolved around the sun, including Galileo, were condemned as heretics. Galileo received life imprisonment for his absurd beliefs. Ooops!

[xchrom]

37. i wanna talk about women -- and women OWNING their own bodies.

if the church can drag itself out of the medeival ages just enough to admit that women are completely autonomous -- then we can talk about embryo.

and since ''imo'' has become the word of the day in this thread -- life does NOT begin at conception. imo.

[patrick317]

53. You are free to think whatever you want and so are Catholics.

[Lindacooks]

60. You just can't see it, can you?

'the Catholics' are interested in freedom of thought. What they want is control over women's bodies, and they want women to not have freedom of thought OR body.

Go ahead and tell us, all you want, that abortion is 'wrong'. Encourage women to not have abortions. But passing laws that prevent a person from having control over her own body is WRONG.

[patrick317]

61. I think it is you

that does not get it. In my opinion, and the view of the Church, life begins at conception. That means when a woman gets an abortion she is in fact murdering her newly conceived child. Therefore, Catholics have every right to try to codify laws to prevent murder.

[MGKrebs]

79. But as you say, it is your opinion, and the church's opinion.

I don't think we normally go around making laws about such important issues based on opinions. We like some science, or some logic, or just some clear benefit to society.

Honesty and respect would lead one to accept that others have opinions too, which may be just as valid as your own, and as long as it is an opinion, perhaps it is better to try to change minds instead of dictating behavior.

[iverglas]

87. actually, it's a *belief*

Some people claim to *believe* that a z/e/f is a human being.

Individuals obviously advocate policies based on a variety of beliefs that they hold.

And sometimes people advocate the same policies for quite different reasons, i.e. based on very different beliefs.

Some people claim to advocate outlawing abortion because they believe that z/e/fs are human beings.

Some people advocate outlawing abortion without believing for a minute that z/e/fs are human beings; they simply want to oppress women.

But they're entirely free to *say* that they believe that z/e/fs are human beings -- and no one can say nay. No one knows what someone else believes. So essentially, there is absolutely no point in discussing what anyone believes -- a belief cannot be proved or disproved, and the sincerity with which the belief is held also cannot proved or disproved.

Of course, the concept of "hypocrisy" does come in handy here: for instance, when someone claims to hold the belief that z/e/fs are human beings and then does not advocate that abortion be punished as homicide, s/he really need not be paid a moment's attention.

Except, of course, that the name of the game is demagoguery, and when there are people who are gullible or ignorant ... or as deceitful and untrustworthy as the person claiming the belief but declining to own the necessary implications ... we always have to worry that they'll get their way, despite the complete dishonesty with which they have argued their case.

But essentially, no one's belief is debatable, or an acceptable basis for public policy.

Consensus is the basis of public policy: e.g., not the belief that homicide is wrong, but the agreement that it should be outlawed. Our individual reasons for joining that consensus are irrelevant.

Sadly, demagogues are able to persuade people to join what they are hoping to make the consensus by lying and cheating, and evading questions, and cloaking themselves in righteousness, and using all the other weapons in their arsenal of trickery.

Theirs is not democratic discourse, which always involves sincere consideration of all sides and honest, transparent disclosure of one's own side.

And the best we can all do is expose the demagogues and their nasty tricks for what they are, and hope that fewer people will be tricked.

[patrick317]

96. I do advocate that abortionists go to jail.

[bperci108]

106. But not your child-raping priests?

Wanna sort that out?

:wtf:

[patrick317]

112. I never said that--you did.

[iverglas]

116. it's the ... uh ... seamless garment ...

There must be something in the bible someplace about how much it'll cost you if you sexually assault a kid, eh?

Huh. Just like there is for how much it'll cost you if you cause another guy's wife to miscarry ...

No jail time, either way, anyhow.

[patrick317]

118. Grave sin, even one, is very bad on a person's soul. That is

the cost.

[iverglas]

125. That is the cost ...

for killing your grandmother??

Cool. I can use some money. Wanna split the insurance proceeds?

