|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Consecration Will Include Objections
|
Try
Shipmate
# 4951
|
Posted
It It looks like NH is planning for an orderly consecration and an orderly protest. Of course, Fred Phelps will be on hand to try to blow all of that to hell- but there are going to be counterprotesters to counter him. And poliece.
[ 08. January 2006, 21:58: Message edited by: Erin ]
--------------------
“I’m so glad to be a translator in the 20th century. They only burn Bibles now, not the translators!” - the Rev. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger
Posts: 852 | From: Beautiful Ohio, in dreams again I see... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sacristy Rat
Shipmate
# 5034
|
Posted
The consecration rite in the Book of Occasional Services provides a place where those who object to what is happening may speak, and conservatives have been using this portion of the ceremony in order to air their views lately. I believe that during the recent consecration of the new bishop of Colorado there was an objection by the Rev. Ephraim Radner, who had himself been a candidate for that position, on the grounds that the new bishop was insufficiently orthodox. John Chane, the bishop of Washington DC, faced a similar objection during his consecration.
From what I've read, two objections will be made during Robinson's consecration ceremony and then the objectors will depart in order to attend an "alternative" service. Good Anglican order and all that.
--------------------
In teh beginz is teh cat macro, and teh cat macro sez "Oh hai Ceiling Cat" and teh cat macro iz teh Ceiling Cat. Teh cat macro an teh Ceiling Cat iz teh bests frenz in teh begins.
Posts: 113 | From: the mountainous desert | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
but there are going to be counterprotesters to counter him. And poliece.
And there will be metal detectors at the doors to the arena, and Gene Robinson will no doubt be wearing a bullet-proof vest. The bishop suffragan said at his parish visit to us here this last Sunday that Robinson and the presiding bishop both wore bulletproof vests throughout General Convention.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Despite my strong objection to the consecration, (see the 'Sitting on the fence...' thread) I sincerely hope Fr Robinson comes through it all unscathed. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
I hope a hypothetical and abstract question won't seem flippant here. I mean it quite seriously. If the service contains a question to the congregation such as 'Is it your will that he be consecrated?' and the loudest shout is 'No', what happens next?
[ 01. November 2003, 23:25: Message edited by: Adeodatus ]
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
irreverentkit
Apostle's Amanuensis
# 4271
|
Posted
The final burying of the hatchet between the RC and Orthodox churches (see article below) over a few words in the Creed reminds me that Christians have been fighting with other Christians for any number of offenses for thousands of years.
I pray that our unity may hold up through this turbulent time.
Someday Gene Robinson will just be another item in a Church History course...
Catholics, Orthodox Agree on Nicene Creed
Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian leaders in North America announced partial agreement on a doctrinal issue that has divided the two Christian branches for nearly 1,000 years.
The groups, meeting in Washington, issued a statement Tuesday about the wording of the Nicene Creed, which is recited in all Orthodox and Catholic churches.
The Orthodox insist on the original Greek text from the Council of Constantinople (AD 381), which speaks of "the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father." In 1014, the papacy added "and the Son" after that phrase, despite opposition from Eastern churches.
The creedal change and the exercise of papal power without church-wide agreement were major issues in the Great Schism between Catholicism and Orthodoxy that began in 1054.
This joint statement, the 22nd since the talks began in 1965, affirms the "normative and irrevocable dogmatic value" of the wording from AD 381. The paper thus recommends that Catholics use the original text in worship and cancel an anathema against Orthodox usage from a Catholic council in 1274.
Such recommendations require Vatican approval.
-- Associated Press
Posts: 1010 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ronja
Shipmate
# 4693
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And there will be metal detectors at the doors to the arena, and Gene Robinson will no doubt be wearing a bullet-proof vest. The bishop suffragan said at his parish visit to us here this last Sunday that Robinson and the presiding bishop both wore bulletproof vests throughout General Convention.
