The Church has come out against Kerry

for supporting abortion, and more recently against gays, and even against gay supporters.
If they're going to stand so firmly on their principles, perhaps they should take a refresher course in exactly what the rules call for.

Excerpts from the Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, the Humanae Vitae of July 25, 1968.

They've made their position clear on abortion recently and seem to follow Humanae Vitae:

Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children.

That's clear enough, I suppose...but how about Catholics who've gotten a vasectomy, or had their "tubes tied" after that last delivery? Hmmmm...

Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.

Have those folks get banned from receiving communion yet? No? Yes?
Ooh...here's a sticky wicket...

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation-whether as an end or as a means.

Oh my...that's problematic. As written that certainly seems to preclude any form of "birth control" whatsoever! No birth control pills, no "morning after" pills, no IUD, no sponge, no condoms...
Sorry, it's time to bar these folks from the Eucharistic Table too or be exposed as hypocrites!
Don't despair though...not wanting to leave the Church completely without a means of controlling family size, this was thrown in...

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.

There you are...how's that joke go? "We used the rhythm method and all 18 of our children are musically inclined!"
That's why I must ask now, why aren't Catholics the most powerful voting bloc in history?
If they're all sticking to the rules which got John Kerry and gays in such hot water, it seems to me we should be up to our eyebrows in Catholics by now.

P.S. I was raised Catholic by Catholics, went to a Catholic school, did my stint as an altar boy, and even had a priest in the family, but I'm no longer a Catholic.
I'm just pointing out what seems to be a bit of an inequity here.
Any current DU Catholics here? Was this position in Humanae Vitae ever modified?

come out against the church.

I was raised Catholic and all that stuff, but after this the Church can go screw itself.

The left does much more to help people with their education, healthcare, keeping their jobs here at home, etc.

We also opposed this immoral war in Iraq.

...be problematic, as well, since many right wing pro-lifers are in favor of capital punishment.

Kerry's enjoying somewhere around a 70/30 advantage in the polls amongst Catholics.

Someone's shipping a lot of birth-control pills in plain brown wrappers, I reckon. :)

They tend to be quite a bit more liberal than their Protestant counterparts.

It's the Church of Rome that sucks. The sooner there's a schism, the better. It's high time that old fart in Rome loses his princely lifestyle on the backs of the peasants.

I live in a very catholic very democrat area. The catholics are becoming more and more due to the pro-life preaching every sunday.

a very large influx of evangelical chrsitians who had a wee bit more intelligence than the average evangelical, and end up converting to catholicism, because when you follow the train of logic laid out in the new testament, you end up with evengelical christianity leaving a lot that is unexplained (in the areas of "justification by faith alone" as opposed to the scripture stating that "faith without works is dead" especially when they find out that even Luther stated that he had no scriptural authority for his position. Other issues are the clearly delineated scriptural areas that seem to validate the existance of the papacy) I know a growing number of new Catholics who come out of the evangelical Christian movement, and most of them are of the more highly intelligent variety who find themsleves embarassed by Robertson, Fallwell, and Hinn. Unfortunately, they are also bringing along with them the tendency to mix religion with politics, which up until the invasion was something that American Catholics chose to avoid doing. You cna follow a lot of this on EWTN, the Cathloic answer to the Christian Broadcasting Network, which does TV programs on C.K. Chesterton, series on Catholic Authors like Flannery O'Connor. Unfortuantely they also have a significanbt degree of programming interviewing converts from Protestantism especially Evangelicalism, in which ex-evangelicals go over and debunk such evangelical fare as the Rapture and so on. A growing number of Catholic Priests are coming over from the Prostestant ministries as well, as these minister/priest converts are allowed to be married if they were married and acted as ministers prior to their conversion.

I have been watching this turn of events carefully, as I grew up Catholic, and watching the changes from the time when Kennedy assured the American people that his religion would remain separate from his politics, until this new tendency in which the newcomers to the Catholic Church are changing the attitude towards mixing religion and politics.

For all the years of the papacy of John Paul II, American Bishops and Archbishops did not make an issue of things such as contraception,or abortion,leaving it as a personal , rather than public concern. You do it, you confess, it is forgotten, you go back to taking communion again. The massive influx of converts from other branches of Christianity into the Catholic Church has had a very adverse effect, as far as I can tell. Most of us who were born into this church are baffled by the actions of the newcomers, Like most converts, they are more Catholic than the pope. Most of the time converts have a tendency to be far more ardent in their faith than those who did not convert. This year the Catholic Church in the U.S. has seen the largest number of converts in a single year than can be remembered in recent history. ALmost all of them came from other Christian Churches.

That kinda vote difference could make a HUGE difference in swing states. That could tip the election to Kerry.

BTW, I'm excited about the Pistons tonight!

playing, although it's just one bishop. It's amazing no one speaks out that prior to the Iraq war, the Pope publicly stated he was against it, maybe the only religion to publicly come out against the war.

and guess what church * belongs to. Of course he hardly ever attends.

Catholics in my home area, especially of my parents generation, have large families for that reason. I have a few Catholic friends though from large families that have cited that as a reason that they wish to leave or have left the Catholic Church.
Young couples marrying in the Catholic Church are required to see a video that condemns birth control as unhealthy, and not just spiritually, and talks about the benefits naturual family planning.
Interestingly enough, my mother has worked with a few different Catholic organizations and become close to some nuns who discuss their hysterecamies to the extent that my mother has determined that they have such operations more frequently than most women. I know that they probably did have such operations for health problems and that some reproductive problems are more common among women who don't have children, but evidently sterilization for health reasons is alright.

nuns have hysterectomies because they want to be sterilized?!

Catholic women have never been prohibited from having hysterectomies if surgery is indicated for gynecological problems. Married Catholics are supposed to accept the children that God sends them, meaning no contraceptives or sterilization, but there's no rule against surgery that will, or may, end one's ability to reproduce. And if you look around a typical parish today, you'll see that few couples are following the rules against artificial contraception. A typical Catholic family today has two children, maybe three if the first two are the same sex.

Why would any woman undergo a hysterectomy to end her chances of pregnancy when a tubal ligation can be done through a tiny incision causing little pain and requiring no recuperation period? A Catholic woman who persuaded a doctor to remove her uterus because she didn't want to be pregnant would know she had committed a sin as much as if she'd had the simpler tubal ligation so how does she benefit?