I'll just have to live with that grave sin on my soul, I'm afraid. And I'm sure I can count on you to argue my case in the court of public opinion -- that I am punished enough by that stain on my soul, and surely I should not also go to prison for KILLING A HUMAN BEING.

'Course not. That's between me and my soul, just like it is for women who have abortions. None of the state's business, killing a human being.

I'm sure you believe in equality before the law. Woman who kills the itty bitty human being in her uterus gets off scot free, person who kills your grandma gets off scot free. I can't imagine that yer god would want things any different. Surely yer pope wouldn't.

Too bad you don't seem so keen on the equal protection of the law -- the law that protects your grandmother by threatening people who would kill her with life in prison, and yet lets a woman kill that little itty bitty human being in her uterus go merrily off to see the priest for some tea and sympathy.

What would that Jesus guy say??

I wonder what your church would say if the laws in the US made it a crime punishable by life in prison to kill a letter carrier, but said that people who killed priests should go make confession ...

[bperci108]

138. Only if you subscribe to the theories...

...purported by certain religions.

Not everyone follows your beliefs, and to try to legislate that they must is unconstitutional.

This is a nation of laws, not a theocracy run by witch doctors or high priests.

Your extreme views are not held by the majority of the American people and never will be.

[iverglas]

107. big fucking deal

I do advocate that abortionists go to jail.

When a mob boss hires a hit person to off your grandmother, do you adavocate that the hit person go to jail? -- and, of course, that the mob boss go along his/her merry way, perhaps with a little tea and sympathy for having been put in such a sorry situation ...

Oh my. You wouldn't be valuing your grandmother just a wee tad more than you REALLY value a z/e/f, would you?

Ah, beliefs. So impossible to verify, so stupid one would have to be to take assertions of them at face value when they're so obviously so insincerely asserted.

[patrick317]

117. It has a lot to do with how much a person knows. Many women

today truly believe there is nothing wrong with abortion and that is not taking a human life. We as a culture have allowed that to happen, so it is not just to toss them into jail for something they were taught is fine. Yet, after a given time of being illegal, that might change.

[iverglas]

127. It has a lot to do with how much a person knows. Many women

today are quite unbelievably stupid. Or completely devoid of moral sense. Or both.

Oh, that's right. That *is* what yer Paul of Damascus said.

[Don Claybrook]

133. I'm happy that not all Catholics are like you

I'd hate to have an entire religion of insufferable pricks.
As it stands, we just have you and the Nazi rat bastard to contend with.

Have a nice day, I'm off to get some day-old griller fetuses at the liberal surplus store.

[Betty]

173. do you also dvocate jailing the women

who have abortions?

[patrick317]

90. We live in a republic that gives its citizens rights to shape

the laws...

[Zhade]

159. ...as long as said laws don't infringe on others' rights.

Since embryos aren't people (since "people" have conciousness that originates in the cerebral cortex, and embryos don't have those for many weeks), they have no rights, and women DO.

Don't like that? TOO FUCKING BAD. I will fight for my female compatriots, even to physically stopping people like you if need be.

YOU WILL NEVER WIN.

[iverglas]

80. then WHY AREN'T YOU DOING IT?

Therefore, Catholics have every right to try to codify laws to prevent murder.

First, laws don't prevent murder, or anything else.

They PROHIBIT it, and they PUNISH people who do it.

We don't make laws to prevent murder simply by requiring that all children attend school and receive appropriate therapy for behavioural problems and abuse (although that could indeed be expected to prevent some murders).

We make laws that say everyone who commits homicide is guilty of a criminal offence and liable to punishment ... . That's what we do.

Homicide is the killing of a human being; that's what's codified in laws. Get the mealies out of your mouth now, and tell us: is an embryo a human being, per you? If so, why should the intentional destruction of an embryo not be characterized as MURDER, and the person who commits that act punished for MURDER? Why is your church not lobbying to have abortion prohibited and punished as MURDER?

That means when a woman gets an abortion she is in fact murdering her newly conceived child.

There ya go, you said it. So it's imprisonment for life for women convicted of the offence, right?

When will we expect to be hearing the RC church preaching that from the pulpit?

