|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: To Hell with your evil theology
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Repeat: no-one at the Vatican is trying to draw a moral equivalence between the two, even if any kind of sacrilege by a cleric is obviously ipso facto pretty morally serious too.
I'm not sure how we know they weren't trying to do it.
But they most certainly did do it.
[ 17. July 2010, 22:51: Message edited by: Seeker963 ]
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Geneviève
Mother-Hatting Cat Lover
# 9098
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Sure, sabine - if such a person's not worried about lying and tricking the Most Holy Sacrament of Our Lord's Body and Blood out of the hands of His priests, let them knock themselves out.
You can call that "resisting oppression of one's discerned spiritual truth" if you like...
I bet Our Lord gives thanks every day that "his priests" are out there making sure His table is firmly guarded against party crashers.
--------------------
"Ineffable" defined: "I cannot and will not be effed with." (Courtesy of CCTooSweet in Running the Books)
Posts: 4336 | From: Eastern US | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Maybe you misunderstand the expression 'Once catholic'.
Someone can leave the institution but the institution will never leave them.
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
Leaving the church of your upbringing and forefathers is like disowning your beloved yet slightly insane grandma. It's very painful.
I used to accept that, but no more. If Luther et al could find the courage to leave the evil institution then every catholic should. Those who stay are guilty by association.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
You discount the effect of the Counter-Reformation at stamping out such impulses. "Mother Church" and all that.
It's the Catholic equivalent of the Protestant Doctrine Interlock that gives me a headache when I get to near to Mariolatry.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Repeat: no-one at the Vatican is trying to draw a moral equivalence between the two, even if any kind of sacrilege by a cleric is obviously ipso facto pretty morally serious too.
I'm not sure how we know they weren't trying to do it.
But they most certainly did do it.
How?
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Repeat: no-one at the Vatican is trying to draw a moral equivalence between the two, even if any kind of sacrilege by a cleric is obviously ipso facto pretty morally serious too.
I'm not sure how we know they weren't trying to do it.
But they most certainly did do it.
How?
The sexual abuse of children is such a grave sin that its punishment is: "to be punished according to the gravity of his crime, not excluding dismissal or deposition."
The ordination of women is such a grave sin that its punishment: "incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See."
On what planet does similar punishment for two different wrongdoings not equal moral equivalency?
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
If Luther et al could find the courage to leave the evil institution then every catholic should. Those who stay are guilty by association.
I was under the impression that Luther didn't leave the Catholic Church so much as was tossed out. I am open to correction.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
On what planet does similar punishment for two different wrongdoings not equal moral equivalency?
I thought it had been demonstrated that they're not given 'similar punishments'. Someone with a better knowledge of these things can certainly correct me, but I thought (given IngoB's post on the previous page, and this explanation) that excommunication latæ sententiæ was reserved for sacramental matters (and abortion). In these cases, the Church is not so much inflicting a punishment as making a statement about what She believes the state of the accused's relationship with the Church is.
In contrast (and this is where I may need to be corrected) I was under the impression that any excommunication as a punishment for child abuse would be ferendæ sententiæ and therefore represents the Church making a judgment about the defendant.
So, as much as I don't like to go out to bat for the Catholic hierarchy, I don't think that they have morally equated the two.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Seeker963:
The sexual abuse of children is such a grave sin that its punishment is: "to be punished according to the gravity of his crime, not excluding dismissal or deposition."
The ordination of women is such a grave sin that its punishment: "incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See."
On what planet does similar punishment for two different wrongdoings not equal moral equivalency?
They both have the same consequences within the Roman Catholic Church. The most she can do is impose excommunication. It is only state authorities who can do more.
A person convicted of child sexual abuse will probably go to prison depending on the state and judge. Nothing legally will happen to a priest who ordains a woman.
Like IngoB said, it is similar to offenses that get you fired from your job. Lots of things get you fired. Not all of them are illegal. All of them are probably listed in a manual somewhere.
Again, it wasn't a good idea to link the two together. It reinforces the public's perception of the RC as totally oblivious to the culture around it. However, the Roman Catholic Church really isn't saying that ordaining women is as bad as molesting children.
Seeing it that way means either looking at it dispassionately or being predisposed to accept the Church's word at face value. In the past, the actions of the RC hierarchy imply that they see ordination of women as a bigger problem than child sexual abuse. Interpreting this case in a way most favorable to the RC requires a level of respect for the Church that she no longer enjoys among most Westerners.