I don't think I had realized the enormity of this event until I read this. Now I feel scared... Are people really so upset that they might do something so awful, or is it just a precaution if some whacko is triggered by the commotion?
Posts: 742 | From: Up North | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
HoosierNan
Shipmate
# 91
|
Posted
A female priest in the Episcopal church told me this story. Soon after she had been ordained, she was administering the chalice at a large communion service, along with several other priests. Someone stuck a nail file into her hand! She proceeded to the altar, grabbed a linen napkin, hastily wrapped it around her hand, and continued in the service.
This occurred in Indianapolis, shortly after the first group of female priests had been ordained.
I can see some zealot armed with a gun shooting a bishop. Especially in the United States.
![[Frown]](frown.gif) ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Posts: 795 | From: Indiana, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
I simply couldn't believe the tenor of the first objection at the Consecration. Along with sticking nail-files into people's hands, it's well up the league of things I can't imagine how people square with a profession of Christianity.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Tom Day
Ship's revolutionary
# 3630
|
Posted
I never thought that people could sink so low as to just list sexual practices like that. What was he trying to prove? That he knew a lot about gays? made my blood boil. I was sitting shouting at my PC, had to switch it off before I broke it...
However, am now listening to the sermon - good ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Tom
--------------------
My allotment blog
Posts: 6473 | From: My Sofa | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Day
Ship's revolutionary
# 3630
|
Posted
The BBC has one - here is the report on it
And I quote from it
quote:
One, Earl Fox from Pittsburgh, began to graphically list homosexual practices but was told not to go into detail.
Tom
--------------------
My allotment blog
Posts: 6473 | From: My Sofa | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
This is the chap who objected with the graphic list of sex acts
Earle Fox
He runs ex-gay ministries and is a total charmer judging by his web page and this lovely comment on it.
quote:
[COMMENT: Those who have voted for this tragic approval of homosexuality have put themselves outside the Christian camp. Most of them have abandoned any serious search for the truth, or any hold on Biblical theology, and demonstrate contempt for the law of God. So, in what sense Robinson will in fact be a bishop is up for grabs. They are in for a serious reality-check (as in "Come, let us reason together....") with God... E. Fox.]
L.
[ 02. November 2003, 22:32: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
The The Bishop's Statements' of objection.
Am I right in thinking that this was broadcast in the US? Also, was there are a shipmate who was there, or who knows someone who could be convinced to post a report?
Thank you, come again.
--------------------
We’ve got to act like a church that hasn’t already internalized the narrative of its own decline Ray Suarez
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Try
Shipmate
# 4951
|
Posted
I have only one word to say about Fr. Fox:
Disusting!
--------------------
“I’m so glad to be a translator in the 20th century. They only burn Bibles now, not the translators!” - the Rev. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger
Posts: 852 | From: Beautiful Ohio, in dreams again I see... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sacristy Rat
Shipmate
# 5034
|
Posted
I heard Fr. Fox's statement as I was watching the BBC webcast of +Robinson's consecration. His language was so graphic we had to send the children out of the room until ++Frank bade him to desist. It was embarrassing, and far more worthy of the "God Hates Fags" crowd than anything else.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
--------------------
In teh beginz is teh cat macro, and teh cat macro sez "Oh hai Ceiling Cat" and teh cat macro iz teh Ceiling Cat. Teh cat macro an teh Ceiling Cat iz teh bests frenz in teh begins.
Posts: 113 | From: the mountainous desert | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Light:
Are people really so upset that they might do something so awful, or is it just a precaution if some whacko is triggered by the commotion?
Our bishop said the latter was their main concern, and that Robinson has received death threats. As has the presiding bishop.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Day:
I was sitting shouting at my PC, had to switch it off before I broke it...
However, am now listening to the sermon - good
How are you listening to it? I could only find a short video report on the BBC. Is there a link somewhere to a recording of the whole service?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Assistant Village Idiot
Shipmate
# 3266
|
Posted
The word on the street here in NH is as Ruth W says. There was no indication of any organised physical confrontation, but precautions against whackjobs seemed in order. It only takes one.