Hell, I'd settle for hearing you demand it here.

It's not like you're actually doing anyone the courtesy of engaging in sincere discourse, so you probably don't have to worry about alienating your audience.

[patrick317]

94. It is murder, or at the very least manslaughter.

[iverglas]

109. so where's yer pope?

It is murder, or at the very least manslaughter.

Do you got a clue?

Someone who plans to kill a human being, hires someone else to kill a human being, and facilitates the killing of a human being by that someone else is not guilty of manslaughter. Get a clue. It's called premeditation, and being a party to, and it's murder.

If a person commits murder, and it is proved to the satisfaction of the trier of fact, beyond a reasonable doubt, that s/he committed murder, then s/he goes to prison, usually for something like a minimum term of at least 10 years.

Say it loud, say it proud.

Women who have abortions must be imprisoned for many years.

It's the consistent life ethic. It's the seamless garment of life. It's the RC way. Right?

I mean, I don't hear the RC church calling for the penalty for mercy killing (of an actual human being) to be eliminated.

[patrick317]

115. You won't hear the word murder from the Church

because the Church is supposed to be about mercy and because it will not personally dictate civil punishments because that does cross the libe between Church and State. Yet, the Church definitely considers abortion the taking of innocent life, look up the word murder to see if that fits.

[iverglas]

122. oh ... damn, eh?

the Church is supposed to be about mercy and because it will not personally dictate civil punishments because that does cross the libe between Church and State.

Get a grip. A church doesn't do anything "personally", and nobody is talking about this church "dictating" anything, quite simply because it is incapable of doing so. We are talking about the RC church attempting to influence public policy makers to impose rules that the RC church believes should be imposed -- and PUNISH the people who break them.

And oh damn:

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/deathpenalty/116294

Roman Catholic Bishops Launch Controversial Campaign Against The Death Penalty

--- but but but ---

Traditionally, the most common reasons Catholics have opposed the death penalty is because of a "respect for life" and because of the Bible's 6th Commandment of "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13). Yet, official church doctrine does not explicitly lay out objections to capital punishment, but rather supports it in extreme cases. The most recent Catechism of the Catholic Church (1995) addresses the issue of the death penalty directly: "The Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties -- not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty." Even Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who is spearheading the campaign, admits as much. "The Catholic church has long acknowledged the right of the state to use the death penalty in order to protect society," he said at the news conference that kicked off the initiative.

So here's a really off the wall idea ...

How's about if the RC church just acknowledges the right -- nay, I'm sorry -- the OBLIGATION of the state to act according to its own constitution, and stops trying to influence public policy and policy-makers to have the rights that women are guaranteed by such constitutions violated in the most egregious way?

Okay, we'll use small words. How come the RC church doesn't mind its own fucking business?

The business of a state IS NOT the business of a church. Not when it comes to ENFORCING the rules that the CHURCH requires its members to live by.

The RC church is not merely urging the state to, say, ensure that all members of the society have enough food. It is urging the state to VIOLATE THE RIGHTS of women by PROHIBITING them from doing something, and to PUNISH people who disobey the prohibition.

This is where the line separating the RC church's nose from the business of the members of the society lies.

[cap]

164. yes.. but if the church creates the climate that makes abortion

equivalent to murder and the civil authority criminalizes abortion and uses the death penalty as a punishment, then the church is guilty of murder.

In fact, the church is guilty of murder because it has created the climate that has led to extreme politics that have led to the murder of doctors providing abortion.

Sorry Pontius Pilate.

[iverglas]

182. "Sorry Pontius Pilate"

Hee hee. Good one.

Sounds like a fitting inscription for the tombstone. ;)

[Zhade]

160. In your opinion.

Feel free to prove otherwise.

(Hint: you can't.)

[Lindacooks]

147. It's none of your business!!!!

If you're a woman (and I know you're not), then you have a choice of what to do with your body and nobody can pass laws telling you you can't.

Of course, you'll never get it. Ever.

[Zhade]

157. Actually, you don't have that right in the United States.

We have this thing called 'separation of church and state'. YOUR mythical bullshit doesn't get codified into law just because you wish it - there are millions of non-Catholics who DO NOT have to live by your code.

