Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   "Spoiler alert: The next Pope is going to be an authoritarian old celibate picked by other mean old men for the purpose of telling the world that God has it out for gays and women. There will also be incense, to make it more convincing"   (slate.com ) divider line 522
    More: Obvious, god, incense, celibate picked, celibates, dictators, pope, Pope Benedict XVI  
•       •       •

2127 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Feb 2013 at 3:14 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



522 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-12 04:07:56 PM  

feckingmorons: Geotpf: netizencain: Because he guides a third the world's population on social issues?  Gee, why would I care about that guy?

You're off by about a factor of two; IE, about one in six people are Catholic, not one in three.

Source: http://geography.about.com/od/culturalgeography/a/popularreligion.htm

Yet more people are concerned about the Catholic Church than the more popular (as in number of people not trendy) religions. Simply amazing.



get off your cross already
 
2013-02-12 04:08:53 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: The Catholic Church's official policy means that woman would have died.


yeah but I was just assured that

And there's no earthly reason for anyone who isn't Catholic to give a shiat about who the next pope is.
 
2013-02-12 04:09:05 PM  

feckingmorons: rufus-t-firefly: feckingmorons: If company X pays for insurance and that insurance provides something repugnant to company X, company X is paying for something repugnant. You can't equate that to tax money going for something we don't like. It is simply not the same.

How can "a company" find something repugnant? Is it a sentient being?

Does "a company" have religious beliefs? Can "a company" receive Holy Communion or go to confession?

You know perfectly well what I mean, you are being purposefully obtuse.


No, I'm being acute.

But I understand - you mean that if certain people reject something because their religion forbids it, they have the right to enforce their religious beliefs on others. I'm sure an ayatollah would agree with you.
 
2013-02-12 04:10:12 PM  

feckingmorons: Some 'Splainin' To Do: So now you're going to claim that the Church did not, in fact, spend decades systematically hiding evidence of pedophilia and actively moving accused priests from parish to parish in an effort to hide their activities from authorities as well as parishioners?

No, I never said that anywhere, in fact I have often said that horrible crimes were comitted by Catholic priests. Of course what I say is of little consequence, what Pope Benedict has said and done is of much more import. The Holy See has a link on the main page at www.vatican.va that has information about the sexual abuse of minors, and what is being done to address the horrible crimes committed and how the Church is working to prevent them going forward.


How noble and godly to finally clean up heinous acts against children only when the public finally demands it, letting it go unchecked for centuries.

Yes, so godly, so honourable. We need to respect such an organization, for sure.

That's quite analogous to how Christians are only good people because they fear the retribution of a guy watching their every move and not because its the right thing to do.

Like atheists.

Catholics are disingenuous assholes.
 
2013-02-12 04:10:22 PM  

feckingmorons: Geotpf: netizencain: Because he guides a third the world's population on social issues?  Gee, why would I care about that guy?

You're off by about a factor of two; IE, about one in six people are Catholic, not one in three.

Source: http://geography.about.com/od/culturalgeography/a/popularreligion.htm

Yet more people are concerned about the Catholic Church than the more popular (as in number of people not trendy) religions. Simply amazing.


Why is it amazing?  Catholicism is the most popular religion in the United States by a fairly wide margin.
 
2013-02-12 04:11:07 PM  
I'm confused here.... I thought the Pope was infallible? I thought he was hand-picked by God to be His representative here on Earth? If these are true, then how come the pope can quit because he's getting old, and how come he could ever have health issues that would prevent him from serving? Actually, now that I think about it, why isn't the FIRST infallible "representative of God" still alive, if these people are truly perfection walking upnthe Earth?

/Could it all just be a scam?
 
2013-02-12 04:13:00 PM  

feckingmorons: Abstinance is the most effective method of birth control.


Abstinence isn't birth control; It's sex control. The most effective method of weight control might be starvation, but that doesn't make it a diet.
 
2013-02-12 04:14:02 PM  

feckingmorons: Homosexuality has never been said to be intrinsically evil by any Pope.

...

You are woefully misinformed and you spread falsehoods at truth.


