Learn From It

Oh thank god (of biscuits). For a moment, I thought the black helicopters from redmond would decend upon you for failing to note their ownership of "embrace and extinguish."

It's ok. If we can get catholocism to implode, a lot of people might wake up and *think*.

Lee

PS. that great foto company in the sky is still reeling from your departure. Ruby's appears to be closing from lack of business, and the wait staff is hopelessly confused when I don't order 2 "soup and 1/2 sandwiches."

How come they had to pick such a hottie to be the pope? I bet it was because the other cardinals were so jealous of his success with the altar boys...

I've alerted Microsoft.

How dare you.

You better watch your back.

Wow. I've seen some exceptional hissy fits from you, but this one definitely takes cake. Though I really don't understand why this matters to you. You aren't Catholic, if the Church crashes and burns, it's not your concern. What the Pope does isn't going to affect you, so just take some Ritalin and a nap.
By the way, you are sure being quick to judge here.

The good news is that he's almost eighty. I read a news report from the MSM speculating that he was ultimately the top choice in part because the Church is looking for a shorter reign from the next pontif.

That's some kind of congratulations. "We picked you cause you're almost dead anyway."

"Wally", why do I care? There's an old saying... "Jesus, save me from your followers."

and this guy seems to give every indication that he's most certainly NOT like the last Benedict, who was regarded as a healer.

Another glittering example of the self-proclaimed liberal tolerance, open-mindedness and lack of prejudice. Now that your formative Pope is dead, time to pull out all the stops, right?

And Wally, this stuff happens because he still loves the Church of his youth, but can't tolerate it when that same church dares to tell him he is a bit off in his behavior.

Oh dear. I'm "a bit off" in my behavior, but you're not judgmental, right?

You watch people spout all sorts of generalized negatives about liberals, but god forbid that someone turn that behavior on you.

Welcome to irony, hoody. You're sorely lacking in it.

I don't want your religion inserted into the general laws.
and you want the opposite.

It won't ever be enough for you to agree that you leave your religion out of it, and we'll agree to leave you to your religion in peace.

See how that works?

Just as the Church tells me that my own behavior is off. The difference is that I don't publish intense rants against that Church when this happen.

Liberals deserve most of those labels.

That post was not ironic, it was "hateful", an adjective you are fond of using as a cudgel against others.

You seem to think that if you repeat the "religious laws" mantra often enough, it will become true.

YOUR comment was ironic, hoody. Which I guess supports my point that you have no sense of it.

You think that homosexuality is a sin, so you want it codifed into law. Anything less than that offends your religion.

You have no desire to live and let live when people don't live according to how you think they should. And you always seem to derive your 'shoulds' from your religion.

Why is it that so many people seem so shocked to discover that the Pope is Catholic?

"What? He's exactly like every other leader the church has ever elected, and won't change doctrine which has stood for hundreds of years just to appease the passing whims of this decade? I'm HORRIFIED!"

Chill out, folks. No suprize here.

Uhh, sorry to disrupt the happy bliss inside your stasis bubble, but (ha, i said bubble butt) if Benny #16 were Pope back in the 60s instead of John, Vatican II would never have happened.

So don't try to pawn off that the Church has been a pillar of unchanging fortitude.

They've embraced and then extinguished countless cultures over the last 2000 years, and every time the assimilation was complete, the Church was changed for it.

Easter depends on the whims of the Moon, co-opting the pagan spring festivals, and Christmas was installed to supercede Winter Solstice.

The Church is an earthly enterprise, and all things change.

Despite my best efforts at managing extinction here, some of your more incredibly damfool statements require redress:

Quote: "Uhh, sorry to disrupt the happy bliss inside your stasis bubble, but (ha, i said bubble butt) if Benny #16 were Pope back in the 60s instead of John, Vatican II would never have happened."

You have NO WAY of determining this. Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII) was perceived as very conservative before his election. His liberal call for a council was a profound shift from his previous positions. Likewise, Montini (Paul VI) was notably LIBERAL, yet issued some of the most orthodox teachings the church has yet seen (see Humanae Vitae.

You haven't the first clue what B16 would have done back then, because you haven't the first clue (nor does anyone else) how the Holy Spirit might work.

So, hoody, you're saying i *could* be right?

In fact, I DO have some evidence that B16 (like an advanced, high-altitude bomber?) is as much of a conservative tight-assed prig as I expected: look at his recent letter to Spain about 'iniquitous' law.

I hope you'll come back around and admit that I was right, when that comes to pass. I'd rather be wrong, though. I'd rather see someone who chose compassion over rigorous ancient inhibitions.

No, not as you put it. You stated that he NEVER would have called Vatican II. As far as that statement goes, I said you are wrong, and you still are.

Well, first of all, it's an express, "never would have happened". But if you want to get all rigidly argumentative, then I'll retract what I said.

Now, you prove that Vatican II would have happened if Benny had been Pope then.

Or retract what you just said, like I did.

Now, about The Spanish Iniquisition....

You are arguing about lint. "Never would have happened" and "never called Vatican II" are synonymous statements.

What was I supposed to retract?

Careful now, this discussion is almost becoming civil. ;)

You said I was concretely wrong in what I said. If that's so, the opposite assertion must be true.

So, go for proving it, or say that you can't know for sure he would have called it anyway.

Civil, hoody? Now THAT is quite telling. You equate the appearance of backing-down with civility?

I'm not at all surprised.

Oh. No, there's no way I could hope to say for sure that he WOULD have called it. I already said this in essence: Quote: "You haven't the first clue what B16 would have done back then, because you haven't the first clue (nor does anyone else) how the Holy Spirit might work." Inherent in that statement is that I also don't know. However, that does not suggest that I am saying that he would NOT have called it either.

My assertion was that no one can tell what another Pope might have done in the past. Just like no one could predict how Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton could have behaved during the Civil War. I said you have no way of determining WHAT B16 would or would not have done. I said you don't and can't know. Where was I then promoting the opposite?

And no. I do not equate "backing down" with civility. I was simply noting that these posts/comments (for a short period) were taking on a semblance of civility, your retraction notwithstanding. Your snide comment about WHY I suggested this means, sadly, that these posts/comments are retreating back to their usual form. Which is unfortunate.

"did I hear my name mentioned?"

Unfortunate indeed, hoody. You're a first-class hypocrite.

Civility has no place in dealings where one class of people are attempting to beat down another class of people.

And remember, hoody, according to your morals, masturbation is evil and sinful. you do like to get yourself off with all this moralizing to the unfaithful, don't you?

GoB, when you ride a motorcycle, do you wear a trash helmet?

Ahh, more anonymous fucks from Washington State taking potshots.

You know, a stick shoved even that far up your ass is a poor substitute for a real spine.

Cowards.