--------------------
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
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
If Luther et al could find the courage to leave the evil institution then every catholic should. Those who stay are guilty by association.
I was under the impression that Luther didn't leave the Catholic Church so much as was tossed out. I am open to correction.
My impression, come to think of it, wasn't so much that he broke the Catholic Church as the Catholic Church broke him.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Repeat: no-one at the Vatican is trying to draw a moral equivalence between the two, even if any kind of sacrilege by a cleric is obviously ipso facto pretty morally serious too.
I'm not sure how we know they weren't trying to do it.
But they most certainly did do it.
How?
The sexual abuse of children is such a grave sin that its punishment is: "to be punished according to the gravity of his crime, not excluding dismissal or deposition."
The ordination of women is such a grave sin that its punishment: "incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See."
On what planet does similar punishment for two different wrongdoings not equal moral equivalency?
So similar punishments equals moral equivalence, does it?
In NSW the maximum penalty for murder and the maximum penalty for sexual assault in company (think broadly pack rape) is imprisonment for the term of the offender's natural life, an identical punishment for two very serious crimes.
However no-one in their right mind would suggest that murder and sexual assault in company are morally equivalent, for however severe the physical and psychological harm done to a rape victim - he or she is still alive with the possibility of recovery and a life to live.
I could probably pick out similar examples from the criminal law of other countries. There is a non-theoretical maximum penalty that the legislature of a country can prescribe for an offence. In some countries that is death. In others it is imprisonment for the term of the offender's life. However it does not follow, as a matter of logic, that the offences that might result in such a maximum penalty are morally equivalent.
Well, not on our planet anyway. But apparently it is on yours.
For these aren't even similar punishments. In one case - ordination of women - the penalty is excommunication for grave matters that place the person concerned outside the teachings of the Catholic Church.
As both IngoB and Chesterbelloc point out, the penitent can approach the Pope or a bishop or priest acting under delegated authority for Reconciliation and be absolved by the mercy of God and the penalty lifted.
In the case of sexual abuse of a minor or developmentally delayed person by a priest or religious the Canon law penalties apply IN ADDITION to penalties under criminal law for the offender and IN ADDITION to any other legal liability faced by the Church. The Norms linked to above state that explicitly. The Canon law penalty is applied after the equivalent of a sentencing hearing after conviction, taking into account the nature and gravity of the offence as I pointed out elsewhere.
Issuing the clarification on the canon law position on sexual abuse with the the canon law position on ordination of women is damnfool stupidity by Msgr Scicluna et al. But the statement that the Catholic Church regards ordination of women as morally equivalent to abusing children doesn't stand a moment's critical examination.
The true position is that Canon law treats ordination of women as an addition to the list of grave offences attracting excommunication latae sententiae. SO we've gone from being unable to discuss OOW as contrary to the teaching of the Church 'cos Pope John Paul II said to being unable to discuss OOW as contrary to the teaching of the Church 'cos Pope John Paul II said and there now being an express article of Canon law dealing with anyone trying OOW.
The ban on discussion hasn't stopped any Catholic talking about OOW, as multipara pointed out - guarded though such discussion might be.
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
So similar punishments equals moral equivalence, does it?
In NSW the maximum penalty for murder and the maximum penalty for sexual assault in company (think broadly pack rape) is imprisonment for the term of the offender's natural life, an identical punishment for two very serious crimes.
However no-one in their right mind would suggest that murder and sexual assault in company are morally equivalent, for however severe the physical and psychological harm done to a rape victim - he or she is still alive with the possibility of recovery and a life to live.
I could probably pick out similar examples from the criminal law of other countries. There is a non-theoretical maximum penalty that the legislature of a country can prescribe for an offence. In some countries that is death. In others it is imprisonment for the term of the offender's life. However it does not follow, as a matter of logic, that the offences that might result in such a maximum penalty are morally equivalent.
Well, not on our planet anyway. But apparently it is on yours.
On my planet sexual assault and murders are grave crimes which violate most precepts of natural justice.
As a last resort, you might throw your teenage child out of the house after an extended period of unrepentant drug use and destruction of your property.
But you don't throw him out of the house because you believe that aspirin is an ineffective waste of money and he gave an aspirin to his brother in the hope that it would cure his headache.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
The true position is that Canon law treats ordination of women as an addition to the list of grave offences attracting excommunication latae sententiae. SO we've gone from being unable to discuss OOW as contrary to the teaching of the Church 'cos Pope John Paul II said to being unable to discuss OOW as contrary to the teaching of the Church 'cos Pope John Paul II said and there now being an express article of Canon law dealing with anyone trying OOW.