The Catholic Church says that abortion is forbidden even for therapeutic reasons. I assume by that they mean the health of the mother. For example, a woman who found out that she was pregnant and then found out she had cancer would not be permitted to abort if she were to follow this position. She would be risking her life and may die because she couldn't begin treatment early.
As the original post stated, they consider surgical sterilazation a major sin also. I am simply pointing out that the thereuptic reason does appear to be permitted. The women who discovers that she has cancer early in her pregnancy may be held to have committed a greivous sin if she aborts to give herself a better chance of living. A nun who discovers she has uterine cancer is permitted to have surgery to render her sterile to save her life. I am not saying that it is wrong for the nun to have a hysterectomy. I am saying that it is wrong that a woman religiously is advised to risk her life carrying a pregnancy to full term.
Yes Catholics now are having fewer children but in the recent past priests were harsh on couples about this and encouraged couples to have children that they could not financially or emotionally support. Yes, my evidence is antedotal but my friends affected by this are quite affected by this pressure that they or their parents were under. Although it is the Church's job to provide spiritual guidance, I beleive that it is wrong to force or even encourage burdens upon people that they cannot handle.

"Young couples marrying in the Catholic Church are required to see a video that condemns birth control as unhealthy, and not just spiritually, and talks about the benefits naturual family planning."

I got married in the Catholic Church and never had to see such a video. In fact, our pre-Cana classes said little or nothing about reproduction.

His (now) wife is nonpracticing, but the wedding had to be RC for family reasons. In any case, they had to attend several classes which condemned all birth control except rhythm, and even stated that condoms did not prevent disease. In addition to reinforcing all of his negative ideas about the Church, his only comment was, "at least we got a really good thermometer out of it."

By the way, for all frustrated Roman Catholics, the Episcopal (English Catholic) and Lutheran (Reformed Catholic) Churches welcome you.

Peace

engage in politics, then it can start paying
taxes.

I could stand that.

that which is Caesar's..."
Time to ante up!

They want to start a PAC, fine. But actual church funds being used for political support or opposition should cause their tax exempt status to be revoked!!!

:grr:

I'm totally behind that. I HATE being politicked to from the pulpit, but I'm afraid I've fallen off my church attendance since last summer - when I just could no longer justify supporting an organization that had so much pedophilia in it. Furthermore, some of my fellow parishioners (a few of them still go on Sundays) have openly questioned how much of their money that goes into the collection plate is actually going to settlements of molestation lawsuits, or in our case here in L.A., to the "Taj Mahony" - the HUGE and glamorous new cathedral recently built downtown - where there are TONS of poor people and multiple missions along Skid Row, and lots of immigrant and probably illegal Hispanics crowding 12 to a room in lousy cheapo apartments. THEY need that money. Roger Mahony doesn't.

I remember one Sunday when they brought this nun in to deliver the sermon - during the FAMILY Mass at 9am - when lots of kids were present. I just fumed! There were other mothers there who were also fuming - mainly because the content of her speech was rather R-rated - talking about how Jesus and His church are married and he has these marital feelings toward His church - and a lot of other allusions that leave you with some rawther bizarre mental images, especially during Mass!!! TOTALLY inappropriate. And that kind of crap should NOT be presented in the middle of the Mass - especially when kids are present.

I grew up knowing one really devout Catholic family. Six kids - when the mom's physical state could really only afford to have handled two or three. But they just kept havin' 'em. He just wouldn't keep his zipper up. And she just never asserted herself. Utterly WRECKED her health. She lived a long time, was always sickly after that sixth baby. And SHEESH, I remember even back then (it was before I was nine years old, when we moved to California) when I watched the dad weigh in on what movies his kids should go see. Especially the older ones. I remember thinking how odd it was that this man would take what was in "The Tidings" SO literally - he had that Catholic-oriented newspaper open to the entertainment section, where they listed the "Legion of Decency" ratings of movies, and he kept talking about - "well, it says here in the paper that this movie is not appropriate, so..." And I still remember feeling rather amazed that he was taking it THAT seriously. I remember feeling quite relieved to think that I was NOT a member of that family!!!

Six kids, nine pregnancies. My grandmother would have
had more, but she didn't start until she was 30 or something.
They lived on potatoes and deer meat they were so poor (in
Montana they could do that).

My dad lapsed, so I didn't get much of that growing up. I
guess I could reclaim it if I wanted to, but I ended up an
agnostic, so it's all good by me.

This political posturing is what the cretins in charge of that venerable organization think just the ticket to restore their moral authority after having been some decades to all intents and purposes a pedophile ring, by fostering, protecting, and paying hush money for such criminals among their number....

regarding the pedofile thing... the Vatican's suggestion a year or so ago that the problem had been that some parishes had actually *gasp* settled suits rather than continually stonewalling and not giving victims the "window" through which to pursue damages.

anyway. They should keep their doctrines and rituals out of the government business. That is exactly what people were afraid of when they questioned Kennedy's Catholicism years ago. It just took them this long to show their true intent and colors.

against helping the needy, etc. They're quite picky on their issues. If it's a left winger who betrays one teaching, it's horrible; a right winger who betrays every gospel with every single vote it totally okay with them.

condemning republi-CONs on Capitol Hill for gung-ho supporting the war - especially when the Pope himself condemned it? ANYBODY?

They only go after left wingers.

to vote?

Do the Catholics withold communion from death penalty supporters?

They have to be fair.

This is a long-standing Catholic position.

And Kerry, at the same time. (With his own Church against him, how can he win? Why, Gore couldn't even carry his home state!)

This is, indeed, Church doctrine. The antics of a few grandstanding Bishops are new--but they are a minority even among the hierarchy.

...I wanted to know if Humanae Vitae had been modified. Honestly, I'm not looking to bash Catholics, I just feel "the law" isn't being applied equally.
I doubt very much this controversy was born in the Catholic Church. I smell rich Republicans pressuring bishops by threatening the collection basket all over this.
Kerry isn't "Catholic enough" for the same reason Kennedy was "too Catholic"...outside pressure.

There are many cons to a "same faith" ticket but it's intriguing to think that Kerry and Clark could "hijack" Catholicism in the US. I'm Catholic and the idea amuses me.

I trust both those gentlemen to keep the country on the correct path and if their conscience calls for it, make their peace with God later.
I'd have no problem voting that ticket at all. :thumbsup:

I can believe "rich Republicans pressuring bishops by threatening the collection basket."

But the bishops shouldn't give in to that sort of pressure.