Chew on that for a while. No matter how much you wish it, you will ALWAYS FAIL to force us to live by your code. Always.

We will fight you, physically if necessary, to preserve OUR rights.

[xchrom]

70. from the Vatican to Catholics?

that doesn't fly since so many catholics practice birth control and get divorced.

the vatican needs to have a conversation about women -- includin autonomy of womens bodies -- oh and that little business about ordaining women or stop baptising them.

[patrick317]

72. Infallible teachings won't change--ever.

[xchrom]

78. infallibility teachings have changed.

remember that little fiasco with copernicus, galileo?

remember vatican II?

whether you like it or not -- the church does change -- what it should be willing to do is change quicker and take some responsibility for the pain it causes.

like the fact that the earth is not the center of the universe -- the evidence is in -- women are people.

ordain them and get up to speed on the fact that the birth control is not a sin.

that's just for starters.

[patrick317]

83. Wrong, infallible teaching never change. Galileo events

were never infallible. Priestly ordination for men only is infallible.

[bperci108]

101. They have indeed changed.

The doctrine of papal infallibility states that the Pope is infallible when he is teaching on matters of faith and morals, correct?

The Filioque is a perfect example that this is complete nonsense.

The Filioque (the addition of the the words "...and the Son..." into the Nicene Creed) was pronounced as dogma by Pope Nicolas I.

However, such a doctrine was repudiated and condemned by preceding Ecumenical Councils (confirmed by Roman Bishops)and denounced as heresy by preceding popes (including Nicolas' predecessor, John VIII).

Plus, universal jurisdiction, also repudiated by previous popes, was made dogma.

Both of these issues are most definitely "teaching on faith" so your Infallibility claims are garbage.

Roman Popes have directly contradicted each other.

:)

[patrick317]

103. It has never happened. A statement cannot be repudiated

retroactively as you imply. It must be repudiated and proved wrong during or after the pronouncement as a dogma or doctrine. There has never been even one.

[bperci108]

113. It HAS happened. What I posted is indisputable fact.

Pope Nicholas I directly contradicted Pope John VIII in regards to the Filioque.

It's historical fact.

Go look up the history surrounding the Photian Schism.

Perhaps you should spend a little more time looking into the real history of the cult of Rome instead of parading your ignorance of your own faith here in public.

[patrick317]

120. The filioque is one of the reasons the east and west Churches split.

Yet, they were as one Church, obedient to the Pope until the schism of 1054. So, if you are going to continue this nonsense, you had better be more specific.

[bperci108]

140. You are wrong again, Robespierre....

There was no "obedience to the pope", as the Ecumenical Church was ruled collegially by the Council of Bishops from the first century until the 11th (officially, that is...actually the mid-9th was the beginning of the Great Schism).

Before that, no one Bishop interfered in the jurisdiction of another.

The modern Roman papacy was a post schism creation by the Frankish popes and continues on to this day.

Along with universal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, transubstantiation, (and many, many more) were all invented out of thin air by Rome after the Schism.

None were held as true doctrine by the Ecumenical Church.

With the involvement with the Franks and their innovative theologians, the Roman catholic church ceased to be either Roman or Catholic in the 11th century.



You REALLY don't know the history of your church, do you? :wtf:

[CatholicEdHead]

135. There have been dogmatic shifts back and forth over time

Like Pius X overturning the more accomidating policies of Leo XIII.

[xchrom]

114. after some reading -- you are technically right

but -- there is this from vatican II

''In its first chapter, titled "The Mystery of the Church," is the famous statement that "the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as 'the pillar and mainstay of the truth.' This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him" (Lumen Gentium, 8). The document immediately adds: "Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines."

and vatican II also empahasizes the bible as the primary source for spiritual revelation to individuals.

that means that catholics can read the bible and decide for themselves how they want to live their lives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council

[stepnw1f]

41. I'm Horrified That Priests Can't Marry

To me it's unnatural, should we force our government to force our feelings on to the Church?