On pain of receiving arguably the same ecclesial discipline as someone who has sexually abused children.
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
The ban on discussion hasn't stopped any Catholic talking about OOW, as multipara pointed out - guarded though such discussion might be.
Oh yes, silly me. Those individuals who were involved in the movement for the ordination of women really should be excommunicated, of course.
And female theologians who don't toe a traditional theological line as well as most communities of religious sisters really should be investigated, of course. But ordinary Catholics who don't really care one way or another can still have guarded conversations around the Thanksgiving dinner table.
Whew, then.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
On what planet does similar punishment for two different wrongdoings not equal moral equivalency?
I thought it had been demonstrated that they're not given 'similar punishments'. Someone with a better knowledge of these things can certainly correct me, but I thought (given IngoB's post on the previous page, and this explanation) that excommunication latæ sententiæ was reserved for sacramental matters (and abortion). In these cases, the Church is not so much inflicting a punishment as making a statement about what She believes the state of the accused's relationship with the Church is.
In contrast (and this is where I may need to be corrected) I was under the impression that any excommunication as a punishment for child abuse would be ferendæ sententiæ and therefore represents the Church making a judgment about the defendant.
So, as much as I don't like to go out to bat for the Catholic hierarchy, I don't think that they have morally equated the two.
Sorry, I missed this post. I see what you're saying but I still think it offends natural justice and I really don't see how we get around the morality issue.
Given the close association that the Catholic Church makes with itself and the Kingdom of God, we are reserving the possibility that child abusers can be included in the Church but that people involved in the ordination of women cannot be included in the Church because they have already deliberately excluded themselves. Those involved with the OOW are put into a category which defines them as willfully rebelling against God; as spitting in God's face, if you will.
We are equating, in some spiritual sense, the breaking of a Church rule which God might possibly not agree with (but we'll never know because we are not allowed to debate the possibility) with an action that by all commonly-used moral compasses is considered heinously evil.
To try to wriggle out of the moral situation by claiming that there are two separate categories of excommunication is pedantry at best and immorality at worst.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
Pity you don't read your signature, isn't it, Seeker?
Too much time on hate and fear, indeed.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Pity you don't read your signature, isn't it, Seeker?
Too much time on hate and fear, indeed.
Yeah, that's rather an ironic remark.
In fact, the woman who uttered those words was a Roman Catholic with an MDiv. She asked me several times to speak out on women's ordination in the RCC church in order to lend sisterly support to those who didn't want the discussion closed down. During my friend's lifetime, I didn't speak out on the basis that I am not Roman Catholic. I don't know whether or not I did the right thing.
It is extremely interesting that you should attribute the emotion of hatred to me. That's a bit of a last-resort argument, isn't it? "You disagree with my views, therefore you hate me."
My friend disagreed with the views of the Church into which she was born. The Church which, for reasons I understand completely and which I'm not going to air here, she felt was part of her identity and which she could not leave. She was silenced from expressing her theology by the Church she loved.
Do I hate the RCC Church, the Church of my friend, the Church of my (biological, non-metaphorical) father and half of my family? No. Do I think that the current pope thinks that rules are more important than justice to human beings? You bet your ass I do.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PhilA
shipocaster
# 8792
|
Posted
Its a shame some nobber thought that the Vatican was making an explicit moral connection between OoW and paedophilia - it clearly isn't.
What is a shame is that the church (both RC and CofE) takes up so much of its time and resources on shit that doesn't really matter, like the OoW.
Its a shame that is the past the church, and Christians in general, were at the forefront of ethical change. The abolition of slavery, educating all children, ending the poor conditions of the workhouses, opening smuggling lines of medicines and literature past the iron curtain and the whole liberation theology of South America.
However, nowadays, the church worldwide appears to only care about who bumps uglies with who and whether you have a widgy under your cassock or not.
I didn't realise the phrase 'Jesus wept' was prophetic.
--------------------
To err is human. To arr takes a pirate.
Posts: 3121 | From: Sofa | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
I didn't realise the phrase 'Jesus wept' was prophetic.
Of course it is prophetic, go and read the passage again!
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
Phil - that's all very fine and, in a way, I sympathise with the sentiment...