Doing so is playing right into the hands of the many anti-Catholic Americans.

... resisting efforts to kick serial child molesters out of the priesthood. They simply have no stamina left.

It would be interesting however if it turned out that Republican operatives had the "goods" on some Catholic Bishops.

who votes for Kerry or anyone who says they are pro choice cannot get Communion or last rights. That is unless you vote for the shrub you are officially condemned to hell by the "church". Just you wait for it folks it's coming and then all of those old serious catholics will have to vote for the shrub or not vote at all to remain a "good Catholic". Remember god didn't put these Nazi loving assholes in their positions of power in the church it was other men of power who had a sexist/raciest/and fascist philosophy.

This is just rugged "fundalentalism" rearing its ugly head...

It's only natural that "the church" is eager to "change the subject"..

For years the molestation issue has been the prevailing news item for "the church". so it's obvious that the heirarchy is eager to have something else in the news, regarding the church..

They are willing to "sacrifice" Kerry and to embrace a vile man like Bush, in order to take the heat off their own foul deeds..

It's also just another way to "divide people"..I was raised Catholic, and I can tell you that there were MANY people taking
communion who never should have, but the prevailing thought then was that "it was between them and God"..

Churches are becoming so enmeshed in politics, that we might as well just call them political parties and be done with it..

Liberal Churchies
Conservative Churchies
Secular conservatives
Secular Liberals

That should cover it :)

and recently stumbled across it in the archives.. Sigs used to remain with the posts, so you could see all the old ones.. The New DU software, changes all of the previous ones to the new one.:(

Their feigned piety and righteousness is enough to gag a maggot.

the rules and regulations of the Catholic church concerning procreation are and were written by men who never had families of their own to provide for. These men, themselves, were provided for by the largess of members of the church in all countries. If they could marry and have families to support by their own labors, these rules may be quite different than they are today.

I quit the Church when I learned of its innate hypocrisy. And that goes for all the other churches, too. The sins of any religious institution are far, far greater than those of its attendees.

And as for bush, a quote from Blaise Pascal: "Man never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."

I was raised Catholic - by Catholics, and went to a Catholic school. When I was a girl, they didn't allow girls to be what are now called "altar servers." I suppose if they had, I would have been one. But mainly, the altar boys were there for us girls to flirt with during Mass.

That said, it's had NO impact on my belief that a woman has the last word when it comes to her own body. When I was in grammar school, I remember Father Flanagan coming over from the church across the street and giving us our catechism classes. Whenever he talked about family issues and marriage and stuff, I remember thinking to myself - HOW could this guy talk about marriage and children and stuff, when he's never married, and couldn't possibly have any kids? I think I was eleven years old when I was questioning that. Not very submissive, I realize. Not very obedient. But I can't help it. That's what I was thinking. I still think that way. As soon as priests can marry and get pregnant, then they'll be able to talk with me about those issues with credibility. Otherwise, sorry. I don't take my voting orders from the Vatican.

It's as old as the church at Rome. It started in around AD 40 when the first bishops were planted in England. (It is a myth that Henry VIII started the church--he simply affirmed what had always been true--that the Pope had no authority in England.) It is a warm, diverse church which struggles with many issues. It also has full communion with most Lutheran and Old Catholic churches, and is working with the Methodists. A church which can embrace C. S. Lewis, John Spong, John Donne, Julian of Norwich, and Desmond Tutu has to have something going for it.

Although sometimes I feel like I should stick around, just to be a thorn in their side. If the malcontents all leave, who's going to remain behind to press for change? I realize I'm just one person. I SHOULD probably just bail. But sometimes I fall victim to that siren song of wanting to stay in the system and work for change and reform. Oh well. But thanks! I'll remember that. There's a church in Santa Monica called St. Augustine by the Sea, which is VERY open to all. My gay friend goes there and just had her babies baptized there. So I realize there ARE alternatives. And my husband's a presbyterian, and friends at the church he attended for awhile has offered me asylum if ever I'm excommunicated. I usually joke that I have my green card there, and that I'll be right over as soon as they finish decorating.

No offense.

reached the Isles in 50 A.D.. I believe its apostolic succession began later with the arrival of St. Augustine (around 597). Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Arrrrggghhh!!! Monsignor Mac, look what you've cost me! I had no idea!
If my timing was off with the bell during the consecration, or I "blew it with a cruet", Monsignor Mac would rap me on the top of my head to get me back in the proper spiritual frame o' mind.
So...we were getting flirted with?
Arrrrggghhh!!!

Better believe it! Some of 'em were so cute, as I recall! Did you NOT see us peeking at you over our prayer books?!?!?!? Back when the altar boys held that little gold plate under every communicant's chin, I used to try to position myself so I'd get communion from the priest with the cutest assistant.

Did you ever call the Eucharist a "Jeezit"? That's what the kid across the street told my kids he called 'em. He was an altar server until he graduated. When I heard that I almost lost my lunch laughing.

Jeezit? I roared! Thanks for the belly laugh!:D

"Did you NOT see us peeking at you over our prayer books?!?!?!?"
Gawd no...not when I was working one of Monsignor Mac's gigs! Or when I'd get assigned the 5AM "Early Bird Special" (one priest, one altar boy, three really really old parishioners)

"Back when the altar boys held that little gold plate under every communicant's chin"
If memory serves, that was called a paten (I think). Ours looked like shiny ping-pong paddles...they had black wooden handles. They were mainly for catching the Holy Dust, but I used to fret so much about a fumble on the hand-off. The paten was flat, the Host was round...I just had awful visions of batting it up in the air a few times, falling over the communion rail...I'm starting to sweat again just thinking of it, because the way we were taught serving Communion was like soccer. Only one player got to use his hands. :D

Then there was the elderly gent with the Gene Simmons tongue...ah, the memories are flooding back!

Why walk out on an institution that generates so much material?

Barrump-bump!

I usually got the Saturday evening mass

and a half-dozen on Sunday...once they added Saturday evening Masses I knew my time in the ol' cassock and surplice was coming to a close!

:loveya:
There...I've owed you that for forty years now. I never realized! :D

You're correct. I think. I believe it WAS called a paten. I was always afraid some kid would slit my throat with it by holding it up too close.

We used to check out the altar boys to see who'd just gotten a fresh haircut and who hadn't (I usually liked the ones with more hair), and what kind of shoes they were wearing underneath the robes. And I remember how it was DREADFULLY hard to catch a glimpse of a cute altar boy when we came up to get communion - we had to be looking at the priest delivering the host. I was always worried that my tongue would be coated and really gross or something.