How about by a  Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? That good enough for you?

http://www.advocate.com/news/2005/04/20/new-pope-homosexuality-quoti nt rinsic-moral-evilquot-15775

October 1986: Ratzinger publishes a document titled "On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons." The letter warns of "deceitful propaganda" from pro-homosexual groups. It instructs bishops not to accept groups that "seek to undermine the teaching of the church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely." The letter refers to homosexual orientation as an "intrinsic moral evil." In the wake of the letter, many Catholic bishops bar Dignity from using church facilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_for_the_Doctrine_of_the_Fa it h
 
2013-02-12 04:14:07 PM  

Mikey1969: I'm confused here.... I thought the Pope was infallible? I thought he was hand-picked by God to be His representative here on Earth? If these are true, then how come the pope can quit because he's getting old, and how come he could ever have health issues that would prevent him from serving? Actually, now that I think about it, why isn't the FIRST infallible "representative of God" still alive, if these people are truly perfection walking upnthe Earth?

/Could it all just be a scam?


You're not nearly as clever as you think you are.
 
2013-02-12 04:16:40 PM  

Huck Chaser: Mikey1969: I'm confused here.... I thought the Pope was infallible? I thought he was hand-picked by God to be His representative here on Earth? If these are true, then how come the pope can quit because he's getting old, and how come he could ever have health issues that would prevent him from serving? Actually, now that I think about it, why isn't the FIRST infallible "representative of God" still alive, if these people are truly perfection walking upnthe Earth?

/Could it all just be a scam?

You're not nearly as clever as you think you are.


"Clever"? Those are valid questions.

Valid questions for which you obviously have no answer.
 
2013-02-12 04:16:44 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Can you "be Catholic" and be denied Holy Communion?

If you support a woman's right to choose, you may get to find out.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfworthycom.htm


In all fairness, the same rules apply to murder, too.  Also applies, if my memory serves, if you declare yourself an officer of the church without officially receiving the sacrament (i.e., declaring yourself a bishop).
 
2013-02-12 04:16:49 PM  
Someday, I would like to see gay rights groups fight back against the Catholic Church.  I'm thinking an ad campaign that recounts the sexploits of some of the less chaste popes throughout history followed by "Gay Sex: if it is good enough for popes, it is good enough for the rest of us" in huge letters.
 
2013-02-12 04:17:04 PM  

Mikey1969: I'm confused here.... I thought the Pope was infallible? I thought he was hand-picked by God to be His representative here on Earth? If these are true, then how come the pope can quit because he's getting old, and how come he could ever have health issues that would prevent him from serving? Actually, now that I think about it, why isn't the FIRST infallible "representative of God" still alive, if these people are truly perfection walking upnthe Earth?

/Could it all just be a scam?


Papal infallibility is an especially crap kind of infallibility, though. The actual doctrine is:

[W]e teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.

Read that a few times: The Pope is infallible when he said something, if we define "infallible" to mean "he totally said it and is in charge". It's the same "infallibility" that self-important bosses have.
 
2013-02-12 04:17:22 PM  

CPennypacker: Genevieve Marie: This thread is making me flash back on high school catechism classes and how deeply angry it made me to hear such incredibly arbitrary rules laid out about reproductive health- especially knowing that the rules were written by celibate old men who would never be affected by their own pronouncements.

I've never seen anything in it besides a desire to control women and a desire to preserve a patriarchal power structure.

Being raised to be a faithful Catholic is a big part of why I'm a feminist.

Same here, catholics man. That and I don't understand even minded people who don't think women should be equal. Puzzles me.


Catholics don't think women are unequal. Sure men and women have different roles, but to say they are unequal is not correct.

Even if they changed the rules to say it is OK for women to be priests, the Church has no authority to ordain women.

See Ordinatio Sacerdotalis § 4
 
2013-02-12 04:17:25 PM  

Huck Chaser: Mikey1969: I'm confused here.... I thought the Pope was infallible? I thought he was hand-picked by God to be His representative here on Earth? If these are true, then how come the pope can quit because he's getting old, and how come he could ever have health issues that would prevent him from serving? Actually, now that I think about it, why isn't the FIRST infallible "representative of God" still alive, if these people are truly perfection walking upnthe Earth?

/Could it all just be a scam?

You're not nearly as clever as you think you are.


You totally are, though. Right?
 
2013-02-12 04:18:11 PM  

Maud Dib: They need to go outside the box when picking the next pope.
Or, the solar system, as it were...


[images2.wikia.nocookie.net image 542x550]


Ah, thank you. Hoping somebody would post that pic!
 