... except that who you bump uglies with is pretty relevant when we're talking about child abuse, and the ordination of women surely does matter, whether you agree with it or not.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PhilA
shipocaster
# 8792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Phil - that's all very fine and, in a way, I sympathise with the sentiment...
... except that who you bump uglies with is pretty relevant when we're talking about child abuse,
Of course it is important and I don't mean to make light of the victim's abuse. However, the point is 'why is this an issue?' in the sense of 'why was this never properly dealt with'. Its so disappointing of the church that it seams to be so intent on reliving its dark times when the glorious times were so fucking good they radically and irrevocably changed the world.
quote:
and the ordination of women surely does matter, whether you agree with it or not.
Does it matter to the exclusion of most other issues, especially the Christ given mission of the church?
Imagine how much good could have been done if we had ordained women when Emmeline Pankhurst was around... The whole gender equality issue could have been settled there and then. Its such a crying, and infuriating shame that the church is around 100 years out of date on a significant moral issue and is being led by secular society rather than leading it.
--------------------
To err is human. To arr takes a pirate.
Posts: 3121 | From: Sofa | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Question: if the PTB at the Vatican had had an attack of worldly sense and had issued the two relevant pronouncements (on OoW & CA) separately, say a month apart, would we be having this discussion?
I'm not Catholic (and not likely ever to become one, and hold no brief for the Church or its actions in the pedophilia scandal), but the only "equivalency" I'm seeing here is a matter of extremely poor timing and failure to anticipate what hay others would make of this.
From my personal perspective, the Church, child sex abuse excepted -- that's criminallly and morally fucked -- is guilty largely of ineptitude and stupidity in various forms. It doesn't ordain women, even when it can't recruit near enough men for the job; it claims an infallibility whose centuries-old record speaks (mumbles) for itself, and it's riddled with the same political intrigue and corruption that besets any large, ancient, dull-witted, slow-moving dinosaur of an institution.
Film at 11.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I see what you're saying but I still think it offends natural justice and I really don't see how we get around the morality issue.
I don't understand what you mean by "the morality issue". I don't think that anyone's trying to claim that child abuse is moral.
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Given the close association that the Catholic Church makes with itself and the Kingdom of God, we are reserving the possibility that child abusers can be included in the Church but that people involved in the ordination of women cannot be included in the Church because they have already deliberately excluded themselves.
I think that this is the logical conclusion based on my limited understanding, yes. Personally, I'm quite happy for paedophiles to be included in a church. Somebody's got to help them not offend in that way again, and goodness knows that prison is likely to make things worse rather than better. Of course, I would never want a convicted abuser to be in a position of responsibility over children, but if all the correct safeguards are in place then surely the church ought to be a good place for these individuals? That is, if the church is doing its job properly, anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
We are equating, in some spiritual sense, the breaking of a Church rule which God might possibly not agree with (but we'll never know because we are not allowed to debate the possibility) with an action that by all commonly-used moral compasses is considered heinously evil.
But I don't think the Church is equating them, since it seems that different rules apply in the two situations. You pretty much conceded this point in your reply to me, so why are you going back on yourself?
(And, while we're on the subject, others have comprehensively argued that giving the same punishment for two different crimes does not automatically mean that you equate them.)
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
To try to wriggle out of the moral situation by claiming that there are two separate categories of excommunication is pedantry at best and immorality at worst.
Or, perhaps it's just trying to understand what the Church is actually saying rather than pointing accusatory fingers before you know what's going on. Just a thought.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
quote:
and the ordination of women surely does matter, whether you agree with it or not.
Does it matter to the exclusion of most other issues, especially the Christ given mission of the church?
Imagine how much good could have been done if we had ordained women when Emmeline Pankhurst was around... The whole gender equality issue could have been settled there and then. Its such a crying, and infuriating shame that the church is around 100 years out of date on a significant moral issue and is being led by secular society rather than leading it.
You seem to answer the question and then answer it. It seems we both think it matters and I personally do not see how it is "to the exclusion of most other issues", since the medium is the message. But (before we get slammed by a Host) let me say that we are not debating the rights and wrongs of OoW, but merely it's importance. I would suggest that people who are against the ordination of women are more likely to think it (relatively) unimportant (because there are other ways for women serve) than those who do.