--------------------
formerly Logician
Posts: 885 | From: New Hampshire, US | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
quote:
Is there a link somewhere to a recording of the whole service?
I second that question.
--------------------
We’ve got to act like a church that hasn’t already internalized the narrative of its own decline Ray Suarez
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sacristy Rat
Shipmate
# 5034
|
Posted
The BBC had live streaming video during the service, but I just checked the page and the link is gone. It looks like the short link is what's left.
--------------------
In teh beginz is teh cat macro, and teh cat macro sez "Oh hai Ceiling Cat" and teh cat macro iz teh Ceiling Cat. Teh cat macro an teh Ceiling Cat iz teh bests frenz in teh begins.
Posts: 113 | From: the mountainous desert | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
Could someone help me with the link to the BBC story (video)? I can't seem to locate it. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
We’ve got to act like a church that hasn’t already internalized the narrative of its own decline Ray Suarez
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dunstan.
Shipmate
# 5095
|
Posted
I was there...and I wrote in about it, asking if I could put up an MW about it, but my planning to go only happened the day of the Ordination and Consecration so I didn't official approval, so I just took notes on stuff I noted, like crowd mutterings around me and stuff.
Yeah, Fr. Fox shocked us all. I think "rimmer" really pushed everyone to the breaking point. I think he was trying to show people how disgusting sex is, proving that what is really on the table for some is a full discussion of Christianity and Sexuality. Or embarass +Gene, who had to sit facing his consecrators. We shouted our consent after the people left as loud as we could. It could have been worse, though. Someone with a credible reputation could have claimed Gene has molested him.
TANGENT I felt uncomfortable for reasons I could not understand after the service. I think it was the fact (and I'm not joking about this reason) that it occurred in a Hockey RInk. Not that I was angry about that, but it made me feel like we were cutting ourselves away, even though I support this movement. Somehow some parts of the service left me cold. I know there is no space, but I would really have preferred a large Church. And I saw one of the weirdest things I have ever seen, a guy called David Haine, I think, in a cowboy hat (?) and some sort of ecclesiastical garb, trying to get people interested in his 2000 Presidential campaign and repeating like a mantra his Yahoo e-mail address about 200m from the place the service was held. Yes, I too have no idea.
Phelps was no problem, because the student body of the University of New Hampshire did not want Phelps and co.'s "bigot feet" on the field they helped pay for. He was three blocks away. If he had been on this field, it would probably have been quite horrible for those there for the consecration, waiting in the lobby, while rehearsals and a slow trickle were let in through the security, because Phelps would have been opposite this.
When we came out tons of UNH students were cheering and a solitary man on the anti-Gene Robinson side shouted at us.
I also got to see the Phelpsmobile in the parking lot. It says Welcome in English, Spanish and Chinese. Pretty bizarre.
Laters,
Dunstan
--------------------
Pax et bonum-Dunstan
The desire to rule is the mother of all heresies. - St. John Chrysostom
Posts: 54 | From: New Hampshire | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
You mean the bishops actually had to touch him? A g...g...gay person? Whatever next? Will they have to touch the poor, the homeless, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free? ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
We’ve got to act like a church that hasn’t already internalized the narrative of its own decline Ray Suarez
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Fr. Fox's catalogue of sexual acts is pointless since he cannot be certain that the Proudies (shall we say) don't get up to exactly the same shenanigans in their marital bed in the Bishop's House in Barchester.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
This has the marks of a press office rather than ++Rowan himself. Just a bit bland wouldn't you say?
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
scoticanus
Shipmate
# 5140
|
Posted
Degs, thanks for the reference.
I don't understand what Rowan Williams is up to. He was resolute in arguing for and defending the priesting of women, which was and remains highly divisive. Why is he being so irresolute now?
I also don't understand why, in the words of the statement, "it will not be possible for Gene Robinson's ministry as a bishop to be accepted in every province in the communion". From the point of view of those who claim to be "mainstream Anglicans", surely any possible objection to receiving his ministry is covered by Article XXVI, "Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments"?
Posts: 491 | From: Edinburgh, Scotland | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by scoticanus:
I also don't understand why, in the words of the statement, "it will not be possible for Gene Robinson's ministry as a bishop to be accepted in every province in the communion". From the point of view of those who claim to be "mainstream Anglicans", surely any possible objection to receiving his ministry is covered by Article XXVI, "Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments"?
It's not to do with any sort of theology of 'taint' or anything like that, but the fact that the majority of Anglicans don't believe Robinson should have been consecrated. Archbishop Rowan has pointed out, Gene Robinson could not have been consecrated in nearly all of the provinces of the Anglican Communion. They believe it means ECUSA, Robinson and the participating bishops have acted outside the Anglican tradition and therefore they don't recognise the validity of the consecration. It is regarded as a step so serious that communion is broken.
Now would those who have said ad nauseam on SoF that they didn't think the Anglican Communion would break up over this rethink their position? The fact is that a huge number of Anglicans now don't and can't accept ECUSA as being part of the same Church any more. For myself, I can now only think of ECUSA in the same way as I think of another denomination. Some Anglicans, I suspect, would go further and suggest that ECUSA is somehow not Christian in any meaningful sense of the word -- I have read an essay a few years ago by Pannenberg which gives this perspective some theological undergirding (others may know of a link to this).
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by scoticanus:
I don't understand what Rowan Williams is up to. He was resolute in arguing for and defending the priesting of women, which was and remains highly divisive. Why is he being so irresolute now?
RW has made no secret of his intention to speak from what he sees as his office as ABC rather than from his personal opinions.
Also there is really no equality between the objectors to the ordination of women, who argued on theological grounds; & objectors to ordination of non-celibate gay men, who mostly argue on ethical grounds. One lot say women cannot be bishops because they are women, the other lot say non-celibate gay men ought not to be bishops, because they are unrepentant sinners. But that's off-topic here I think - it s been flogged to death on othr threads, a couple of which are still around somehere else on the Ship.
quote:
From the point of view of those who claim to be "mainstream Anglicans", surely any possible objection to receiving his ministry is covered by Article XXVI, "Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments"?
Yes, obviously true.
Assuming they are bing consistent, perhaps they aren't saying "Gene is not a real bishop" so much as "we don't want to associate with the kind of people who want him as their bishop".
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Assuming they are bing consistent, perhaps they aren't saying "Gene is not a real bishop" so much as "we don't want to associate with the kind of people who want him as their bishop".
He is invalidated from being a real bishop for most of the Provinces because he does not meet their criteria for the selection of a bishop. This is a fundamental break. His consecration is considered utterly wrong, and inevitably if they don't consider him a real bishop then they won't recognise his sacramental acts, in the same way they wouldn't necessarily be able to fully recognise the sacramental acts of another church they are not in communion with. Don't forget that women bishops are not able to function episcopally in the Church of England. Those ordained by women bishops elsewhere are also not recognised in the Church of England and many other provinces. So we had impaired communion before, and now we have broken communion also.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Why is our refusal to accept US women bishops merely "impaired" but Kenyans refusal to accept US gay bishops "broken"?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Because homophobia is a much more socially acceptable prejudice than misogyny. (Not that they wouldn't try that if they could get away with it.)
[ 03. November 2003, 12:30: Message edited by: Erin ]
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew Carey:
For myself, I can now only think of ECUSA in the same way as I think of another denomination. Some Anglicans, I suspect, would go further and suggest that ECUSA is somehow not Christian in any meaningful sense of the word -- I have read an essay a few years ago by Pannenberg which gives this perspective some theological undergirding (others may know of a link to this).
It saddens me to hear that you consider the ECUSA to be no longer part of the Anglican Communion. The suggestion that they might be no longer no longer Christian, even though you don't identify personally with this belief, concerns me even more. (I am trying not to get into the substance on these issues here; anyone who suggests that liberals don't have reasoned arguments hasn't been paying attention to several Purgatory threads lately, not to mention the Dead Horses thread.)
I wonder what Shipmates in ECUSA think about this response?
If you are a Shipmate in ECUSA, and pro +Gene, do you have any suggestions for fellow Anglicans about how we should respond to statements like Andrew's?
Like many others, I want to encourage mutual understanding, not separation. I hope that Anglicans in other countries who support +Gene, will show that this is not a dispute between 'ECUSA and the rest of the Anglican Communion'.
A.
CofE, and pro +Gene
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wulfstan
Shipmate
# 558
|
Posted
Andrew Carey said: quote:
Some Anglicans, I suspect, would go further and suggest that ECUSA is somehow not Christian in any meaningful sense of the word -- I have read an essay a few years ago by Pannenberg which gives this perspective some theological undergirding (others may know of a link to this).
And this is probably the fundamental problem. How exactly can we have a mature debate about this when certain people are declaring others as no longer Christian over an issue that isn't even mentioned in the Gospels. The views of the hardliners are one interpretation of scripture and tradition. There are others however and theirs is not the definitive one.
I have tried hard to moderate my views on this, but the remarks that have been made by many conservatives just stoke my anger about the whole business. Why should I respect the views of conservatives if this respect is not going to be reciprocated?
Posts: 418 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
Speaking of Objections;
An interview with the Archbishop of Sydney
I watched it live - and he came across as supremely logical and well-reasoned. The ABC is notoriously bad at getting "experts" from both sides - and in this instance, the interviewer though he would be clever and be the devil's advocate (as it were). It didn't work. I reckon they should have gotten someone equally well educated and articulate to argue the opposite view - but I would, wouldn't I?
--------------------
We’ve got to act like a church that hasn’t already internalized the narrative of its own decline Ray Suarez
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
Griswold and Gene R being "gracious" is a crock. Having his partner participate in the service, including handing him his mitre is a bit in-your-face, is it not?
GR's gracious words are just that -- words.
As for those who are getting their robes wrinkled about someone questioning whether the ECUSA is Christian, may I ask if they are upset by being led by those who do not hold to the basics of the faith, such as the atonement and the resurrection, such as Spong et al. If the ECUSA is Christian, it sure as heck has a funny way of showing it at times.
Clearly, there are a lot of Christians in the ECUSA. But there are a lot of Christians in the Rotery Club, too.
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
Come with me to hell, please.
--------------------
We’ve got to act like a church that hasn’t already internalized the narrative of its own decline Ray Suarez
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bongo
Shipmate
# 778
|
Posted
On the Today programme this morning, they did an interview with three people: two extremely articulate and media savvy conservatives v. one struggling less articulate elderly ex-bishop.
Not very balanced. It really pissed me off.
How many times are conservatives going to be allowed to go on Radio 4 and claim that everyone (liberals included) agrees that the Bible condemns homosexuality before somebody challenges them on this?
Then they started pulling that "the vast majority of the Anglican communion agrees with me" unsubstantiated CRAP again and I had to switch off.
--------------------
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!" ~ Dr Strangelove
Posts: 492 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
As for those who are getting their robes wrinkled about someone questioning whether the ECUSA is Christian, may I ask if they are upset by being led by those who do not hold to the basics of the faith, such as the atonement and the resurrection, such as Spong et al. If the ECUSA is Christian, it sure as heck has a funny way of showing it at times.
Clearly, there are a lot of Christians in the ECUSA. But there are a lot of Christians in the Rotery Club, too.
You know, I had pretty much decided that I was leaving the ECUSA for good, simply because I couldn't stand all the politicking and anathemas being proclaimed left and right. This, however, reminds me that it could be far worse and may even propel me back to my former parish next Sunday.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