2013-02-12 04:19:21 PM  
feckingmorons:  Homosexuality has never been said to be intrinsically evil by any Pope. Simply being homosexual is not a sin nor is it evil. Sex outside marriage is.

Now that right there is some artful lying.

*sniffs the air*

Yep, I smell Jesuit school graduate.
 
2013-02-12 04:19:58 PM  

Mikey1969: /Could it all just be a scam?


Oh it's a scam alright.
Follow the  gold.
Follow the dead injuns, and follow the gold.
Follow the pregnant stupid people and the kiddy diddlers.
Follow the gullible and the feeble minded.
It's snake oil with out the oil.
It's picking the pockets of the stupid.
It's a spiritual lottery ticket with no payoff.
It's sa crock of happy hoseshait and if you let people like that anywhere near your governing heads of state, you are a fool.
You need to call them out and take them to task.
You need to tax them like you do any sinner.
You tax the brewer, and the hooker and the tobacco maker.
Then you need to tax the spiritual terrorists, too.
 
2013-02-12 04:20:03 PM  

feckingmorons: dr_blasto: feckingmorons: Catholic businesses are being forced to violate their religious beliefs by providing birth control. They are not denying birth control to their employees, nor are they going to fire anyone who is not Catholic.

This is incorrect. Caholic businesses (and other businesses) are providing their employees with insurance. The insurance companies are required to provide birth control. Business owners are not part of the conversation any more than you or I are about our tax dollars buying bullets for M4s in Afghanistan or the bombs and bullets we bought that were used in Iraq.

That is patently absurd.

If company X pays for insurance and that insurance provides something repugnant to company X, company X is paying for something repugnant. You can't equate that to tax money going for something we don't like. It is simply not the same.

No matter how you set up smoke and mirrors, the insurance companies only provide benefits for which they are paid, they are not philanthropic organizations.


I completely disagree with you.

If a company pays for insurance, that's it. FIN.

Now, insurance companies have to meet whatever standards they have to meet. It has nothing to do with the business owner, the owner's religion or the religion of the employee. The owner's business relationship with the insurance company doesn't include options for lesser than minimum standards; if we required mental health care, Scientologists would still have to pay. Christian Scientists have the same requirements.

Also, I find that the premise of the Iraq war was repugnant. I'm sure I feel that it was as bad as some Catholic feels about birth control, don't belittle that. It isn't a lesser sentiment.
 
2013-02-12 04:20:04 PM  

Huck Chaser: Catholicism is the most popular religion in the United States by a fairly wide margin.


If you chop up Protestants into Lutherans, Pentecostals, Baptists, Anabaptists (or whatever), it is. However, some flavor of "Jesus" is the most popular religion in the US by like 15-to-1.

So keep the internecine conflict going. I'm sure that even though you haven't solved shiat (ecumenically speaking) in the last 500 years, your "come to Jesus" moment is juuuuuuuuuuuuust around the corner. Just keep demonizing anyone who hasn't joined the group yet - us heathens LOVE that.

As a VERY Catholic friend of mine recently said: Catholics aren't leaving in droves because of what the Church believes. Catholics are leaving because of what the Church DOES. The same shiat everyone else does - lying, hypocrisy, greed - only robed in godly infallibility, all while pretending to be above it.

// only she said "fark" and "shiat" more in the original
 
2013-02-12 04:20:37 PM  

Stone Meadow: feckingmorons:  Homosexuality has never been said to be intrinsically evil by any Pope. Simply being homosexual is not a sin nor is it evil. Sex outside marriage is.

Now that right there is some artful lying.

*sniffs the air*

Yep, I smell Jesuit school graduate.


The Jesuits made me an atheist
 
2013-02-12 04:20:53 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: feckingmorons: rufus-t-firefly: feckingmorons: If company X pays for insurance and that insurance provides something repugnant to company X, company X is paying for something repugnant. You can't equate that to tax money going for something we don't like. It is simply not the same.

How can "a company" find something repugnant? Is it a sentient being?

Does "a company" have religious beliefs? Can "a company" receive Holy Communion or go to confession?

You know perfectly well what I mean, you are being purposefully obtuse.

No, I'm being acute.

But I understand - you mean that if certain people reject something because their religion forbids it, they have the right to enforce their religious beliefs on others. I'm sure an ayatollah would agree with you.


