homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Vatican cracks down on liberal nuns (Page 6)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Vatican cracks down on liberal nuns
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You understood me correctly moonlitdoor.

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
BA--

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yes, we are all sinners.

What's your point?

You said that "faithful Catholics" wouldn't worry about this kind of thing--and if they did, their marriage might be invalid.

But since everyone sins, messes up, makes mistakes, faithful RCs do those things, too If they never sin, much of the Mass can be removed, as well as those confessionals. Perhaps the space can be rented to professional halo polishers.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
BA--

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yes, we are all sinners.

What's your point?

You said that "faithful Catholics" wouldn't worry about this kind of thing--and if they did, their marriage might be invalid.

But since everyone sins, messes up, makes mistakes, faithful RCs do those things, too If they never sin, much of the Mass can be removed, as well as those confessionals. Perhaps the space can be rented to professional halo polishers.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, if I argued that Roman Catholics were without sin, you and leo might have a point. I didn't. So you don't.

The issue is the Roman Catholic Church's responsibility for the spread of AIDS. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that it is wrong for married couples to use contraception. Based on that fact alone, some are blaming the Roman Catholic Church for the spread of AIDS. The Roman Catholic Church also teaches that prostitution, adultery, fornication, and rape are sins as well. Roman Catholics who acquire AIDS for selectively following their church's teaching have nobody to blame for it but the person who transmitted it to them and possibly themselves.

Barrier contraception reduces the risk of AIDS transmission but does not eliminate it. Are organizations passing out condoms responsible for the spread of AIDS if those condoms fail? Makes as about as much sense as blaming the Roman Catholic Church.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Barrier contraception reduces the risk of AIDS transmission but does not eliminate it. Are organizations passing out condoms responsible for the spread of AIDS if those condoms fail? Makes as about as much sense as blaming the Roman Catholic Church.

You argument as it stands would make a lot of sense if humans were rational agents. Since they are not, at least not purely (or as some would say, not mainly), the argument really is a lot more complicated than that. Likewise, an argument can be made that handing out condoms can increase the risk of spreading AIDS, depending on circumstances. Essentially, humans tend to explore higher margins of safety with riskier behavior, which paradoxically can lead to a net increase of risk by introducing safety measures.

It is sadly not impossible that some person screws around with all sexual partners available, and then decides that using a condom with their "official" partner is "not allowed by God". A purely utilitarian case for Catholic morals will fail. Catholic morals, for better or worse, are deontological. And it is a core assumption of Catholicism that people cannot follow them without the aid of the Holy Spirit, which in secular terms translates to something like "brainwashed into that ideology".

That some people will get hurt by the RCC's stance on condoms, in Africa or elsewhere, is quite likely true. Perhaps it is even true in a net sense (though that's much harder to prove). But since one must not do evil to achieve good, it does not really matter - as much as that pisses off our thoroughly utilitarian contemporaries.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Posted by beeswax:
quote:

Roman Catholics who acquire AIDS for selectively following their church's teaching have nobody to blame for it but the person who transmitted it to them and possibly themselves.

I feel I shouldn't bite on this hook because I have a strong suspicion you are jangling it now simply because you are getting a kick out of arguing from a ridiculous point of view.....at least I hope so. The other option is that you really are as thick as your arguments make you appear.

Anyway, the point I was hoping to make was that before you make these ridiculous sweeping statements about other peoples' morality, perhaps you should listen to what they have to say - their experiences, difficulties and their desire to be faithful to the church and their faith - and maybe, just maybe, you should be a tiny bit more aware of the facts of certain countries that struggle in regard to an AIDS epidemic. As it is you are making yourself look more and more of a fool the more you post, but hey thats your bag and your free choice - I know many a faithful Catholic who wouldn't.

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think IngoB's take is an honest one.

In that he accepts there may well be situations where the irrational human response to the church's teaching is a pattern of behaviour that puts them at risk. But that doesn't matter to him because he doesn't require or expect a utilitarian justification for the church's position.