Man - those were the days.

You had Monsignor Mac - we had Father Murray. The best Masses (and confessions, too) were always with him presiding. He was rawther old. We used to enjoy his sermons because it became a game to listen to his dentures whistling as he talked.

There were sometimes, later on, when we got reckless with the hosts. Do you remember when they started "evolving" a little, after Vatican II, and sometimes even had a bowl at the back of the church with unconsecrated hosts in it - from which you would take one and drop it into the chalice that would later be used in the Mass? Just like that Lay's potato chip commercial - betcha can't take just one! We'd usually grab a small handful to snack on during the sermon. Somehow we figured it didn't violate any rules about fasting before communion - even while those rules were being filed down a little around the edges.

Man - here I am at DU - feeling almost as though I'm in the confessional... And HEY, you wanna have some REAL fun with ol' Father Murray? You hadn't lived til you'd heard his dentures whistling at you, up close, just on the other side of that weird screen in there. And he always had the same formula-type comments to make after you'd tell him your sins.

It was 40 years ago for me...I've no idea how long it's been for you!
That's so funny. One of the first things I did when I got my backstage pass to the sacristy was test the edge of the paten with my thumb!
They started changing it up after I'd stopped attending except for funerals, and it seems every time I went there was a new trick. I remember the first time I saw "civilians" bringing the offering up the aisle...I did an actual double-take. I was really thrown for a loop when the priest just handed the Host to those preceding me in line. Here they are about to hand me the Body of Christ and I'm trying to remember how thorough I'd been the last time I'd washed my hands. :D
I'm sure glad they hadn't thought of the "Pick Your Host" thing you mentioned when I was a boy, because there was a time or two (or three :))when the ballfield beckoned and I may have just snagged a Bulletin and skipped out to play ball. It was okay, you just needed to be extra careful when crossing the street until confession on Saturday. I needed the Bulletin of course to drop nonchalantly on the table when I got home so Mom wouldn't ask me if I'd gone to church and make me add "I lied to my mother" to the Saturday list. Sort of like "counting coup" on the church, I guess. That host thing though...I don't know how I'd have beaten that system. Monsignor Mac would've seen that lone host remaining unclaimed in the bottom of the chalice after Communion and somehow he would have known it was mine.
The nuns took us to the Host Factory when I was a boy...the Cavanaugh Company, it was called. We got samples...I was disappointed when "the big ones" tasted exactly the same as "the little ones". Shouldn't be that way, I think.

You said "And he always had the same formula-type comments to make after you'd tell him your sins"...
It was payback. I was giving him formula-type sins!:D

"I was giving him formula-type sins!" Oh man, were you hanging around OUR church? How'd you know? I guess this runs in Catholic kid circles. When I'd go to confession, I had a formula, too. You NEVER wanted to admit to how many times you'd lied to your mom or (GASP!) talked in church - so I had this "alternative" counting system. One unit probably represented 12 or more offenses of the same kind, so you could say - "I disobeyed my mom 3 times" and feel okay about it. I NEVER went above seven.

And then ol' Father Murray would come back with "Rememberrrrr... the Lord always... or the Lord died for... (whatever, fill in the blank here for occasion or feast day in the Church year) and then we'd get two "Our Fathers" and five "Hail Marys" and we'd be sent on our way. I think we all did some version of that. And the "penance" prayers were always formula, too.

Yeah, wasn't it a jolt when all of a sudden the priest started placing the host in your hands so any mere civilian could touch it? I found that rather amazing myself. I mean, even GIRLS touching it, for heaven's sakes!?!?! By the way, if we had been in your parish, Monsignor Mac would never have known. We'd probably have taken enough handfuls of unconsecrated hosts before Mass started - that there wouldn't be any leftovers!

And yeah, I think we're talking 40 years for me, too! They say when you're baptized you're marked for life. I think it's this ritual stuff that does it, frankly... Hee hee!

Since we're confessing stories of Catholic childhood, here's one of mine:

I was about 8 years old and I wanted to be a priest but I couldn't because I lacked the most important qualification: a Y chromosome. So, one Sunday, both of my parents had the flu and I told them that since they weren't able to go to church, I'd bring church to them. Mom was very religious and thought that I was being very thoughtful.

I grabbed my Bible (everyone in the family had their own) and picked out some verses using the close your eyes, flip and pick method. (Good thing I didn't hit the last chapter of Judges). Then I cut out circles of paper to use as hosts.

I celebrated mass just as if I'd been a real priest.

And then as a teenager I asked about why it was that girls couldn't become priests and the standard answer was given me: Jesus was male. But how come so many priests are Irish? Jesus was Middle Eastern, not from the British Isles. Apparently sex matters and ethnicity doesn't. I never understood that and still don't.

Anyway, I was a priest for one day and there isn't anything the Church Hierarchy can say about it.

It may seem surprising that I wanted to be a priest as a kid but today I'm an atheist. Anyone who's grown up Catholic knows about the strong encouragement (read pressure) for one sone to join the preisthood. I kept hearing about my cousins practically being pushed into becoming the first American Pope. (They're all married with children now)

I thought of the priesthood as a gender barrier to break. As an 8 year old, I'd gone through several First Female X career choices including First Female President, First Female Astronaut (taken by Valentina Tereshkova), and others I don't remember very clearly. I got laughed at a lot at the dinner table when the "What do you want to do when you grow up?" questions got asked.

Girls simply aren't an aid to the "brotherhood".

I was listening to Air America yesterday. A former priest kept commenting that seminary was the GAYEST place he'd ever been in his life.

My uncle keeps saying that they need to get rid of all the gay priests. But if they did, they wouldn't have many left.

That was a nice story!
First female President is still up for grabs. Id vote for you. I think the White House could do without so much testosterone in the air in these tricky times we find ourselves in.
I never really considered the priesthood as a boy. Spent a couple of years as an altar boy, discovered girls, and any chance of a vocation was gone.
I've come to understand (thanks to Calimary) that at least in this sport it was the waterboy who got the girls, not the quarterback.

a loooong time ago.

Just to be fair, let's tax all of the Robertsons and Falwells as well; their organizations are not keeping to the restrictions that allow them their status. (I don't think any religion should be able to freeload; they should all pay their taxes.)

"Kerry's enjoying somewhere around a 70/30 advantage in the polls amongst Catholics."