No, that is not at all what I am saying. If I own a dry cleaner and I'm an observant Jew I can make sure your catered lunch that I provide is Kosher. You can go out to lunch if you want, but if you don't you can eat the nice Kosher meal. You're not getting a bacon cheeseburger at work, but you can go to McDonalds.
 
2013-02-12 04:20:59 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Mikey1969: I'm confused here.... I thought the Pope was infallible? I thought he was hand-picked by God to be His representative here on Earth? If these are true, then how come the pope can quit because he's getting old, and how come he could ever have health issues that would prevent him from serving? Actually, now that I think about it, why isn't the FIRST infallible "representative of God" still alive, if these people are truly perfection walking upnthe Earth?

/Could it all just be a scam?

Papal infallibility is an especially crap kind of infallibility, though. The actual doctrine is:

[W]e teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.

Read that a few times: The Pope is infallible when he said something, if we define "infallible" to mean "he totally said it and is in charge". It's the same "infallibility" that self-important bosses have.


Yeah.

Papal infallibility essentially boils down to "that's the way it is because I said so."

It's essentially the same response a parent gives to a five-year old who won't stop asking "why?"  If, you know, the parent could excommunicate the kid and damn him to eternal hellfire for disagreeing.
 
2013-02-12 04:21:02 PM  

Mikey1969: I'm confused here.... I thought the Pope was infallible? I thought he was hand-picked by God to be His representative here on Earth? If these are true, then how come the pope can quit because he's getting old, and how come he could ever have health issues that would prevent him from serving? Actually, now that I think about it, why isn't the FIRST infallible "representative of God" still alive, if these people are truly perfection walking upnthe Earth?

/Could it all just be a scam?


The pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith.

For infallibility to be applicable, the following must be true:

The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.

Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible.

Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.

Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin.


Since the doctrine was officially defined in 1870, it's only been used once:  Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.

And the following are accepted as ex cathedra documents, but were issued prior to the dogma being defined:

"Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;

Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;

Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;

Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;

Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;

Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception.
 
2013-02-12 04:21:59 PM  
Feckingmorons: Catholics don't think women are unequal. Sure men and women have different roles, but to say they are unequal is not correct.

So, like, equal but separate. Interesting.
 
2013-02-12 04:22:56 PM  

feckingmorons: Catholics don't think women are unequal. Sure men and women have different roles, but to say they are unequal is not correct.

Even if they changed the rules to say it is OK for women to be priests, the Church has no authority to ordain women.

See Ordinatio Sacerdotalis § 4


Would you say that their roles are  separate, but equal to those of men?
 
2013-02-12 04:23:59 PM  

Stone Meadow: feckingmorons:  Homosexuality has never been said to be intrinsically evil by any Pope. Simply being homosexual is not a sin nor is it evil. Sex outside marriage is.

Now that right there is some artful lying.

*sniffs the air*

Yep, I smell Jesuit school graduate.


Well that is what it is. You can be as gay as the flowers in May, but you can't have sex with people. Same with unmarried couples, no sex. There is no lying. Nobody is forced to be Catholic.
 
2013-02-12 04:24:55 PM  

feckingmorons: CPennypacker: Genevieve Marie: This thread is making me flash back on high school catechism classes and how deeply angry it made me to hear such incredibly arbitrary rules laid out about reproductive health- especially knowing that the rules were written by celibate old men who would never be affected by their own pronouncements.

I've never seen anything in it besides a desire to control women and a desire to preserve a patriarchal power structure.

Being raised to be a faithful Catholic is a big part of why I'm a feminist.

Same here, catholics man. That and I don't understand even minded people who don't think women should be equal. Puzzles me.

Catholics don't think women are unequal. Sure men and women have different roles, but to say they are unequal is not correct.

Even if they changed the rules to say it is OK for women to be priests, the Church has no authority to ordain women.

See Ordinatio Sacerdotalis § 4


The church creates its own authority. And yes, the Catholic church absolutely treats men and women as inherently unequal, they just couch it in language that tries to make it sound like it's not reprehensible.

The church has some fine ideas and Catholic social justice principles are still a big part of my life, but male privilege is for too entrenched in the church for it to ever feel like a welcoming place to me.

And the thing is, it doesn't need to be that way. There's no real biblical support for some of these ideas- and almost all Catholic women do use some form of birth control not approved by church hierarchy. The church would be wise to recognize that they've lost that particular battle and that they'd do so much more good if they'd shift focus back where it belongs: on educating and serving people living in poverty.
 