We can't easily assess the frequency of such an outcome. And we can't easily assess how often the church's teaching results in a vague sense in a particular portion of society that condoms are bad, in the midst of ears that are deaf to messages about sexual morality.

To what degree the individuals at risk are culpable is as besides the point to me as the utilitarian justification is to IngoB.

What also has to be considered is how often the Church's teaching affects supply lines - such that certain institutions following the Church's line do not supply condoms where they otherwise might, and therefore reduce the access to condoms by those who don't care for the Church's teaching.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
What also has to be considered is how often the Church's teaching affects supply lines - such that certain institutions following the Church's line do not supply condoms where they otherwise might, and therefore reduce the access to condoms by those who don't care for the Church's teaching.

Indeed. By all accounts that I have heard so far, this is however not an issue, i.e., plenty of other organisations take up the slack in the supply chain that Catholic opposition to condoms could have caused. Part of the reason for this is of course simply that condoms are comparatively cheap and easy to store and distribute, in contrast to say AIDS medication.

I think a key unacknowledged issue in all this is that the "anti-Catholic side" has its own deontological commitments. The secular West has basically decided that "free expression of sexuality" is a human right, hence that access to "enabling technology" (like condoms) is a necessity. I think it is perfectly fine to point out that RC actions, however good (and there is a lot of RC heroism in taking care of the sick and needy in Africa), are biased by ideological commitments concerning RC sexual morals. It is only fair then however to point out that the other (secular or religious) players have their own biases driving their analysis of "what needs to be done".

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Niteowl

Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841

 - Posted      Profile for Niteowl   Email Niteowl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
There also seems to be a difference in speed and severity in cracking down on male priests - ala the abuse scandals that were swept under the rug for decades. Social justice nuns hardly constitute a problem in book - but then I've never held that the RCC is the "one true church" with the Pope as head over all.

You might want to look into the LCWR's role in the cover-up of abuse by women religious.
I've got no doubt that there were nuns, as well as other women of faith, who abused others. I've seen documented proof of abuse that happened at orphanages. Any cover up is wrong, I just note that within the RCC hierarchy the women tend to get pounced on more than the men. The "sins" of the social justice nuns hardly warrant the crack down, IMO. Take care of the serious matters first.
Then you haven't been paying attention.
Yes, I have.

--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare

Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
i.e., plenty of other organisations take up the slack in the supply chain that Catholic opposition to condoms could have caused.

Actually I think there is insufficient supply of condoms in many areas of Africa. But even if there were sufficient supply, one would have to factor in the impact of being told that institutions x, y and z don't supply them.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The secular West has basically decided that "free expression of sexuality" is a human right, hence that access to "enabling technology" (like condoms) is a necessity.

The secular West as made assumptions and has its biases, but I don't think this is a necessary one in supplying condoms. It is quite possible to make the argument from utilitarian grounds with getting into rights. (i.e. that humans will express their sexuality regardless of what they are told about the morality or risks of doing so, therefore providing technology to mitigate the risk is sensible).

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Niteowl

Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841

 - Posted      Profile for Niteowl   Email Niteowl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:

I've got no doubt that there were nuns, as well as other women of faith, who abused others. I've seen documented proof of abuse that happened at orphanages. Any cover up is wrong, I just note that within the RCC hierarchy the women tend to get pounced on more than the men. The "sins" of the social justice nuns hardly warrant the crack down, IMO. Take care of the serious matters first.

You are wronger than a wrong thing. Very few religious women have ever been "pounced on", as you put it. But many men have. Heck, upthread I posted how the Jesuits were called to order not so very long ago. This is the first instance in a VERY long time that women religious have been called to account. Just because they are women does not mean they are immune. And this does come AFTER the whole matter of sexual abuse by priests has been, and is being, comprehensively addressed. There is a way to go, but to suggest it has not even been considered is just so plain ridiculous. On the FRONT PAGE of the Vatican website is a link to the issue of the abuse of minors. Nothing there which says "Beware of women". It's a trivial defence to say "They are women so they should not be accountable".
Women have, and continue to be "pounced on" by not only RCC, but other major denominations as well as other religions. My only problem with the issue with the priests is that it took decades to be addressed - and to a degree it's still not adequately being addressed. The same does hold true for some of the orphanage abuse run by nuns as well as other religious women and IMO any nun or priest caught abusing children should be bounced from positions of authority. That includes a certain Cardinal from the U.S. who got promoted to the Vatican even after it was proved that he covered up a multitude of abuse cases, ignoring the irreparable harm caused to children and their families. Nuns don't generally hold positions of authority and certainly not within the Vatican. And social justice issues certainly don't cause the harm the abuse cases have. It's just not an issue that just has to dealt with RIGHT NOW while other stuff waits.