Do you have a link for that?

That would be poetic justice wouldn't it?

:P

eom

Maybe a few rightwing church officials have.

When Zell Miller endorsed Bush, did you say "Democratic Party comes out against Kerry"?

when hearing the catholics rules, i have told friend, rythym method is the same, purposely not having sex when those sperms are going to get to egg, no different that pill or vasectomy or anything other contraceptive. they dont agree. do tell me the difference, denying sperm the egg

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/politics/main618886.shtml


(CBS) CBS News Political Consultant Monika L. McDermott looks at U.S. Catholics and finds that John Kerry is reasonably well positioned to carry this crucial block of voters despite his problems with church leaders over abortion and other issues.

Kerry’s experience shows he knows how to win the Catholic vote. In his 1996 re-election to the Senate, Kerry faced a difficult challenge from Massachusetts’ sitting governor, William Weld, and many pundits predicted a Kerry defeat.

In the end, Kerry walked away with a seven-point victory, due at least in part to his support among Catholics. According to a CBS News exit poll in that election, Catholics made up 50 percent of Massachusetts’ voters, and they voted 53 percent to 43 percent for Kerry.

In the presidential primary elections this year, Kerry showed a similar ability to attract Catholic votes, at least among Democrats. For example, in the nine Super Tuesday states that voted on March 2, Kerry won 62 percent of the Catholic vote, according to CBS News exit polls, running 10 points better among Catholics than he did among all voters.

...sort of like waiting for the perfect wave or something. :D

contraception, which means using devices as barriers to physically prevent the sperm from reaching the egg or chemicals to alter the natural menstrual cycle or suppress conception. (IUD's don't prevent conception, they prevent implantation of a developing embryo, but that's obviously not allowed, either.)

Catholics are allowed to practice Natural Family Planning (NFP) aka symptothermal family planning, the updated form of the rhythm method. The idea is still to calculate the woman's fertile days and avoid intercourse on those days but the knowledge about female physiology is much improved. They claim success rates for properly practiced NFP are comparable to the rates achieved with properly used birth control pills.

No doubt you just said "No way!" or "Bullshit!" and perhaps they do exaggerate. Then again, do you think our corporate-controlled media would want to report on effective birth control achieved with no health risks and nothing to buy except a good thermometer and paper for charting the woman's temperature daily?

There are a lot of hints about NFP improving couples' sex lives, too. About ten years ago, I read a book on Catholic sexuality that had an article by a bishop encouraging married couples to use NFP. He talked at length about the desirability of couples being free and inventive in their sex play during the times that intercourse was off limits, specifically suggesting oral sex.

that pure capitalism was not Christian, etc.

There were some very conservative American Catholics who individually and collectively tried to 'educate' the pope about 'real Christianity.'

They didn't get very far because pope was younger and healthy, and many American bishops and cardinals were not conservative.

Now many of those bishops and cardinals have been replaced, and they are listening to the conservative politically powerful Catholics.

Also, the American Catholic bishops and cardinals made several strong statements that many of the social and economic goals in the Contract on America were not Christian.

They don't have a moral leg to stand on.

I love my Catholic brothers and sisters, but I loathe the church hierarchy. ;)

hierarchy, not the individual parishioners. Unless, of course, they agree with the hierarchy. ;)

Anyway, Kerry enjoys a healthy lead among Catholics. I think a few Bishops are having some sort of hissy fit (because I guess they can see a possibilty of Roe v. Wade being watered down a bit with recent court appointments and see Kerry as a threat to that), but they face the possibilty of backlash from the faithful.

Their decision against contraception and other forms of birth control was out of touch with the reality of the churchgoers. It's one of those things that a lot of people are going to disregard out of convenience or necessity. Once people disregard one tenet of the faith, it becomes that much easier to disregard others.

The condemnation by bishops of Catholic politicians who are pro-choice, pro-gay marriage or for stem cell research (or people who support those politicians) stands in stark contrast for their silence on other issues, such as the war in Iraq and capital punishment. This lends itself to the derisive label of "cafeteria Catholics", those Catholics who pick and choose which tenets of the faith to believe in and which to cast aside.

In the end, it only serves to weaken the Church.

than a real Christian who actually practices Christian acts and is truely compassionate. Just shows how phony the Catholic church is. Don't know if I want to continue attending a Catholic church - they've just shown themselves to be a joke in the last few years.

They've promoted and embraced two men who were involved with the child molestation scandal and now this... What a crock.

if the church wants to participate in the political process, that's fine with me ...

but if they do so, they should lose their tax exemption ...

diatribes.

:shrug:

Okay, now who here needs to go to confession? :eyes:

Would Jesus be comfortable hanging out in the Vatican?

has a so they think hidden closet, and the trick is to secretly find out what is in it that is causing the yelling and drag it out, expose it... Remember Newt, Livingston, etc etc. Some people yell when they are in pain and some yell to cause others pain.

I would think the Catholic Church has enough on it's plate with the pedophile issue with God to clean up.

I too say tax religions if they want to play the game they need to pay.

at chimpy for the invasion of Iraq, "You go without God," and all that?

I don't HAVE to take http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
Seriously...

Or anything else people who confuse reality with what clowns dressed as Roman Enperors have to say about 'money, guns and power'

"I never apologized to the Arab world." GW BushII , The Washington Pope
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/121/51.0.html

as I'm sure you know. It's too late to edit your header but please be more careful with future statements. There's enough anti-Catholic sentiment here as it is.

The Church has NOT come out "against gays," either.

--> The Roman Catholic Church teaches that homosexuals are children of God and to be respected as persons no different from anyone else.

I haven't heard anyone complain about THAT teaching. The complaints are about the following:

-->The Church teaches that ALL sexual acts outside of marriage are sinful.

-->The Church teaches that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

Combining these two teachings clearly puts homosexuals in the position of committing sin if they have sex. Homosexuals, it is suggested, are called to be chaste and celibate throughout their lives unless they choose to marry someone of the opposite sex.

YES, it is a very difficult teaching for gays and lesbians to accept in today's world where we all believe in our right to do whatever we feel like doing.
I think the reality is that gay Catholics are not letting it stop them from living their lives as they choose, just as straight Catholics are doing. As you pointed out, straight Catholics are using artifical contraceptives, in defiance of Church teaching. Perhaps the majority of American Catholics today are perpetually sinning in the conduct of their sex lives and have decided that God is merciful enough to forgive them for it.