2013-02-12 04:25:12 PM  

feckingmorons: Stone Meadow: feckingmorons:  Homosexuality has never been said to be intrinsically evil by any Pope. Simply being homosexual is not a sin nor is it evil. Sex outside marriage is.

Now that right there is some artful lying.

*sniffs the air*

Yep, I smell Jesuit school graduate.

Well that is what it is. You can be as gay as the flowers in May, but you can't have sex with people. Same with unmarried couples, no sex. There is no lying. Nobody is forced to be Catholic.


That explains why so many people are deciding not to be anymore.
 
2013-02-12 04:25:13 PM  

feckingmorons: kronicfeld: feckingmorons: The idea of one big conspiracy appeals to us: "The Church" did it and then covered it up.

Yup, then it appointed one of the cover-up artists CEO.

That is simply untrue, you can't simply make things up because you don't care for a religion.


Like your comment that no Pope has condemned homosexuality. So was the attributed quote to Benedict XVI about it made up? I notice you have gone awful quiet on that little issue.

Hint: You'll have a lot better luck if you just come clean and admit that you choose to be a believing, observant Catholic and cannot defend it on any logical, moral or ethical grounds.

/disclaimer: I was brought up Roman Catholic, an altar boy, never abused by clergy.
 
2013-02-12 04:25:44 PM  

feckingmorons: rufus-t-firefly: feckingmorons: rufus-t-firefly: feckingmorons: If company X pays for insurance and that insurance provides something repugnant to company X, company X is paying for something repugnant. You can't equate that to tax money going for something we don't like. It is simply not the same.

How can "a company" find something repugnant? Is it a sentient being?

Does "a company" have religious beliefs? Can "a company" receive Holy Communion or go to confession?

You know perfectly well what I mean, you are being purposefully obtuse.

No, I'm being acute.

But I understand - you mean that if certain people reject something because their religion forbids it, they have the right to enforce their religious beliefs on others. I'm sure an ayatollah would agree with you.

No, that is not at all what I am saying. If I own a dry cleaner and I'm an observant Jew I can make sure your catered lunch that I provide is Kosher. You can go out to lunch if you want, but if you don't you can eat the nice Kosher meal. You're not getting a bacon cheeseburger at work, but you can go to McDonalds.


You reject the comparison to taxation, but a free meal (which, by the way, isn't required by law) is comparable? What a farking joke.

A better comparison would be your employer gives you a $20 per diem you can use for food, but refuses to reimburse you because you had a cheeseburger rather than something kosher. And that wouldn't be...well, kosher.
 
2013-02-12 04:25:55 PM  

feckingmorons: Nobody is forced to be Catholic.


Right.

That's why Catholic parents always wait until their children are 18 and can give proper consent before they baptize them into the church and perform other sacraments of initiation.
 
2013-02-12 04:26:03 PM  
The state of the Catholic Church is a bit like the state of the Republican party.  Those who do not support the positions on abortion, contraception, gay rights, etc.. either just choose to ignore those positions and still maintain some connection to the Church or they have left the Church.  those remaining most active are the hard core supporters, much like the relationship between the republican party and the Tea Party.  So the leadership of the Church , like the Republican leadership, relies on the arch -conservatives for power and reflects their beliefs.
 
2013-02-12 04:28:35 PM  
I think it's great how the catholic church scares so many people in 3rd world countries with high STD rates into avoiding condoms, 'cause you know....the holy ghost n such.

great work, you're sure to get away with it too, unless Scoob and the gang get too pesky.
 
2013-02-12 04:28:35 PM  

Graffito: feckingmorons: Catholics don't think women are unequal. Sure men and women have different roles, but to say they are unequal is not correct.

Even if they changed the rules to say it is OK for women to be priests, the Church has no authority to ordain women.

See Ordinatio Sacerdotalis § 4

Would you say that their roles are  separate, but equal to those of men?


I would say they are different and important. We each have a role to play in our Faith, in our work, and in our lives. All are important.
 
2013-02-12 04:29:09 PM  

feckingmorons: Abzzstain: feckingmorons: the most effective method of birth control is not artificial.