I'm not anti-Catholic as I'm a defender in most situations and resisted this thread as long as I could. You won't find me in generally anti-Catholic threads. However, I've got no problem as a Christian in admitting to faults of the church in general. It tends to give Christians a bit more credibility to non believers when we're honest about our faults. This issue irritated me from when I first read the news about it - long before this thread - and I couldn't resist any longer, even though I knew the usual defend no matter what posters came out. (I do read the threads I don't participate in so I know what to expect on the rare occasion I do participate in some of these threads)

--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare

Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
Niteowl

Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841

 - Posted      Profile for Niteowl   Email Niteowl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
With respect to RCC's direct objection to the health care law passed (referred to as Obamacare) I understand it is because of birth control and abortion. However, even Cardinal Ratzinger talked about cooperation in evil where sometimes such cooperation can be “formal and direct,” as when one votes for a pro-choice candidate because one deliberately agrees with and supports that position. Other times, however, the voter does not approve of the candidate’s position on abortion but votes for him because of other “proportionate” reasons. Then the cooperation is “material and indirect.” I believe the nuns thought out position was that providing health care for the millions who can't afford it far outweighed the evils that the RCC opposes - especially since no Catholic is forced to participate either through taxes or doing any evil action themselves. According to then Cardinal Ratzinger this would be justified.

--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare

Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
With respect to RCC's direct objection to the health care law passed (referred to as Obamacare) I understand it is because of birth control and abortion.

AIUI the RCC objection to Obamacare is that it would require Catholic institutions to pay for birth control and abortions for their employees even though they believe that these are wrong.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Niteowl

Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841

 - Posted      Profile for Niteowl   Email Niteowl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
With respect to RCC's direct objection to the health care law passed (referred to as Obamacare) I understand it is because of birth control and abortion.

AIUI the RCC objection to Obamacare is that it would require Catholic institutions to pay for birth control and abortions for their employees even though they believe that these are wrong.

Moo

If I'm correct, if that was originally the case, it has been fixed - and it always would have been through negotiation. No need for completely opposing providing health care for those in need.

[ 01. May 2012, 11:55: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]

--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare

Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Employers often provide healthcare insurance for employees in the states.

Does this mean that RC employers can stipulate that the insurance cover for their employees excludes birth control and abortion?

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Employers often provide healthcare insurance for employees in the states.

Does this mean that RC employers can stipulate that the insurance cover for their employees excludes birth control and abortion?

Or Christian Science employers refuse to provide any health insurance, and claim a religious exemption from the penalty for that?

--Tom Clune

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by leo:
No. Mrs. X may be totally faithful to Mr. X. Trouble is, Mr. X has been with with prostitutes without her knowing. There have been many transmissions of HIV that way, especially in Africa.

OK, leo, let's think this one through...

Why would Mrs. X want Mr. X to use a condom? They are married. Married people, even Protestants, have unprotected sex. Why? They want children. Well, because Mr. X is seeing prostitutes. Like you said, Mrs. X doesn't know he's seeing prostitutes. How does the issue of a condom come up in the first place? If Mrs. X doesn't know he's seeing prostitutes, why would she be worried about AIDS?

What Golden key said.
What I said to Golden key. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
originally posted by leo:
Get real. We are all sinners, even 'faithful Roman Catholics'. Nobody obeys every tenet of the Church's teaching 24/7. Even the saints were sinners.

Yes, we are all sinners.

What's your point?