What has happened recently is that two or three bishops have spoken out against Catholic politicians ignoring Church teaching on abortion by voting to legalize or fund abortion, and, most recently, a bishop ordered priests in his diocese not to give Communion to people wearing rainbow sashes to symbolize that they are gay and/ or support same-sex marriage. I thought that was particularly unfortunate but I also think that people wearing rainbow sashes to Mass as a protest are not being properly respectful of the sacrament of the Eucharist. You know that their minds were focused on whether or not the priest would give them Communion, rather than preparing themselves spiritually to receive the sacrament.

Bishops are doing their jobs when they call on all Catholics to live by Church teachings and I support them doing that. I don't support them singling out Catholic politicians for public censure or denying Communion unless there are extenuating circumstances. They should, I believe, call on all Catholics in their dicoeses to rigorously examine their consciences before receiving Communion and to go to confession regularly. It should be up to John Kerry's priest to talk to him in the confessional about his pro-choice position -- and for all we know, he does.

Career Prole, you don't seem to hate the Catholic Church, as some who've left it do, and I appreciate that you are calling on these bishops to crack down on all rule-breakers, not just a few. You're quite right that they should do so. But it's important to remember these were just a few bishops in a large country with many bishops, and that no bishop can speak for the entire Church as the pope can.

Declaration of bias: I am Catholic, do practise, but balance
Church teachings against my own common sense. Common sense often
wins.

I don't understand where any bishops get off criticising Kerry for
being pro-choice - that simply means he believes that individuals
have the right to choose for themselves what to do if faced with
an unwanted pregnancy. Nobody's forcing people to rush out and have
abortions by being pro-choice, and the Church doesn't have the right
to force its beliefs on those who believe otherwise.

If bishops had taken this sort of attitude in 1960, Kennedy would
never have been elected.

I believe Church teaching should prevent John Kerry from getting an abortion, and if JK did try to obtain an abortion I would have no disagreement with the Church punishing him as they see fit.
God said man has free will, and John Kerry merely validates that by being pro-choice. He's not stating a personal opposition to Church teaching, merely acknowledging that the choice to follow that teaching belongs with the individual. He is not a priest, and it's not his job to enforce Church teachings.
As for it being just two or three bishops coming down on Kerry and gays, you yourself stated the Church's position, no? If these three bishops have justly denied Kerry and gays the comfort of the Sacraments, then it doesn't matter if everyone from the seminary students to the Pope weighs in on it...rules are rules. If you are implying that these three bishops are wrong, then the rest of the bishops should say so.
Since the ban on contraceptives was clarified unequivocably along with the ban on abortion in Humanae Vitae then in fairness those Catholics who use artificial means of contraception should also be denied the Sacraments. If they remain silent observers of this treatment of Kerry and gays then as far as I'm concerned every time they themselves partake of the Eucharist they reek of hypocrisy.
As the nuns used to tell us before every exam, "Don't cheat...I may not see you but God sees everything!"
You're absolutely right in thinking that I don't hate Catholics. I don't and I never will. I'd be turning on my family and my history.
I do disagree with what they're doing to Kerry. If they want to be political, then they need to pay taxes first. Christ said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, unto God that which is God's"
Politics is Caesar's game, my friend, not God's...and if you want to play in Caesar's game you have to ante up like everyone else or just fold your cards and watch...and no kibbitzing! :)

..there's not ENOUGH anti-Catholic sentiment here, at least in terms of sentiment against the mainline church. That giant, lumbering dinosaur of conservative politics needs to be put out of its misery. I have no problem with the religion itself, but the Catholic Church is still overly wealthy, has killed millions with its stands against family planning and continues to interfere in the politics of Western nations with its stances against gay marriage and abortion. Liberal Catholics everywhere need to put extreme pressure on the College of Cardinals to elect a more progressive Pope when John Paul dies.

with conservatives, doubtless to ensure that his views will prevail
when he's gone.

I don't think the Church should necessarily rush to embrace all the
latest faddish thinking in society, but should balance dogma with
humanity. How can it benefit either individuals or the world,
already vastly over-populated and with resources shrinking, to force
people to have more children than they can afford to feed, clothe
and educate to a reasonable standard? If they would encourage
birth control, it would help diminish rates of abortion, STDs, and
even AIDS. It should also be remembered that Paul VI went against
the advice of a majority of his bishops when he decided to ban
contraception - this is where the doctrine of infallibility can be
such a trap. A pope makes a mistake, however well-intentioned, and
the end result is misery for millions, and no-one can overturn that
decision. How can a wealthy, sheltered, privately-educated celibate
have the faintest idea of what it's like to raise a child in poverty?
I do know that in Australia, two or three children in Catholic
families these days is the norm, against the 6-8-10 of forty or
fifty years ago - priests would be well aware of how and why, but
are sensibly not pursuing the subject. Humanity wins.

The Church has always had a strong survival instinct, and we can only
hope that this will lead to the election of a more humanistic pope
next time - if there is such a one to be found.

which I am not, I would leave the church and never look back. They have stepped over the line on this. They, for generations, protected priests who abused CHILDREN, yet they come out against John Kerry because he's pro-choice and supports Gays? I would be out of there so fast, their heads would spin. What about all the Catholic women who take birth control? Is the church against them too? What about Catholic men who have had vasectomies (SP)? What about women who have had their tubes tied....all the things you asked in your post....legitimate questions for the Catholic Church.

I use to work with a doctor who is Catholic and he and his wife practiced the "Rhythm" method UNTIL his wife had their 6th!!!! child in 6 years. She had her tubes tied. I guess they're sinners and should be denied communion. :eyes:

Are the priests who sexually abused children denied communion? Has the church turned their back on them? If I were John Kerry, I would make a PUBLIC TV announcement that "I am leaving the Catholic Church."
This shit pisses me off. :grr:

doesn't mean the Vatican has taken an open stand against Kerry. Nor the American college of bishops by any stretch, nor even the oblique attack by the excommunication happy right wing doofies. One bishop squeaks and the Catholic Church and God Almighty has flaunted its stand for evil?

This is an exaggeration. You can dredge up all sorts of law, pronouncements, legal books(none of them under the absolute blanket of infallible authority) and equate them with the samll core of fundamental Church dogma(Creed) and bottom line decisions you imagine the "Church" has made.