Only because altar boys can't get pregnant

What a vulgar and unfair comment. The majority of sexual abuse by clergy is not by Catholics, but by Protestants. I'm sure the left leaning Huffington Post will be a reliable enough source for you :

One of the most striking aspects of the Protestant clergy sex abuse pattern is that most people don't realize it is a pattern. The Catholic Church has taken a well deserved beating in the courts and in the court of public opinion as former altar boys, orphans and ordinary parishioners come forward with appalling stories of sex abuse. Yet equally egregious violations by Protestant clergy fail to generate the same level of outrage.

Certainly there have been many horrific crimes by Catholic clergy, but Pope Benedict has taken aggressive steps to eradicate the perpetrators and the midset that years ago swept their crimes under the rug. The Church immediately refers any accusations to local civil authorities as well as conducting an internal investigation. Criminals are punished both by the local civil criminal justice system and by the Church's laws. Show me where the protestant denominations have made such strides at eliminating the predatory crimes of their clergy.


How can you tell such a baldface lie? Then Bishop Ratzinger sent out a letter on May 18th 2001 addressing sex scandals that, while the abuse of children by priests was a sin, any incidents of such abuse were a pontifical secret and reporting these cases to local authorities was also a sin. All incidents were to be handled within the church, not by secular courts.

Do you have any evidence the church leadership's policies have changed in the last decade? As in, what cases of child abuse has the Catholic Church brought to the attention of local authorities rather than simply complying with an investigation after the scandal was revealed through another source?
 
2013-02-12 04:30:04 PM  

feckingmorons:  Nobody is forced to be Catholic.


But if you work for a Catholic, you can be forced to follow Catholic doctrine when it comes to your insurance.

Try to keep your comments consistent.
 
2013-02-12 04:30:52 PM  

feckingmorons: Graffito: feckingmorons: Catholics don't think women are unequal. Sure men and women have different roles, but to say they are unequal is not correct.

Even if they changed the rules to say it is OK for women to be priests, the Church has no authority to ordain women.

See Ordinatio Sacerdotalis § 4

Would you say that their roles are  separate, but equal to those of men?

I would say they are different and important. We each have a role to play in our Faith, in our work, and in our lives. All are important.


So were slaves before the civil war. 'Importance' doesn't enter into it.
 
2013-02-12 04:31:11 PM  

feckingmorons: Ghastly: feckingmorons: You can't use artificial birth control, but the most effective method of birth control is not artificial.

BWAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHHHAHHAHAHAAAA!


The most effective method of birth control is to avoid intercourse. It is 100% effective.


Absolutely. And you are 100% invited to abstain as much as you want.

When you and your ilk attempt to start attempting to make your weird ideas PUBLIC POLICY then people have a problem.
 
2013-02-12 04:32:21 PM  

Mikey1969: Huck Chaser: Mikey1969: I'm confused here.... I thought the Pope was infallible? I thought he was hand-picked by God to be His representative here on Earth? If these are true, then how come the pope can quit because he's getting old, and how come he could ever have health issues that would prevent him from serving? Actually, now that I think about it, why isn't the FIRST infallible "representative of God" still alive, if these people are truly perfection walking upnthe Earth?

/Could it all just be a scam?

You're not nearly as clever as you think you are.

"Clever"? Those are valid questions.

Valid questions for which you obviously have no answer.


I assumed you were trying to be clever when you stated that Papal infallability would somehow allow the pope to live forever.  Since you obviously lack even a basic understanding of what Papal infallability actually is, I suggest a little bit of light reading before you attempt to rejoin the conversation.
 
2013-02-12 04:33:43 PM  

feckingmorons: Stone Meadow: feckingmorons:  Homosexuality has never been said to be intrinsically evil by any Pope. Simply being homosexual is not a sin nor is it evil. Sex outside marriage is.

Now that right there is some artful lying.

*sniffs the air*

Yep, I smell Jesuit school graduate.

Well that is what it is. You can be as gay as the flowers in May, but you can't have sex with people. Same with unmarried couples, no sex. There is no lying. Nobody is forced to be Catholic.


And doctrine says you can't get into heaven but through the Catholic Church. But hey...nobody's forced to be Catholic.

Dude, welcome to Fark: "This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."
 
2013-02-12 04:34:03 PM  

feckingmorons: Graffito: feckingmorons: Catholics don't think women are unequal. Sure men and women have different roles, but to say they are unequal is not correct.

Even if they changed the rules to say it is OK for women to be priests, the Church has no authority to ordain women.