[patrick317]

48. They would not follow the secular government.

[acmejack]

64. Not really that much separating you guys from the Imams is there?

Both just the same, some form of sharia law works just fine for you all.

[patrick317]

65. Explain.

[stepnw1f]

76. Who is They? And Why Not if the Church

can shove it's views down every religious and non-religious person's throats in this country. Maybe now since the lines between Church and State has been blurred so well by right wing think tanks, we as taxpayers should dictate what any church can and cannot do. That's the beauty of having a Seperation between Church and State. You can believe as you want in your own Church and I can believe what I want in my COUNTRY without telling you how to believe, tax free.

See... we had the "abortion debate" already, but obviously some can't handle a government that recognizes Women's Right to decide what happens to her body, and that upholds the Constitution of the United States of America.

Oh... I forgot. Tell those who won't follow a secular government that they don't have to follow anything at all, not even their religion. That's a right wing talking point. Just respect our rights (ALL RELIGIOUS AND NONRELIGIOUS) as tax paying citizens, and for them to keep their hypocritical hands off our "secular" government altogether.

I happen to know that "We the People" outnumber the religious right, that's why they have to cheat, lie and steal to get into office in the first place so they can mess with our court system. And oh... worse of all... they misuse God's name to sucker people into voting for them. Pretty disgusting.

[xchrom]

81. a small bone of contention.

we made some decision that women had some right to privacy -- though we are still arguing over it.

we haven't decided that women OWN their bodies.

that would take a constitutional amendment called the era.

otherwise you and i agree totally.

[patrick317]

82. Slvery was legal once too, abortion will be illgeal within ten years.

[stepnw1f]

88. It's I-L-L-E-G-A-L

and no it won't. The people won't stand for any more nutbaggery of any church. We'd have civil war. Also... if the GOP wanted to make it illegal, they could have, haven't kept up their promise. You'll have to find another way to sneak more nutbags into government. I happen to know most don't like what they see and hear especially from the religious right.

Bad luck... you are living in a bubble of denial. Faith is different from fanaticism. Besides there are too many GOOD people in this country who feel sickened by the idea of women being second class citizens. It's already bad enough that women don't get payed the same as men. Rather weird regression coming from the religious right. Why are they so threatened by people's freedoms... and their own?

[patrick317]

99. I am against slaughtering innocent humans and yes that includes

in wars and all sorts of ways. It is that simple--not real complex. Life is sacred, period, end of story.

[stepnw1f]

108. Good For You...

Interesting how you chose to say "Innocent" though.... What if one is guilty? Sounds kinda conditional to me....

Hope you are against the war too.

Also... I care less if life is "sacred" (whatever the hell that means) to you or not... I just don't want your nutbaggery in OUR legislation making my better half a SECOND CLASS CITIZEN! The end to what story? Oh... you were asserting your higher than thou attitude.... not Christian at all.

[patrick317]

121. All human beings, from conception to natural death, are sacred. Period.

[stepnw1f]

124. Pat... You Sound Like a Programmed Robot

Am I talking to you or somebody else? Good night... I believe I made my point. May God forgive you.

[iverglas]

129. www.jabberwacky.com

Check it out.

It's more entertaining.

[MGKrebs]

126. When does death occur?

[cap]

167. so where is the hue and cry in the Church against those good Republicans

in Texas who yank life support from babies if their parents cant pay the bill.

[cap]

168. So, Patrick, are you going to be using the Christian Coalition Voting Guid

that the church is handing out? Are you going to be pulling the R lever like they want you to? hmmm... just wondering...

Complete Obedience to the Church seems to dictate that you will be voting R. The Christian Coalition does not back Democratic candidates. How do you feel about denying the Eucharist to Catholic pro-choice politicians?

[yellowcanine]

181. Does the Catholic Church conduct funeral masses for miscarriages?

[AngryOldDem]

193. It didn't for me

Supposedly there is a funeral rite for miscarriages, but it wasn't offered to me when I lost two babies in 1997 and 1998. The first loss came early in the pregnancy; the second, at the end of the first trimester. When I was going through that miscarriage in the hospital, I specifically asked the priest if it was possible to have some kind of service (any kind of service). He basically hemmed and hawed and the fetus was ultimately treated as medical waste.