So the apparently bizarre nature of this ruling is due to the fact that its not really about either child abuse or ordination, it's about church discipline - and, as someone else has said, it wouldn't really matter at all were it not for the idea that there is no salvation outside The Church.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Or, perhaps it's just trying to understand what the Church is actually saying rather than pointing accusatory fingers before you know what's going on. Just a thought.
Well, what the Church appears to be saying is: if you rape children it's a terrible crime and you'll be punished by the secular authorities, but you'll have the opportunity within the Church to repent and be OK with God like the prodigal son you are. But if you try to ordain a woman your sin has automatically put you outside of the Church and therefore, though you'll suffer no temporal penalty, you'll burn in Hell forever like the irredeemable apostate you are.
Am I far off the mark?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Or, perhaps it's just trying to understand what the Church is actually saying rather than pointing accusatory fingers before you know what's going on. Just a thought.
Well, what the Church appears to be saying is: if you rape children it's a terrible crime and you'll be punished by the secular authorities, but you'll have the opportunity within the Church to repent and be OK with God like the prodigal son you are. But if you try to ordain a woman your sin has automatically put you outside of the Church and therefore, though you'll suffer no temporal penalty, you'll burn in Hell forever like the irredeemable apostate you are.
Am I far off the mark?
Didn't someone say that the "sin" of trying to ordain a woman was also something you could "repent [of] and be OK with God like the prodigal son you are"?
I mean, I agree that it's ridiculous to refuse to ordain women as a matter of church policy, but I don't think they're actually saying that this is worse than abusing a child; just that ordaining a woman is against the Catholic Law and thus renders you non-Catholic.
Again, abusing kids makes you an immoral bastard. Ordaining women makes you a Protestant heretic. Both, for those who see them as sins, can be fixed by repentance.
I guess this could fall into a "No True Scotsman" argument as to what the true marks of Catholic discipleship are, but I think the case is if you really want to have a woman preside, you're not a Catholic, and as such have no right to call yourself one.
If you abuse children, you can still be a Catholic, but you need to repent of that sin (one hopes sincerely) and the church will do nothing to save you from the secular authorities who are fully within their rights in punishing you according to their law (Romans 13.)
[ 18. July 2010, 21:24: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
Marvin, that seems pretty close to the mark to me.
What galls me in this particular debate is the implicit accusation that the Church is being too soft on child abusers by "comparing them to ordained women". The two issues are completely separate from each other. Each is a PR disaster for the Church (and the Church has made massive errors on both counts) but to conflate them is to add unnecessary emotional heat to both issues.
But let me reiterate, I'm not trying to defend the Catholic hierarchy.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
Thanks for the two explanations.
I guess my view (from way outside) is that when one has a clear discerned spiritual position that is at odds with an institutional one (perhaps also discerned), a covert ignoring of the rules would be a way of not bending oppression of one's own spiritual truth.
But, I'm not an RC....
sabine
I don't understand that. If you want to discern your own spiritual truth, why would you be Roman Catholic? They don't encourage the discerning of your own spiritual truth.
How can you be oppressed by a voluntary institution? You don't like what the Roman Catholic Church teaches then go somewhere else. If you want to voluntarily stay in the Roman Catholic Church, don't whine about oppression.
Is the "you" in this response a reference to me? If so, you may has missed the point where I mention that I'm not a RC. I'm already somewhere else. And I'm not on a whine.
I simply happen to feel that one can maintain association with a religion without having to accept the part about women's ordination being a grave crime.
Why obey when it is discriminatory? And why leave when there are othr ways to work toward a goal of inclusiveness.
I worked for a Catholic organization for several years. I know quite a few RC's who couldn't give two hoots about what Rome says, feel that they are, and will remain, RC in their spiritual outlook, aren't about to change just because the leaders in Rome don't like women in charge, and get quite a bit of spiritual nourishment at the parish level. Oh, and some of them (female) read the gospel in church, preach, and say the words over the bread and wine--which is supposedly Not.To.Be.Done. Not all parishes or RC groups color within the lines.
There is nothing of a whine about a principled stand.
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
I don't understand what you mean by "the morality issue". I don't think that anyone's trying to claim that child abuse is moral.
No, they are trying to claim that it’s as “bad” in the eyes of God as ordaining women. Which is fucked by any measure of morality that generally gets used.
For example, try using an ethical framework of: 1) respect for individuals and groups; 2) doing good; 3) avoiding evil; 4) fairness of reward, punishment and allocation of resources. And then let’s analyze OOW and paedophilia in this light and tell me what the outcome is. Oh! OOW looks like it might not be quite as harmful as paedophilia. Except in the strange world that the Vatican inhabits.