Several people have responded to your purist stance and have understood my point. if you read what they have said, maybe you will understand my point as well as they have. Maybe you might even change your mind. After all, our God is a generous God who illuminates the hearts and minds of all true believers.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by beeswax:
quote:

Roman Catholics who acquire AIDS for selectively following their church's teaching have nobody to blame for it but the person who transmitted it to them and possibly themselves.

I feel I shouldn't bite on this hook because I have a strong suspicion you are jangling it now simply because you are getting a kick out of arguing from a ridiculous point of view.....at least I hope so. The other option is that you really are as thick as your arguments make you appear.

Anyway, the point I was hoping to make was that before you make these ridiculous sweeping statements about other peoples' morality, perhaps you should listen to what they have to say - their experiences, difficulties and their desire to be faithful to the church and their faith - and maybe, just maybe, you should be a tiny bit more aware of the facts of certain countries that struggle in regard to an AIDS epidemic. As it is you are making yourself look more and more of a fool the more you post, but hey thats your bag and your free choice - I know many a faithful Catholic who wouldn't.

[Killing me]

Since you have, "listened to what they have to say-their experiences, difficulties and desire to be faithful to their faith," and are aware of all the facts of certain countries and their struggle to AIDS, you might succeed where others have failed and present a halfway reasonable argument for why the Roman Catholic Church is responsible for the spread of AIDS in Africa. I assume from the tone of your post that you capable of doing so. The other option is that believe an appeal to emotion counts as a rational argument. I hope you aren't that stupid but it's the only other option.

[Roll Eyes]

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by leo:
No. Mrs. X may be totally faithful to Mr. X. Trouble is, Mr. X has been with with prostitutes without her knowing. There have been many transmissions of HIV that way, especially in Africa.

OK, leo, let's think this one through...

Why would Mrs. X want Mr. X to use a condom? They are married. Married people, even Protestants, have unprotected sex. Why? They want children. Well, because Mr. X is seeing prostitutes. Like you said, Mrs. X doesn't know he's seeing prostitutes. How does the issue of a condom come up in the first place? If Mrs. X doesn't know he's seeing prostitutes, why would she be worried about AIDS?

What Golden key said.
What I said to Golden key. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
originally posted by leo:
Get real. We are all sinners, even 'faithful Roman Catholics'. Nobody obeys every tenet of the Church's teaching 24/7. Even the saints were sinners.

Yes, we are all sinners.

What's your point?

Several people have responded to your purist stance and have understood my point. if you read what they have said, maybe you will understand my point as well as they have. Maybe you might even change your mind. After all, our God is a generous God who illuminates the hearts and minds of all true believers.
You must not be a true believer. [Killing me]

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gentlemen, it's irritating enough to have to read this crap once. Please prune whatever is not necessary for establishing context in what you quote when you reply to each other.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks Beeswax, as per usual you have fulfilled all my expectations of you.

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You are most welcome.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Qoheleth.

Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265

 - Posted      Profile for Qoheleth.   Email Qoheleth.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by windsofchange:
I think it's time for a sequel, in which Dame Phillipa is now Phillipa, the Coordinator.

Cecily, driven to the point of insanity by too much Marty Haugen and Cary Landry, has finally left and set up housekeeping with an elderly but still vital Dame Maura (now just "that old dame").

And Hilary? She's still in the kitchen, peeling potatoes and enjoying the knowledge that she really doesn't HAVE to do any of this if she doesn't want to. Some things never change.

That is an uncannily close account of what has happened at and to Stanbrook in the last ten or so years.
[Razz]

--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.

Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Tangent re "In This House Of Brede":

I'm another who loved the book. Very down to earth portrayal. There was also a good movie version, with Diana Rigg in the lead.

Another surprisingly good film is "Dixie: Changing Habits", about a beloved New Orleans madam who is sentenced to a convent by a reform-minded judge.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
badcatholic
Apprentice
# 16737

 - Posted      Profile for badcatholic   Email badcatholic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
i didnt go to mass this weekend and might have made a final break...the priestly cast has covered up too much and seems incapabable of reform.