How about from another side? I was pretty disillusioned when a little historical perspective on the "Social justice encyclicals" revealed it was not forward or progressive so much as adapting to the pressures in secularizing Europe with a STRONG emphasis on protecting property rights. The relationship between the Church, law(its own and state law- two different things confused in some of the above quotes)and politics has been turbulent, changing and never harmonious.

When the first Emperor to become Christian gave the Church everything it wanted they got more than they bargained for. "Caesarism" began when Constantine felt he could make decisions for the "Church".

To keep the barricades down I would prefer, personally, the defensible view that abortion is not a great thing, especially for the woman burdened with that choice, and that support needs to be given to women, unwanted children and all the associated factors that lead to such a choice. The Church can do that without resorting to law enforcement external pressures of a sort it should never ever exercise. The fact that one issue opens an emotional highway for a lot of political power crossovers between state and religion should be clear enough to educated leaders who are truly Christian. trying to hold the line on divorce, abortion, the death penalty in state law is something the Church has to lobby for idealistically mainly when the majority of the population of a state are practicing Catholics. Mere laws of prohibition and punishment go against the grain of the Gospels. It is the "Good News" that has been made present to the present, not punishment and doom as if every day was Judgment Day and the authorities were already seated on their high horses of judgment.

As for the raging enthusiastic males who sometimes lead the Church hierarchy in negative self-absorbed directions, I don't have to like them and I don't. And I can criticize them on performance grounds. And I do.

Is America Bush? Is the Constitution our guiding and only writ? Was America or any nation state ever worth anything? Real faith lasts. Blowhard selfish elites do not. Whatever a belief is, it has to be living. To be alive means to grow, progress and change from generation to generation. Eternal truths are not a cover for all the unnecessary extra comforts of weak minds, especially when the best and core truths are shoved aside. Compassion above all.

modified. Has it? If the Holy See has changed the rules since '68 I stand corrected. If they haven't then what I said above stands, and I stand by it.

You tell me "This is an exaggeration. You can dredge up all sorts of law, pronouncements, legal books(none of them under the absolute blanket of infallible authority) and equate them with the samll core of fundamental Church dogma(Creed) and bottom line decisions you imagine the "Church" has made."

Assuming Humanae Vitae still applies until I'm informed otherwise,
if you read it through, Paul VI doesn't say it's his law, he say's it's God's law, and I quote:

III. PASTORAL DIRECTIVES
19. Our words would not be an adequate expression of the thought and solicitude of the Church, Mother and Teacher of all peoples, if, after having recalled men to the observance and respect of the divine law regarding matrimony, they did not also support mankind in the honest regulation of birth amid the difficult conditions which today afflict families and peoples. The Church, in fact, cannot act differently toward men than did the Redeemer. She knows their weaknesses, she has compassion on the multitude, she welcomes sinners. But at the same time she cannot do otherwise than teach the law. For it is in fact the law of human life restored to its native truth and guided by the Spirit of God. (24)

Observing the Divine Law

20. The teaching of the Church regarding the proper regulation of birth is a promulgation of the law of God Himself. And yet there is no doubt that to many it will appear not merely difficult but even impossible to observe. Now it is true that like all good things which are outstanding for their nobility and for the benefits which they confer on men, so this law demands from individual men and women, from families and from human society, a resolute purpose and great endurance. Indeed it cannot be observed unless God comes to their help with the grace by which the goodwill of men is sustained and strengthened. But to those who consider this matter diligently it will indeed be evident that this endurance enhances man's dignity and confers benefits on human society.

You said I've exaggerated, but upon a second and third reading it still seems to me that Paul VI stated clearly that regarding contraception the natural way is the Divine way and indeed called it Divine Law.
If it isn't Divine Law, then the vast majority of Catholics including the Pope himself should speak out against these "vigilante bishops" who are denying the Sacraments to John Kerry, rather than remaining mute bystanders to a grave injustice.
If instead it is Divine Law, then all who are violating it along with John Kerry (and there are many of them) should be dealt with in the same manner.

Paul VI also laid out instruction for public figures, bishops, priests, and, Christian couples. If you'd like to read them, the Encyclical is linked in my first post. :)

You wound up your post like this..."Whatever a belief is, it has to be living. To be alive means to grow, progress and change from generation to generation. Eternal truths are not a cover for all the unnecessary extra comforts of weak minds, especially when the best and core truths are shoved aside. Compassion above all."

I like that very much and can agree with you there...which is why I asked originally (and still ask) for an answer from a current Catholic, or anyone with any definitive knowledge whether or not Humanae Vitae still stands as is. If current Catholics don't know what is and isn't Law, I'd think there are a lot of souls in peril who don't realize it.

Generations have passed and times have changed, as you say, and I'm no longer an altar boy. I'm a grandfather. Has the Church changed with the times? That's all I ask.

devoid of human context, Humane Vitae and the reputation of Paul VI and the future media attention given Church pronouncements, all slouch more than stand. Who wants to squarely look at the embarrassing reality of the Church's loss of moral teaching stature over the over-definition of sexual behavior? When that encyclical came out there was the debate, the dismay, the criticism(played out in the non-Catholic media with Catholic "experts") and the puzzling enterprise ended with a whimper. Did it ever occur to the teacher that the purpose of the lesson might be lost?

Of course it stands there. There are some doozies from the Middle Ages that do too, which even the averted gaze of time and defeat cannot rot away to oblivion. The broad generalities and positive statements can be pulled out- or the negative oddities emphasized, but practically it did not connect with the laity or a lot of the clergy. The underlying message was muted.

When you have Scriptures about floods, tyrants, massacres or other cruelties they stand too as "holy history". What the Spirit is trying to do through the writings is not enforce our failures and punish and trap in chains of paper and dismaying verbiage(that is Unchristian according to Paul) but to prophesy and encourage. The positive aspects of marriage that the Church is trying to defend against absolute materialism and the use of easy means to answer problems of world justice that fall disproportionately on the poor- therse are the core teachings and the spirit of the encyclical. Those same worldly wise forces typically found the real meaning of the encyclical was a quaint prohibition against contraceptives and a a threat to overpopulation(thus turning the tables) evading the point.

Isn't this process now quite politically familiar? Why is is a legitmate trap when it happens to someone else other than liberal American Democrats? When Jesus met this word game trap he turned the tables quite brilliantly. His successors are not that brilliant and a lot more encumbered with adversaries and distracting trappings of "respectable" world authority. Paul VI got ignored and paraded around St. Peter's Square with the cross on Good Friday Stations. Jesus got crucified.

The thinking that it's easy OK and that everybody does it is the "innocent" mask over alarming injustices we will not face, that in fact dictate these other choices and the pyramid of declining morality it induces. How to get through and teach that without sounding querulous or legalistic is quite a challenge if it goes on a long time. Various periods of Church history were much worse in moral culture, but the dangers(physical and perniciously twisted thinking) are the same- and the stakes rising daily.

Papal documents rarely pass muster despite the hype about Papal infallibility. It is when the clergy and laity and Pope are all TOGETHER on topic that the full positive force becomes undeniable. That will not happen on an evil decision, even one as demented, worldly convenient and ignorantly popular as the Crusades.

I know this sounds equivocal, but not many Catholics run around with a lap top wirelessly connected to the Church archives. Not many priests will put Humanae Vitae in its narrow prohibitive context- or use it at all which is telling. It explains why the hierarchy cannot cheerfully greenlight all forms of "progress" yet have extreme difficulty setting benchmarks. At the time of that encyclical we were just emerging from an official cocoon of legalistic reaction and protection against the Protestant Revolt and every other secular bugbear that followed the power vacuum. It had grown senile and spiteful and stagnant as an approach to life in the world. The very forms of pronouncements and guidelines seem to be changing of their own accord much against the will of those using them as their duty sees fit. That is the result of Vatican II- which though also not often quoted is the vital bellweather of spiritual continuity with the present and future.

A lack of nerve or discouragement would see this as a victory for secularism, with waning clergy numbers, reputation, lax faith and Church attendance. And no more of those good old law and order days that Conservatives pine over for mostalgia and props for entropic souls. If there is any truth to the two thousand year old faith it of course will not be THE END OF CHRISTIANITY. People of supposed faith just sitting back and trusting to law observation and ungifted ways of living and teaching theoretically could end it if there was no interested God either.

Conservatives would have a line drawn anywhere so you would either be in defiance of God or in servitude to THEIR wishes. That is contrary to Christ and the Spirit and a primal sin. It is man striving to make themselves God- dishonestly. A very obscene form of idolatry.

That is why atheism is more attractive if it comes down to that. The laws were made for man and his weakness. The people that thrive on those for a different god altogether are not to be trusted. The current Pope is much more media savvy and at least knows how to use it to better purpose and how hard it is to get through to Americans about to commit great policy wrongs. I hope the next Church leaders are the better lot we need or that people get empowered to save the show- as they have down in the past 2000 years.

I appreciate the work and thought you put into it.:)

speaking at the annual luncheon of the St. Thomas More Society, an association of Catholic lawyers, in the City-County Building, Downtown Pittsburgh stated that:

Catholic politicians should not support legalized abortion but that he does not advocate denying them Holy Communion. Bishop Donald Wuerl said pro-abortion rights legislators should stop receiving Holy Communion of their own accord, but he said he would not withhold the sacrament, as another bishop indicated he would in the case of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kerry, a Catholic whose public position is to support abortion rights. Wuerl said the Vatican does not speak of sanctions against those in public life who do not live up to the "grave and clear obligation to oppose any law that attacks human life." He said it was up to the individual to listen to the church's teachings on abortion and then make a determination on receiving communion, rather than for the bishop to decide. But he did say it was up to each bishop to make the decision to impose sanctions.

And when a third asked why the church doesn't apply the same scrutiny to politicians who support the death penalty, Wuerl noted that the 2002 doctrinal note that clarified the Vatican's position on abortion does not call capital punishment intrinsically evil. The church opposes capital punishment, but mainly because the nation has the ability to incarcerate criminals rather than execute them.

full article can be found at

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04147/322065.stm

before communion we say "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you..." not "that other guy is not worthy to receive you."

for decades and doing nothing about it.

Anti Kerry/Pro-priest child molesters.

I am not criticizing all catholics, just the current church hierarchy.

Unfortunately, I need a place to live, and if I denounced my family's religion, I would be out on the street.

that we don't have to take all the crazy shit seriously.

There are those who take everything all too seriously.

www.ianpaisley.org/

There's yet more common ground. My wife's mother (I no longer call her *-in-law) is a "born-again" individual who once was Catholic.
The woman called me from San Diego on the day my Catholic mother died and expressed her sorrow that since my mother had remained Catholic to the bitter end she surely went to hell. At first I refused to talk to her any longer until I got a retraction. Then in the interest of family harmony I said all I wanted was an apology for the callousness and a promise to never mention it again. I got neither. She still comes and visits for three to four weeks every year, at which point I schedule myself a bunch of overtime. Last year she told my little girl that her other Grandma went to hell. I'll divorce my wife before I'll let that woman set foot in my house again. Some intolerance is simply...well, intolerable. When I looked for a church for my daughter and myself, I had one question foremost in my mind. I asked the pastor straight out if he or she believed my mother went to hell for dying a Catholic, and then listened for hemming and hawing. The Methodist minister was the first one to give me an unequivocal no. He won. ;)

That sort of attitude on both sides of the fence was very prevalent
when I was a child growing up in Australia, but I do believe that
not many people think like that nowadays. It's so difficult for
you that it's family.

I do remember way back when a Catholic friend of mine was in high
school, and the nun teaching a particular class told the girls not
to have anything to do with Protestants. My friend said "My dad's
a Protestant", and the nun said she should have nothing to do with
him. My friend's quite devout mother immediately took her two
daughters out of that school and sent them to the local state high
school. She did the right thing.

Ian Paisley is not only a nutter, he's not even a real pastor - he
got his theological "degree" from one of those write-in fake
universities. No way is he a man of God.

You said:
"Ian Paisley is not only a nutter, he's not even a real pastor - he
got his theological "degree" from one of those write-in fake
universities. No way is he a man of God."

Thanks for that too...that's a relief to know.:)

Kerry in 1968!

It's a sin to not "accept children from god". In other words, Catholics are supposed to screw like monkeys and have as many children as possible.

Something seriously has to give with the Church's position on having more children than rabbits. The world is getting crowded. I'm sure we'll find ways to feed them. But do people REALLY want to live in a world with 30 BILLION humans?

When the Archbishop in Portland Oregon came out with his little letter.
I don't need them to tell me how to vote.

I am thinking of visiting the Episcopal church.

right?

Used to be if you disagreed with the church it made you a Protestant. I don't understand people who disagree with the RC church and then stay in it. Makes no sense.

"Parents."

I'm OK with that.