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
But I don't think the Church is equating them, since it seems that different rules apply in the two situations. You pretty much conceded this point in your reply to me, so why are you going back on yourself?
I conceded that I had newly understood that two different sets of rules apply. But in the real world, both the paedophile and the supporter of OOW get very similar church disciplines that put them outside of the community. Wow, the paedophile was labeled as someone who needs to be put out of the community as a danger to the faithful based on criteria A whilst a supporter of OOW needs to be put out of the community as a danger to the faithful based on criteria B. Ah yes, well that's alright then.
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
(And, while we're on the subject, others have comprehensively argued that giving the same punishment for two different crimes does not automatically mean that you equate them.)
And I’m saying that’s pedantic bullshit. I’m not sure how to be plainer than that.
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Or, perhaps it's just trying to understand what the Church is actually saying rather than pointing accusatory fingers before you know what's going on. Just a thought.
Sure, because anyone who understood the pedantic bullshit would agree with it.
On one of the rare occasions I agree with Martin, I’ll go with what he said below:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Well, what the Church appears to be saying is: if you rape children it's a terrible crime and you'll be punished by the secular authorities, but you'll have the opportunity within the Church to repent and be OK with God like the prodigal son you are. But if you try to ordain a woman your sin has automatically put you outside of the Church and therefore, though you'll suffer no temporal penalty, you'll burn in Hell forever like the irredeemable apostate you are.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
What disturbs me most about this fiasco is the RCC's apparent inability to accept that they need to improve their PR. Or would that be too worldly or something?
At the moment they are coming across as neither as wise as serpents nor as harmless as doves.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
I worked for a Catholic organization for several years. I know quite a few RC's who couldn't give two hoots about what Rome says, feel that they are, and will remain, RC in their spiritual outlook, aren't about to change just because the leaders in Rome don't like women in charge, and get quite a bit of spiritual nourishment at the parish level. Oh, and some of them (female) read the gospel in church, preach, and say the words over the bread and wine--which is supposedly Not.To.Be.Done. Not all parishes or RC groups color within the lines.
There is nothing of a whine about a principled stand.
Only that's not a principled stand - it's cowardly and dishonest. What would be principled would be to try to change the structure openly from within; or to decide that the issue of women's ordained ministry was so important that it was a matter of conscience to leave any Church that would not conform to your ideas to allow it. What you describe is divisive, a cause for scandal, dishonest, and treads roughshod over several other essentially Catholic principles in order to usurp another. If that isn't proof of the need to impose Church discipline over such issues I'm Princess Mary of Teck (count your spoons).
I repeat: if you can't accept the deep principles which underly the Catholic Church, to the extent that you think them profoundly unjust, get the heck outta there.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
Another irregular verb then, I see:
I'm right
You're pedantic
They're wrong
Got it.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
What are you talking about, Pete?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
Seeker963. She/he only sees those that agree with him/her; she/he dismisses counter-argument as pedantry . And anyone who doesn't agree, well they're just wrong.
Some of us, Catholic or protestant, would rather just get on with the difficult task of being Christian, rather than getting ensnared in the web of pointing fingers.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Right, gotcha. Thanks.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Seeker963. She/he only sees those that agree with him/her; she/he dismisses counter-argument as pedantry . And anyone who doesn't agree, well they're just wrong.
Some of us, Catholic or protestant, would rather just get on with the difficult task of being Christian, rather than getting ensnared in the web of pointing fingers.
I agree.
Those of us who are not excommunicating people for having theology we don't like are the ones who are getting on with the difficult task of being Christian.
I'm assuming that you didn't "get" the irony of your post?
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
I worked for a Catholic organization for several years. I know quite a few RC's who couldn't give two hoots about what Rome says, feel that they are, and will remain, RC in their spiritual outlook, aren't about to change just because the leaders in Rome don't like women in charge, and get quite a bit of spiritual nourishment at the parish level. Oh, and some of them (female) read the gospel in church, preach, and say the words over the bread and wine--which is supposedly Not.To.Be.Done. Not all parishes or RC groups color within the lines.
There is nothing of a whine about a principled stand.