I know it isnt easy to sort out what happened thirty years ago. But the church seems to have decided it can walk away from responsibility and accountability for abuse of trust. Abuse of children. And we dont even count the decades never mind the number of victims.

I work in complex environments and I have learned that one cant preserve or communicate truth with obedience to rules of meetings, canons, laws, and loyalty to priest one might even love... even if this obedience is offered with insight and devotion. In the end one will sometimes face the choice - suppport or reject the bad. Say the truth and fuck the rules.

The vatican is tough on the weak, and weak on the tough and powerful. This isnt the catholic church of rome, but it is the church in rome, london, dublin, glasgow......

Maybe this a period when the clerics are out of touch with the body of the church - there have been precedents and the cleric/laity split has been explicit for fifty years of oral contraception.....

The catholic church will survive this, and wont miss me, but the clerics and their support will have to sort themselves out to serve the faithful of the next generations

Posts: 6 | From: newcastle and london | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
(Allegedly) interesting piece in the British Catholic newsweekly the Tablet (which is behind a paywall, hence the "allegedly") detailing the men behind the move by the Vatican to rein in the nuns and get them more in line with Catholic moral teachings. From a Boston Globe article describing the findings:

quote:
Three respected Catholic publications are reporting that Cardinal Bernard F. Law, the controversial former Boston archbishop, played a key role in the Vatican’s decision to tighten its grip on the largest association of Catholic nuns in the United States.

The Vatican announced its initiative on April 18, naming three American prelates to ensure that US nuns conform to Church doctrine, which has grown more conservative under Pope John Paul II and his successor, Pope Benedict XVI.

Earlier this week, a columnist for The Tablet, a British Catholic weekly, reported that the Vatican’s initiative was sparked by Archbishop William E. Lori, who was recently named to lead the Archdiocese of Baltimore, who "formally petitioned" the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to investigate the nuns.

The Tablet also reported that Law was "the person in Rome most forcefully supporting Bishop Lori’s proposal."

Well, at least they found men of unimpeachable moral character to lead up this inquisition.

An excerpt from the Tablet article can be found here.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
{{{{{badcatholic}}}}}

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107

 - Posted      Profile for Fuzzipeg   Author's homepage   Email Fuzzipeg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Bad Catholic? Aren't we all!

--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za

Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
angelica37
Shipmate
# 8478

 - Posted      Profile for angelica37   Author's homepage   Email angelica37   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've read most of this thread, and about the issue in other places on the internet and still am not entirely sure what these liberal nuns have been up to and what the Vatican actually intends to do about them, if they are trying to get rid of people who are Catholics but who have doubts about some of the teachings of the Church then who is worthy to remain in it? Almost certainly not me.
As an ordinary lay Catholic it sometimes seems that there are two Churches, there is the one that I actually experience here at Mass on Sundays, in Holy Communion and the Sacraments, with the prayers, charities and social activities in the wider community and the world. Then there is the Vatican which is apparently 'cracking down' on these nuns and the two have very little to do with one another. Perhaps I am just being naive but I feel able to love and belong to the Catholic Church (and strive to abide by its teachings as far as I am able) while at the same time being horrified at some of the things the Vatican or the hierarchy do in its name.

Posts: 1351 | From: Suffolk | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107

 - Posted      Profile for Fuzzipeg   Author's homepage   Email Fuzzipeg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Angelica, you speak for a lot of us. There is such a difference between what comes from out the Flaminian Gate to those working at grass roots level. It happened the other day when a priest said to me that a couple with three children had come to him and were worried about so-called artificial birth control blah blah blah..... They just really couldn't afford a 4th child and were worried. The priest said to me "What do I say when the situation is staring you in the face? I said, either have your tubes tied or your husband have a vasectomy."

There is a big difference between theory and a pragmatic approach.

--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za

Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
There is a big difference between theory and a pragmatic approach.

There is much wisdom indeed in that statement, Fuzzipeg. Though it does apply to both sides of a dispute.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat on another thread:

What's with the Vatican these days in going after nuns?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/us/sister-margaret-farley-denounced-by-vatican.html?_r=1

I just got her book now. From initial impressions, Sr. Farley in no way pretends that her book should be taken as official Catholic church teaching. She is writing as an academic, expressing her own point of view. She isn't a bishop or a priest, so no one would confuse her views with the views of the Church as a whole.