See Ordinatio Sacerdotalis § 4

Would you say that their roles are  separate, but equal to those of men?

I would say they are different and important. We each have a role to play in our Faith, in our work, and in our lives. All are important.


Except that some are more important than others apparently. The highest positions in the church are completely off limits to women. Women cannot perform sacraments. Women are absolutely considered a second class group in the church and are expected to submit to an all male authority.

About the only two roles for women considered sacred in the church are as either virgins or mothers. I probably can't begin to explain how dehumanizing and demoralizing it is to have your moral value as a human determined not by how you think or what acts you perform but by what's between your legs, but you should trust me that it's a terrible feeling.

The church would be so much stronger if it was more inclusive.
 
2013-02-12 04:34:06 PM  

netizencain: Because he guides a third the world's population two thirds of the Supreme Court on social issues?  Gee, why would I care about that guy?


Remember when Catholics were shut out of the American political dialogue? The pendulum has swung a bit towards the other direction.
 
2013-02-12 04:34:08 PM  

Huck Chaser: I assumed you were trying to be clever when you stated that Papal infallability would somehow allow the pope to live forever. Since you obviously lack even a basic understanding of what Papal infallability actually is, I suggest a little bit of light reading before you attempt to rejoin the conversation.


He understands it. He's mocking it. The reality is no less ridiculous.
 
2013-02-12 04:34:09 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: feckingmorons: Graffito: feckingmorons: Catholics don't think women are unequal. Sure men and women have different roles, but to say they are unequal is not correct.

Even if they changed the rules to say it is OK for women to be priests, the Church has no authority to ordain women.

See Ordinatio Sacerdotalis § 4

Would you say that their roles are  separate, but equal to those of men?

I would say they are different and important. We each have a role to play in our Faith, in our work, and in our lives. All are important.

So were slaves before the civil war. 'Importance' doesn't enter into it.


You're right, women are slaves in the Catholic Church.  We actually have chains in the pews where we force them to have rape-babies.  It's awesome!

/Equating women in the contemporary Church to American slavery is about as similar as Taco Bell is to Chipotle.
 
2013-02-12 04:35:46 PM  

feckingmorons: Millions and millions of families rely on natural methods of birth control.


Yeah, those people are called "parents".
 
2013-02-12 04:37:08 PM  

Cythraul: I hope they pick someone attractive to be Pope this time. The Papacy could use some sexy-factor these days. Enough with old wrinkly ancient men. I want 25 to 50 year old new hotness.


I'm sure the altar boys would prefer that too.


/went there
//buying SPF 5000 sunscreen to put in the coffin with me when I go
 
2013-02-12 04:37:19 PM  

Genevieve Marie: Except that some are more important than others apparently. The highest positions in the church are completely off limits to women. Women cannot perform sacraments. Women are absolutely considered a second class group in the church and are expected to submit to an all male authority.


Don't blame the church for it! It's just the rules of the religion that are fundamentally defined by the church and have changed drastically in the 1600+ years of activity it's been going!
 
2013-02-12 04:38:35 PM  

Tomahawk513: You're right, women are slaves in the Catholic Church.  We actually have chains in the pews where we force them to have rape-babies.  It's awesome!

/Equating women in the contemporary Church to American slavery is about as similar as Taco Bell is to Chipotle.


So, conceptually the same, it's just that one is worse than the other. Got it. Not sure anyone's disagreeing with that.
 
2013-02-12 04:39:02 PM  

Tomahawk513: hillbillypharmacist: feckingmorons: Graffito: feckingmorons: Catholics don't think women are unequal. Sure men and women have different roles, but to say they are unequal is not correct.

Even if they changed the rules to say it is OK for women to be priests, the Church has no authority to ordain women.

See Ordinatio Sacerdotalis § 4

Would you say that their roles are  separate, but equal to those of men?

I would say they are different and important. We each have a role to play in our Faith, in our work, and in our lives. All are important.

So were slaves before the civil war. 'Importance' doesn't enter into it.

You're right, women are slaves in the Catholic Church.  We actually have chains in the pews where we force them to have rape-babies.  It's awesome!

/Equating women in the contemporary Church to American slavery is about as similar as Taco Bell is to Chipotle.


So much like Taco bell vs. Chipotle, you agree it's simply a matter of degree and not kind.
 
Displayed 50 of 522 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report