Only that's not a principled stand - it's cowardly and dishonest. What would be principled would be to try to change the structure openly from within; or to decide that the issue of women's ordained ministry was so important that it was a matter of conscience to leave any Church that would not conform to your ideas to allow it. What you describe is divisive, a cause for scandal, dishonest, and treads roughshod over several other essentially Catholic principles in order to usurp another. If that isn't proof of the need to impose Church discipline over such issues I'm Princess Mary of Teck (count your spoons).
I repeat: if you can't accept the deep principles which underly the Catholic Church, to the extent that you think them profoundly unjust, get the heck outta there.
Is there a place in the Roman Catholic Church for good-willed internal dissent?
Honest question, because I think of myself who "dissents" in some ways from standing Methodist rules and stays in the church in hopes of at least being part of the struggle to change them if not see them changed.
But it seems to me that the UMC is designed with more flexibility in the system than the RCC. I also just don't know as much about the RCC from the inside...
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
I repeat: if you can't accept the deep principles which underly the Catholic Church, to the extent that you think them profoundly unjust, get the heck outta there.
The Roman Catholic Church puts its members in a terrible position, then. It offers no place for open dissent, then roundly condemns heading for the local Anglican parish as apostasy.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by sabine:
Why obey when it is discriminatory? And why leave when there are othr ways to work toward a goal of inclusiveness.
I worked for a Catholic organization for several years. I know quite a few RC's who couldn't give two hoots about what Rome says, feel that they are, and will remain, RC in their spiritual outlook, aren't about to change just because the leaders in Rome don't like women in charge, and get quite a bit of spiritual nourishment at the parish level. Oh, and some of them (female) read the gospel in church, preach, and say the words over the bread and wine--which is supposedly Not.To.Be.Done. Not all parishes or RC groups color within the lines.
There is nothing of a whine about a principled stand.
What makes them Roman Catholic other than they decide to call themselves Roman Catholic? The Roman in Roman means being in communion with Rome. This isn't a new development. It has been that way for at least a thousand years. To be in communion with Rome, you have to give a hoot about what Rome thinks. What Rome thinks about the ordination of women hasn't changed in their lifetimes either.
Best I can tell, I'm as much of a Roman Catholic as the people you describe and I'm an Episcopal priest. There plenty of women in the Anglican Communion with a Catholic spiritual outlook who read the gospel, preach, and say the words over the bread and wine. They are called priests. If a women feels called to do those things, she should join an Anglican or Old Catholic Church get ordained and go about doing those things. Staying in the Roman Catholic Church playing at being a priest while claiming to be oppressed by the evil hierarchy is just silly in this day and age. Pretending to be Roman Catholic when you aren't is just plain dishonest.
--------------------
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
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Yes, there is a place in the Roman Catholic Church for good-willed internal dissent over non-defined issues: like clerical celibacy, for example. But having a lay person simulate the consecration of the eucharistic elements in protest against a defined teaching of the Church (that the Chuch has no authority to ordain women) is not good-willed and is not playing by the minimum rules of communion with the Church. It is a schismatic act.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
I repeat: if you can't accept the deep principles which underly the Catholic Church, to the extent that you think them profoundly unjust, get the heck outta there.
The Roman Catholic Church puts its members in a terrible position, then. It offers no place for open dissent, then roundly condemns heading for the local Anglican parish as apostasy.
Zach
But if the person's conscience seems to them genuinely to be forcing rejection of these Catholic essentials then the Church - though she will hold that the person's conscience is mistaken - will respect the decision to follow it. Formally, it is still apostasy, but people and situations are complex and messy and not all acts of apostasy should be treated with contempt as well as regret.
And what Beeswax just said.
[ 18. July 2010, 23:21: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
I repeat: if you can't accept the deep principles which underly the Catholic Church, to the extent that you think them profoundly unjust, get the heck outta there.
The Roman Catholic Church puts its members in a terrible position, then. It offers no place for open dissent, then roundly condemns heading for the local Anglican parish as apostasy.
Zach
Sorry for the doublepost.
If those people don't give a hoot what Rome thinks, why do they care if the RC calls them apostates?
People like this seem to have a very unhealthy attachment to 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
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Matters are complicated by another Roman doctrine. Last I heard, Rome taught that Protestants might get into heaven because they don't know any better, but a Catholic rejecting the Catholic Church is cause for damnation.
So a Roman Catholic who thinks that woman can lead the Church is stuck with either embracing a doctrine he or she deplores, or giving up salvation.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Let me get his straight...
They believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church. They believe what the RC says about hell and salvation. But, they don't believe what Rome says about the ordination of women? The Roman position is that they don't have the authority to ordain women and can't change it. Why not accept that the same way they accept that Rome is the one true church and all those who know that but leave are potentially damned? If the RC says that bishops and priests who participate in the ordination of women are automatically excommunicated, why would they want these men to put their souls in mortal danger by engaging in a symbolic but ultimately meaningless farce?
--------------------
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
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Matters are complicated by another Roman doctrine. Last I heard, Rome taught that Protestants might get into heaven because they don't know any better, but a Catholic rejecting the Catholic Church is cause for damnation.
So a Roman Catholic who thinks that woman can lead the Church is stuck with either embracing a doctrine he or she deplores, or giving up salvation.
Zach
Except that no-one can be condemned merely for following his conscience - his conscience itself must be cuplably misinformed for the act of apostasy to be a mortal sin. In other words, one must either be aware that what one is doing is gravely wrong or have no excuse for not knowing it to be wrong. And it's not up to me to decide who is or is not culpably apostate - it God's. So yous can all chill yer y-fronts, innit.
[ 18. July 2010, 23:31: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
They believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church. They believe what the RC says about hell and salvation. But, they don't believe what Rome says about the ordination of women? The Roman position is that they don't have the authority to ordain women and can't change it....
Which brings us back to whether there is any space at all for dissent in the Roman Church. We're back to "Believe every jot of Roman Catholic doctrine, or get the hell out." It doesn't seem to me that there is any space for dissent if we frame the issue the way you have.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
...In other words, one must either be aware that what one is doing is gravely wrong or have no excuse for not knowing it to be wrong.
What about "The Devil made me do it!"? Will that get me out of jail free?
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
(And, while we're on the subject, others have comprehensively argued that giving the same punishment for two different crimes does not automatically mean that you equate them.)
And I’m saying that’s pedantic bullshit. I’m not sure how to be plainer than that.
And that makes you a bigot who is more interested in advancing your own prejudice than in having a constructive conversation than others.
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963: quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Or, perhaps it's just trying to understand what the Church is actually saying rather than pointing accusatory fingers before you know what's going on. Just a thought.
Sure, because anyone who understood the pedantic bullshit would agree with it.
Heaven forbid that we should have a conversation based on mutual understanding! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Like Chesterbelloc said, they can dissent and attempt to change the system from within by voicing their opinion. Their voice will be ignored and their efforts will ultimately fail. My guess is generations will pass before the RC changes her mind on this.
The RC isn't like all of the other denominations. It is a large global institution. The laity ultimately have no authority over major decisions. The clergy in charge can promote only people that agree with them to higher positions. Change would require a large number of people slip through the cracks, become cardinals, and elect a Pope who would agree with them. Even then the battle wouldn't be over.
However, if you really believe all the church says about salvation, why not trust that they are doing the right thing? Why not accept the possibility that Holy, Mother Church in Her divine wisdom is doing the wise and pastoral thing by not ordaining women? Why not accept that ordaining women would lead the entire Church into apostasy? You've already accepted what they say about salvation and hell.
--------------------
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
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Like Chesterbelloc said, they can dissent and attempt to change the system from within by voicing their opinion. Their voice will be ignored and their efforts will ultimately fail. My guess is generations will pass before the RC changes her mind on this.
The RC isn't like all of the other denominations. It is a large global institution. The laity ultimately have no authority over major decisions. The clergy in charge can promote only people that agree with them to higher positions. Change would require a large number of people slip through the cracks, become cardinals, and elect a Pope who would agree with them. Even then the battle wouldn't be over.
However, if you really believe all the church says about salvation, why not trust that they are doing the right thing? Why not accept the possibility that Holy, Mother Church in Her divine wisdom is doing the wise and pastoral thing by not ordaining women? Why not accept that ordaining women would lead the entire Church into apostasy? You've already accepted what they say about salvation and hell.
I think part of the problem is that people take religion more as an emotional attachment than as a logical or reasonable thing...
I can quite logically stay "in love" with my wife even if she's a total bitch queen from hell who hates my guts and quite sincerely wants to kill me, and even argue vehemently against people who would advice me in the direction of divorcing her. Not necessarily going to that extreme, people will do all kinds of things to prove to themselves that their spouse is faithful. The fact that this only makes the final revelation worse doesn't really stop them.
It's probably against all kinds of modern cultural norms to say this, but perhaps it would be better if people stopped seeing religion purely as matter of affection and looked at it more coldly.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