I'm effectively "bumping" this thread for consideration of Anglican_Brat's quoted post above. Originally, a new thread was started, but it seemed better to add this post to the existing mix.

Feel free to resume the discussion, both generally and in relationship to the above post.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host


--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
From the article linked to above:
quote:
The Vatican’s doctrinal office on Monday denounced an American nun who taught Christian ethics at Yale Divinity School for a book that attempted to present a theological rationale for same-sex relationships, masturbation and remarriage after divorce.
In other news, there again have been reports of a bears shitting in woods... More interesting is this bit
quote:
Sister Farley ... responded in a statement: “I can only clarify that the book was not intended to be an expression of current official Catholic teaching, nor was it aimed specifically against this teaching. It is of a different genre altogether.”
Liar, liar, pants on fire... (Pants, not habit.)

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580

 - Posted      Profile for Comper's Child     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
From the article linked to above:
quote:
The Vatican’s doctrinal office on Monday denounced an American nun who taught Christian ethics at Yale Divinity School for a book that attempted to present a theological rationale for same-sex relationships, masturbation and remarriage after divorce.
In other news, there again have been reports of a bears shitting in woods... More interesting is this bit
quote:
Sister Farley ... responded in a statement: “I can only clarify that the book was not intended to be an expression of current official Catholic teaching, nor was it aimed specifically against this teaching. It is of a different genre altogether.”
Liar, liar, pants on fire... (Pants, not habit.)

Why do you call her a liar in this case. Do you really think she represented this book as being official teaching?! Or is it the pants that bothers you the most...?

I assumed that an imprimatur or nihil obstat was required for something that represents writings that are in concert with official Catholic teaching. Did she request this?

Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
Why do you call her a liar in this case. Do you really think she represented this book as being official teaching?!

Nope, it's indeed unlikely that she did that. However, that was not the only thing she claimed.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335

 - Posted      Profile for SeraphimSarov   Email SeraphimSarov   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
Why do you call her a liar in this case. Do you really think she represented this book as being official teaching?!

Nope, it's indeed unlikely that she did that. However, that was not the only thing she claimed.
She also claimed that it wasn't aimed against the teaching, thus the call of "liar"

--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"

Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452

 - Posted      Profile for PataLeBon   Email PataLeBon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My problem is with the timeline....

The book was published in 2006.
She won an award for theology in 2008. (Not from the Catholic Church)
The Vatican decides that there is a problem in 2010 (so 4 years (!) after the publication of the book and two years after the award).
They send her a letter asking for clarification in 2011. (It apparently took a year for them to find problems and contact her....)
The pope decides to wrist slap (at the least) American nuns.
The Vatican decides to condemn the book. (A year after she responded to them....)

I know that it's good to be thorough, but 6 years?? If the book is that bad shouldn't they have acted earlier??

--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)

Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
I know that it's good to be thorough, but 6 years?? If the book is that bad shouldn't they have acted earlier??

The thousand year reign of Christ? That's the time between the Second Coming and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issuing a responsum ad dubium (reply to doubt) "Whether the one who has come is Christ? Affirmative."

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mary LA
Shipmate
# 17040

 - Posted      Profile for Mary LA   Author's homepage   Email Mary LA   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I haven't read Margaret Farley's Just Love but read her Compassionate Respect on feminist medical ethics about a decade ago. I thought then that she was influenced by Charles Curran to some extent but far more by secular medical ethicists and feminist thinkers. The works of Sharon Welch, Peta Bowden, Judith Butler, Lisa Cahill, Rita C Manning on feminist ethics and social theory are routinely taught in many religious studies courses on pastoral care and ethics.

I would think Margaret Farley's readership is mostly secular and post-Catholic, even if Farley considers herself to be working in a Catholic theological tradition. And I don't imagine Yale Divinity School would want to lose her.