What we finally did was have a Mass said for our miscarried children. We had to pay for it. We did it because we wanted those lives remembered, and if the Church wasn't going to help us with that, well, we would do it ourselves.

IMO, the Church is really hit-and-miss on this issue. All I can say is, when I needed it the most, it wasn't there for me.

To be honest, I don't know if I'll ever make my peace with how the Church handled me and my grief. But that's my problem, I guess.

[cap]

163. do you really want women to go to jail for abortion... death penalty?

you do not spend an equal amount of time and energy campaigning against the death penalty. There is only a nod towards efforts against the death penalty. No major movement.

A lot of Catholic women will be going to jail. A lot of pro-life women end up getting abortions. You would be soooooo surprised at who in your parish has had one. Abortion clinics say that it happens often enough that one of the demonstrators outside the clinic ends up coming in for an abortion for herself or her daughter.

Do you really want the current state of affairs in Mississippi to go nationwide? Abandoned babies, women with major health issues from self induced abortions, women killing babies. Unwanted babies. Remember, unlike you, the rest of us fornicate. Sometimes in marriage and sometimes outside of marriage. No method of contraception is fool proof including Natural Family Planning. NFP is based on statistics so it may be your lucky day to get pregnant. I cant use it... my cycles and body chemistry are too irregular. Or no sex during marriage for me.

[BuddhaGirl]

165. "Life is sacred, period, end of story"

are you against the death penalty, then?

[YOY]

189. He's gone, but technically he should be.

The Vatican is pretty solid about that. That is, if this guy is as a solid 'real Catholic' as he claims he is.

[Zhade]

162. Let's place bets.

EDIT: looks like I called it:



FUCK YOU, you theocratic piece of human SHIT! Good fucking riddance!

(Thanks, mods. He was a real rightwing piece of work.)

[mcscajun]

178. Woohoo! Yes, I knew it, too!

I thought somehow, though, he'd last until Tuesday and switch topics.

I echo your entire post. There's nothing I can say to make it any clearer.

[YOY]

180. I was trying all day yesterday to bait him out on this stuff

I'm glad someone got him to show his true colors.

A P.O.S. like this make all Catholics look like wackjobs...

[AngryOldDem]

185. You mean the fun's over?

Already?

(Enjoyed your exchanges, by the way.)

[YOY]

188. Sadly AOD, yes it is...

Glad to see that we finally made him show his true colors out, non?

And I rather enjoyed your exchanges as well.

[AngryOldDem]

190. I don't know if it was you, or someone else who said it

But people like that do give Catholics, and Catholicism as a whole, a bad rap. Problem is, his views are beginning to regain traction within the Church, especially among young adults.

I knew he was pretty much done for when all he could muster were subject-line replies.

:hi:

[YOY]

191. Yep, that was me

In the angry post of finality that I left him. It got deleted. I was angry after he insulted a friend of mine in seminary school.

I've been pissing off conservative Catholics like this for years. I haven't the patience for them that I had in my high school years though...ain't that strange.

I thought I changed it to tell him to go throw a 'passion play' as well. Apparently still too much of a 'personal attack.'

At any rate for a further laugh a fellow good DUer sent me a note that this fellow had posted on FReeperland and where he implied that he was a "a 28 year old, self-loathing, self-confessed "reformed abstinent homosexual.""


That makes it both kinda sad and really funny...

[CatholicEdHead]

199. It is more than just beginning to gain traction

We are moving at a quick speed backwards. It will only get worse in this generational two steps back. It might be 30-40yrs before we move forward again as things swing back again. It is sad but true.

[CatholicEdHead]

197. I had fun with him last night

It was like shooting fish in a barrel. He just walked into some of my posts. It was kind of a refreshing change for a evening on DU.

[YOY]

201. I got a real kick of how he thought he was "librel baitin' "

In the end, the joke was on him.

If what I gathered from the guy is true, he's more worthy of pity than anything else. A very delusional guy...very.

I don't pretend to be a spokesperson for Liberal Catholics, I can just be myself. This guy was freaking acting like he was the spokesperson for all of us.

[CatholicEdHead]

131. Priests could marry until 1100 or so

and there were women Deaconess through at least 300-400 or so.

Priests lost the right to marry over guess what? Yep, property issues at the time.

[bperci108]

141. Yes.

Rome and the Eastern Church were one until the Schism.

Orthodox priests are usually married today.

Rome changed the policy when it became entangled in wealth, politics, simony and other worldly affairs in the Dark Ages.

So much for papal "infallibility"; the shrill objections of some here notwithstanding.... :eyes:

I wonder if that person knows that the practice of the sale of indulgences (that helped start the Protestant Reformation) was instituted by Pope Leo X to help pay off his huge gambling debts?

[cap]

146. In Africa, priests can still marry...

Africans wont put up with any nonsense...If the Church didnt permit it, they wouldnt have any priests at all.

[cap]

150. the married priests do in Africa

Catholics do follow the law of their country... all of them

[Rex]

42. Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life

They use electron microscopes to look for those itty bitty, teeny tiny, demons that live in the bed sheets. Very high tech stuff, with holy water!!! Satanbusters!!!

[AngryOldDem]

69. A lot still horrifies the Vatican.

Move on. Nothing to see here.

[GoldenOldie]

139. "The church believes...." or the Vatican believes????

The statement "You are free to think whatever you want so are Catholics."

The Vatican also believes that Catholics should not be using prescribed birthconrol but only rhythm......Do you or the Vatican honestly believe that the majority of Catholics rely on the rythm method to plan their families?

Individual Catholic Church's congregations can vary in its personal beliefs, from state to state, from city to city and from town to town. The eastern cities Catholic Church's and many of the midwest
with generational congregations are far more sterner, stricter, and unyielding with the absolutes from the Vatican/Popes rules than the South West.

Many Catholics believe in modern birth control methods to plan the family they want and that they can afford. Many Catholics do not believe in life at conception. Many Catholics believe in stem-cell research.

You cannot speak for all Catholics. Those that I know would never claim to speak for you.

[AngryOldDem]

183. What the hell?

Sorry, but I think you've confused me with someone else, because I let Rome be Rome and I don't let it dictate what I think. Nor do I presume to speak and/or think for all Catholics.

If modern society acted on everything that is purported to "shock" the Vatican, we wouldn't be even halfway through the Dark Ages by this point.

Just clarifyin'.

[VegasWolf]

137. I have a solution. Let's use Jewish and Muslim embryos since they

can't get to heaven anyway since they don't accept the primacy of Jesus Christ. No foul and science and the entire world gain.

[IndianaGreen]

145. Pope Ratzo is about to embrace Creationism, per LBN thread

We shouldn't be surprised that this Pope and this Vatican would oppose science at every turn.

[Vidar]

161. Under John Paul, despite some disturbing reactionary tendencies

the Church was a strong voice for world peace. Under the Rat, it increasingly endorses unrepentant Evil.

[librechik]

192. tell me why guys who never have sex must control MY sex life?

evil fucking perverted self-righteous assholes.

[kineneb]

195. Ya know, I really don't care what any Pope "thinks"(?)

I am not a Catholic, nor even a Pauline Christian. Why should the rules of one religion affect those who do not believe? If they wish to believe the world is flat and the moon made of blue cheese, the rest of reality will pass them by.

The Buddha taught that the taking of all independent life is wrong. Taken to its extreme, it would mean stopping eating. Do I insist that we all become vegetarians? No, because it is not healthful for some people and simply not possible for others.

As to stem cells and fertilized eggs, they "live", but only as parasites. If science comes up with a new way to mitigate suffering, then the Buddhist world is all for it. Just look to the words of the Dali Lama.

The Pope is the head of a "right-wing authoritarian" religion (see John Dean's new book). As such, there is no reason why anyone who is not Catholic should give him the time of day. And many reasons why Catholics should question much about their beliefs.

Question authority; it is often wrong.

[Thickasabrick]

198. I agree. The Pope gets way too much press.