--------------------
“I often wonder if we were all characters in one of God's dreams.”
― Muriel Spark

Posts: 499 | From: Africa | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's been said that banning or condemning books or movies is the way the Catholic Church uses to boost their sales. Given that Just Love is now Amazon's #2 book on religion and #16 book overall (numbers likely to have changed by the time you click through), I'm guessing Continuum (Sister Farley's publisher) is currently trying to come up with a strategy to get the rest of its books condemned by the Pope.

Just Love is currently listed by Amazon as "Temporarily Out of Stock", but you can still get a used copy for as little as US$50 (or as much as US$1250 for a copy described as "Contains remainder mark on bottom outside edge").

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580

 - Posted      Profile for Comper's Child     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
Why do you call her a liar in this case. Do you really think she represented this book as being official teaching?!

Nope, it's indeed unlikely that she did that. However, that was not the only thing she claimed.
Why quote one thing and then call her a liar for saying something else altogether?!
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
Why quote one thing and then call her a liar for saying something else altogether?!

WTF? I precisely quoted what I called her a liar for. She just happened to say something in the same breath that probably is correct. Here, let me try to help your reading comprehension by removing the likely correct part from what I did quote, leaving the one I think she lied about: "I can only clarify that the book was not ... aimed specifically against this teaching. It is of a different genre altogether."

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
"I'm not a rebel. I'm just saying my piece!" Heck, I've used that one. Real meaning. "I AM a rebel but I don't like the thought of leaving".

Is it a lie, IngoB? Probably. But it's also a cry of pain from within. YMMV about whether that has any value at all.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235

 - Posted      Profile for Trisagion   Email Trisagion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am completely at a loss to understand what there is to discuss here. Sr Farley is a member of a religious institute. She teaches theology. As a theologian and particularly as a theologian who is a religious, she has an obligation to teach the Catholic faith. She writes a book in which she proposes a number of positions that are contrary to or not consonant with the Catholic faith. The Vatican dicastery charged with oversight of the work of Catholic theologians conducts a thorough review of the work, including obtaining clarifications from Sr Farley. At the end of that review the dicastery issues a notification saying that the positions proposed in Sr Farley's book are contrary to or not consonant with the Catholic faith. Sr Farley says she wasn't trying to teach the Catholic faith.

The only question that seems to be unanswered is why Sr Farley thinks that, as a member of a religious institute, she is free to teach theology but doesn't have the obligation to teach the Catholic faith?

--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580

 - Posted      Profile for Comper's Child     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
Why quote one thing and then call her a liar for saying something else altogether?!

WTF? I precisely quoted what I called her a liar for. She just happened to say something in the same breath that probably is correct. Here, let me try to help your reading comprehension by removing the likely correct part from what I did quote, leaving the one I think she lied about: "I can only clarify that the book was not ... aimed specifically against this teaching. It is of a different genre altogether."
Well I haven't read the book so I can't say exactly what she wrote, but if she states it's not intended to be official teaching and it is clear that it is at odds with official teaching and if, one assumes, the book in question does not include any statement claiming her opinions therein expressed to be official Catholic teaching why all the fuss?
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I am completely at a loss to understand what there is to discuss here. Sr Farley is a member of a religious institute. She teaches theology. As a theologian and particularly as a theologian who is a religious, she has an obligation to teach the Catholic faith. She writes a book in which she proposes a number of positions that are contrary to or not consonant with the Catholic faith. The Vatican dicastery charged with oversight of the work of Catholic theologians conducts a thorough review of the work, including obtaining clarifications from Sr Farley. At the end of that review the dicastery issues a notification saying that the positions proposed in Sr Farley's book are contrary to or not consonant with the Catholic faith. Sr Farley says she wasn't trying to teach the Catholic faith.

The only question that seems to be unanswered is why Sr Farley thinks that, as a member of a religious institute, she is free to teach theology but doesn't have the obligation to teach the Catholic faith?

I think my question is basically this:

Do catholic theologians have academic freedom to thoughtfully and critically engage like other scholars? This critical engagement means criticizing orthodox teaching if necessary.

If not, then what's the purpose of catholic theology if everything that has been revealed is in the Catechism?

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235

 - Posted      Profile for Trisagion   Email Trisagion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The rights, duties and obligations of Catholic theologians are helpfully set out in this document. It seems clear to me that Sr Farley understands her vocation very differently. She is, of course, entirely free so to do. What she seems less inclined to do is to face the consequences/pay the price for the choice she has made.

--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"I'm not a rebel. I'm just saying my piece!" Heck, I've used that one. Real meaning. "I AM a rebel but I don't like the thought of leaving".

Is it a lie, IngoB? Probably. But it's also a cry of pain from within. YMMV about whether that has any value at all.

Why should Farley be upset? The Roman Catholic Church teaches the same thing about human sexuality it's taught since way before Farley became a nun. "The Spirit of Vatican II" didn't and isn't going to change it.

Farley's position strikes me as being intellectually dishonest. Is the Roman Catholic Church what it claims to be? If so, why is she, as a theologian, teaching doctrine that is contrary to the Magisterium? If it isn't, then why is she still a Roman Catholic? The Roman Catholic Church isn't the only game in town. Why continue to be affiliated with an institution you believe to be wrong on so many important issues? I don't buy the whole, "this is my church," thing either. The average lay person saying something like that sort of makes sense. She isn't an average lay person. She's both a nun and a theologian. I would expect more.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
The rights, duties and obligations of Catholic theologians are helpfully set out in this document. It seems clear to me that Sr Farley understands her vocation very differently. She is, of course, entirely free so to do. What she seems less inclined to do is to face the consequences/pay the price for the choice she has made.

Yes. That's very clear. From my nonconformist understanding, if you seek to dissent openly, you can do so as a matter of conscience, but you mustn't wriggle! "Say your piece, and take your lumps" is the price you pay for the exercise of conscience.

And of course you may be wrong. Being in submission (a good principle) within the church order to which you belong does not mean burying your brain. But it does mean that if you get to the point of public declaration, (rather than private exploration with whoever your spiritual mentor is), then you've deliberately taken "a walk on the wild side". For better, or for worse.

Are you a prophet, or just an idiot? A heretic, or a voice that needs to be heard?

That's the territory of conscience. But Dissenters can't have their cake, and eat it, any more than anyone else can.

[xposted with Beeswax Altar, who may be surprised to discover the level of agreement]

[ 07. June 2012, 22:46: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784

 - Posted      Profile for Tortuf   Author's homepage   Email Tortuf   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
When will these people either display an ounce of humility and a grain of integrity and accept that it is the office of the Bishops in the Church that gets to determine what is in accordance with the deposit of faith not them, that it has decided and that is an end to it, or face up to the fact that they've moved beyond the Catholic faith and it's communion and face the consequences.

While I respect your intellect no end, I disagree with you that this can ever be a valid statement. Of course, that may be why I am not Catholic and you are. I understand the argument that the tradition of the Church is to be seen as true and important; more important than the latest trend in theological thought.

That being said, the Holy Mother Church has changed throughout history. The faith of 500 A.D. is not the same faith of today. In fact, I think it safe to say that we do not even think the same way as they did. That is not to invalidate their thinking; we just think differently because we are informed by different sources. If that can be acknowledged, it means that sources and forces outside of an entrenched establishment have been heard and might even have been correct.

These nuns seem to have choices. If they wish to have dialogue, they need quite a lot of patience. As you say, the dialogue has gone on for quite some time now and seems to have gotten them exactly nowhere.

They could just toe the line like good little nuns and listen to their betters. Or, at least to the people GOD Himself* has chosen to make the rules.

They could just leave the Holy Mother Church and keep to their chosen theological line. Of course, they would have to figure out where to live and how to pay for the food.

Trisagion, we just disagree. That does not mean that I do not admire your conviction and how you carry out your faith; I do. That does not mean I think I am smarter than you, or have a better faith than you do. We just disagree.


_______
*Can't buy the they are the only ones with authority at all. Probably because I was not brought up to that and have different expectations.

Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools