sinker

oh, so he's probably going to executed b/c of his race? give me a break. -the artist formerly known as sinker

They still consider women not quite as capable as men in some areas (i.e. clergy) but they are now not that bad overall *** That is incorrect. Women not being priests has nothing to do w/ capabilities. It has to do with identity. A man is a priest b/c he represents Christ. From an article by a Catholic apologist, ..."In every Mass "a man is always at the center"—the man Jesus Christ. The priest who represents him, the alter Christus, represents him best by himself being a man. That oversimplifies things, of course, but nevertheless that is a key reason (by no means the only key reason) why the priesthood is restricted to males. The priest is a "stand in" for Christ. As he re-presents the sacrifice of Calvary, the priest "is" Christ. The Mass is a divine drama, and the male lead needs to be played by a male." I don't know why a woman would even WANT to be a priest! Same for men too, what a daunting role to be in! As for the other things you wrote about, the whole "created it's legends" thing is a little offensive. Try a little harder not to denegrate beliefs and customs that many people hold very dear. Christianity is the story of converting mankind. It makes sense that this story incorporates and transforms the symbols and rituals of pagans. -the artist formerly known as sinker

an interesting piece I found on-line... ----------------- Shock! New Pope a Catholic Gerard Baker Pinning a conservative label on Benedict XVI is absurd. His mission transcends Left and Right WHAT HAS been most enjoyable about the stunned reaction of the bulk of the media to the election of Pope Benedict XVI has been the simple incredulousness at the very idea that a man such as Joseph Ratzinger could possibly have become leader of the universal Church. Journalists and pundits for whom the Catholic Church has long been an object of anthropological curiosity fringed with patronising ridicule have really let themselves go since the new pontiff emerged. Indeed most of the coverage I have seen or read could be neatly summarised as: “Cardinals elect Catholic Pope. World in Shock.” As headlines, I’ll grant you, it’s hard to beat God’s Rottweiler, The Enforcer, or Cardinal No. They all play beautifully into the anti-Catholic sentiment in intellectual European and American circles that is, in this politically correct era, the only form of religious bigotry legitimised and sanctioned in public life. But I ask you, in all honesty, what were they expecting? Did the likes of The Guardian, the BBC or The New York Times think there was someone in the Church’s leadership who was going to pop up out on the balcony of St Peter’s and with a cheery wave, tell the faithful that everything they’d heard for the past 26 — no, make that 726 — years was rubbish and that they should all rush out and load up with condoms and abortifacients like teenagers off for a smutty weekend? Or did they think the conclave would go the whole hog and elect Sir Bob Geldof (with Peaches, perhaps, as a co-pope) in an effort to bring back the masses? It has been fun (and revealing) to watch as the cardinals’ deliberations have been portrayed, with so little imagination or understanding, as a classic left-right battle between conservatives (bad, of course) and progressives (good). But it bears little reality to the way the Church’s leadership really thinks about its future. The “conservative” label immediately pinned on Pope Benedict is for a start, hardly helpful. He, like the last one, defies easy characterisation in political terms. He was one of the intellectual driving forces behind the reforming Second Vatican Council. He has, like his predecessor, spoken out strongly against the war in Iraq, and indeed against the use of military force in all but the most exceptional of circumstances. He is in the broad church of prelates who, as William Rees-Mogg pointed out in these pages last week, essentially regard modern capitalism with moral disdain. Sure, he is doctrinally a traditionalist, but this is misunderstood too. If you, as the papacy does, claim direct authority, through your 264 predecessors from the ministry of St Peter, who, the Gospels tell us was inaugurated into that ministry by the Son of God while he was present on earth, is it really possible to take anything other than a bit of a traditionalist view when it comes to doctrinal matters? Don’t get me wrong; I’m not suggesting, at this sensitive moment, that God is a Tory. But the Church’s mission is to bear witness to the truth. The truth is not something that needs redefining each time a pope dies. And it’s not really evident that churches that have made the kind of accommodations with modernity that are urged on the Vatican have fared all that well. The Church of England is a mostly genial institution led, in Rowan Williams, by a good and holy man, but I don’t get the sense that the post hoc validation of modern social mores that the C of E has been practising for some time has led to a religious awakening among the British. Of course I’m being slightly unfair. There were choices on offer to the cardinals. They could have chosen a less challenging, less insistent voice for unwavering orthodoxy. But the idea that there was some radical alternative on offer who would have shifted the direction of the Church is way off the mark. Two clues tell us what this papal selection truly represents. The first is the speed with which Cardinal Ratzinger was chosen. Four ballots, in less than 24 hours, was all it took for at least two-thirds of the cardinals (and probably many more) to establish a consensus in favour of this man. Why? The answer lies in the nature of this succession. Though they loved and revered John Paul II, many cardinals still found themselves surprised at their own and the world’s reaction to the late Pope’s death. Only in the mourning did they fully grasp the significance of the historic phenomenon that he represented. In the days leading up to the conclave the buzzword, if the Holy Spirit can be said to have such a thing, was Continuator. The cardinals wanted to anoint someone who would represent continuity with the dead Pope’s firm restatement of the church’s doctrines and values. There was no one who better offered the prospect of a reaffirmation of that papacy. The other clue lies in the new Pope’s choice of name. The cardinals think long and hard about the choice of a papal nomen. It is intended as a clear signal of their intent. Much attention has focused on the previous 15 popes called Benedict. But it is worth remembering that the first St Benedict was not a pope, but the founder of the monastic order that bears his name. Benedict is the patron saint of Europe. His principal legacy — the Benedictines — was critical in planting the roots of Christianity throughout Europe in the dark, post-Roman period of the 6th and subsequent centuries. Without Benedict, Europe may not have been the centre of Christianity in the Middle Ages that made it the birthplace of modern civilisation. The conclave clearly shared the view of John Paul II that Europe confronts another similar challenge — the lure of relativist, materialist secularism that is steadily stifling the Church in its birthplace. In choosing this Benedict, from the heart of Europe, they have demonstrated the Church’s intention to meet this challenge, not with compromise and accommodation, but with the unbending affirmation of the universal, eternal truth -the artist formerly known as sinker

"Beautiful" - nope. Just another biological function that I, as a Westerner, do not care to observe in public; along with urination, defecation, procreation, vomiting, and a host of other biological functions. Take your Third-World behavior back where it belongs - we're civilized here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What an ABSURD statement. *** Something you and I whole-heartedly agree on. This man is truly the uncivilized one and belongs in a cave. -the artist formerly known as sinker

i won't argue semantics w/ you... it's pattenly obvious I'm talking about THE Catholic Church, which is the Roman Catholic Church. After all, the conversation began w/ the discussion about the new Pontiff of said church. Other churches that incorporate the word catholic do so w/ the understanding of the word meaning "universal." and again, forgiveness is a wonderful thing. Pope Benedict XVI, as the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did NOT burn anyone at the stake, apply thumb screws, put folks into the iron maiden, etc. It's time to get over it, kallend. just how many mea culpas would the Church need to make before you were satisfied? something tells me it would NEVER be enough for you. although the church HAS, w/o a doubt, caused "untold suffering," she has also caused untold healing, reconciliation, and joy. -the artist formerly known as sinker

thanks girl, for saying so well what I can't... and thanks for having me back. miss ya! haven't been able to call but hope to be on the west coast some time this summer... i'll let ya know... -the artist formerly known as sinker

quote... The "ramifications and implications" are just the opinions of a very small, misogynistic, geriatric, self-perpetuating oligarchy, most of whose members are totally out of touch with reality. hmmm... I must confess to taking a little sick pleasure in the fact that this issue bothers you so much (does this mean I'm going to hell?) you say opinions... well, that certainly is true of what YOU are saying, and trying to put off as fact. That certainly doesn't jive w/ the beliefs of 1.1 billion Catholics. Of course, just b/c they believe it doesn't make it so either... there must be a higher authority and time will tell who is right. "very small... self-perpetuating oligarchy." Well, not as small as you think, but you're generally right about "geriatric," in that cardinals are typically old. Why is that an argument against them? Misogynistic? Hardly. You probabaly haven't read a DAMN THING about what the Church teaches regarding the fundamental value of women. Just b/c women can't be priests, that means the church oppresses women? How incredibly myopic of you. Try to read some church documents and see WHY it teaches what it does, instead of just judging w/ such predjudice and ignorance. I don't know whatever happened to you, kallend, that made you so angry and hateful towards the Catholic Church. Hopefully some day you'll get past it. You are certainly not hurting the Church by your attacks. She'll be here long after you're gone, that's for sure. But it would be nice if you let some peace into your soul about the whole matter. -the artist formerly known as sinker

ya put yer left boob in ya poke his left eye out ya put yer left boob in and you milk it all about... -the artist formerly known as sinker

isn't that a given that he has the right to voice his opinion? i'm personally glad he did voice it, so the people of sc can see him for who he is and use their votes to get him out of there! -the artist formerly known as sinker

Doesn't mean I have to like her, respect her, or give her the time of day if she asks. _____ true true! -the artist formerly known as sinker

you know, lindsey's right about this. so often, women feel trapped, sucked in, option-less, and afraid for their very lives. often times, in their view, they CANT leave. it frequently takes a drastic intervention to get them to go into a domestic violence shelter, and even then often times they end up going back. I know, it doesn't seem to make much sense, but that's the way it is and it's the WOMEN who should be supported, not the men by being able to get away twice w/ misdemeanors. Knowing the viscious cycle of domestic violence, and how it can easily elevate to murder, a felony should be the charge. good grief, cock fighting is a felony but domestic vio. isn't? how f*cked up is that? hmm, sorry lady, but this chicken is more important that you are... -the artist formerly known as sinker

-the artist formerly known as sinker

Now the other half is whether the mom is doing it with consideration to the others (using a light blanket, etc) vs whether she's being purposely 'in your face' about it because she's trying to make a point rather than care for her child. I can see an issue if she's some zealot with an ax to grind. Courtesy goes both ways. This is unclear and I tend to give side with the mom when I'm lacking more info. But we've all seen both. _________________ Very well said, sir! I agree that discretion should be the operating principle. A woman has every right to breast feed in public, provided consideration is afforded to others who may not be comfortable. My wife always has a light blanket available and also tries to dress in a manner that makes breast feeding inconspicuous. It is ironic that so many other public displays of "flesh," even that could be considered soft-porn by conservative standards are de rigeur, while this, the most natural act b/t a mother and child, indeed the primary reason why breast exist, is so often looked on w/ disgust, disdain, and embarassment. How bass-ackwards. -the artist formerly known as sinker

While I agree with that, the church has often taken the opposite approach - they have claimed that biblical claims of a flat earth and of the geocentric view of things WERE fundamental to the Church. Bruno Giordano was executed by the church for (among other things) believing the universe was infinite and could contain countless other forms of intelligent life. _____________________ I fail to see how belief in a flat earth and geocentrism are fundamental to faith in Christ. The Church was clearly wrong there. Such claims have no bearing whatsoever on the Church's belief in the incarnation of Christ, salvation by blood atonement/crucifixion and resurrection, sacraments, grace, etc. I don't know if one can automatically extrapolate that since geocentrism was wrong that other intelligent life can/does exist on other planets. I personally wouldn't be too surprised if such life WAS found, considering the vastness of the universe, and I realize that would have profound ramifications on Christianity (mind-blowing, really). Executing Giordano for his beliefs was monstrously evil. And I believe the Church has repented for this and it's other sins (although I'd like to see more grovelling over the priest/sex debacle, that clearly was mishandled). It's time too for the world to forgive the Church. It may be led by the Holy Spirit, but it's still run by sinful men. Perhaps that is it's biggest proof that it was ordained by God to exist, that it hasn't self-destructed IN SPITE of being run by a bunch of scoundrels! -the artist formerly known as sinker

http://catholic.com/ http://newadvent.com/ -the artist formerly known as sinker

I really shouldn't continue to be amazed at how hated the Catholic Church is. But still, to witness the scathing negativity in this thread greatly saddens me. A couple of points... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If the Roman church confined itself to the teachings of Jesus it might have fewer detractors. It DOES confine itself to the teachings of Jesus and all ramifications and implications that stem from that. -the artist formerly known as sinker

I really shouldn't continue to be amazed at how hated the Catholic Church is. But still, to witness the scathing negativity in this thread greatly saddens me. A couple of points... 1. The advertising-on-cardinal-clothes was hilarious. 2. The comparison of Pope Benedict to Darth Sidious was highly offensive, as was calling him Pope Dic and asking if his little hat was a condom. 3. I'm not at all surprised at the shallowness of some of you who brought up that Ratzinger was part of Hitler Youth, but I'm very glad that some of you completely understand that such membership does NOT detract from him now, since it was compulsory and his defection from the Nazi regime was, in fact, heroic. 4. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), formerly the "inquisition," which has been led by Ratzinger for 24 or 25 years now, is tasked with policing the teaching of the faith by people who claim to be Catholic. There are many people who claim to teach what Catholicism "is," when in fact, what they are teaching is considered heresy. The Church has every right and obligation to say hey, what you are teaching ISN'T what we as a Chruch believe, so cut it out, conform, or go somewhere else. Why is that so wrong to so many of you? If someone misquotes one of you, you'd be quick to correct the misquote, misunderstanding, whatever. That is what the CDF does. 5. The Inquisition was evil, deplorable and the Church SHOULD atone for it. In fact, She has... remember JP II?? Remember his many public apologies for the atrocities done in the name of Catholicism? in the name of God? Oh, I forgot... some of you have selective hearing. He did more to try and reconcile w/ a wounded world than ANY HUMAN BEING in hundreds of years. 6. To those wanting change in the Church... in basic, fundamental matters of faith and morals, their has been NO change and there won't be. Now, there has been an evolution, a maturing, a growth in understanding of doctrine and teaching, which is natural and desireable. But on fundamental issues, the Church will not change, b/c, as She sees it, She CAN'T change... The Church sees herself as being charged with safeguarding the deposit of faith, as handed down from Christ and the Apostles. In her mind, She didn't make up Her teachings, but received them as a gift from God. You may disagree w/ this view, but please try to understand that is how the Church views it. It is one of the Church's jobs is to protect and safeguard doctrine. (as an aside, kallend's statment that the church did change when it admitted the world wasn't round, that is NOT a matter of faith and morals. That is a physically verifiable fact. the fact that Earth is NOT the center of the universe does nothing to detract from who we are as children of God and what the mission of the Church is). 7. For those matters that people don't agree with, such as why condoms are verboten, why women can't be ordained priests, etc. etc. ad nauseum, I humbly ask that you read what the church actually teaches and WHY it teaches that. For example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, available in all major bookstores, is a good source. For matters pertaining to sex and gender roles, The Christian Meaning of Human Sexuality by Paul Quay (a Jesuit, as a matter of fact!) is a great resource. The Cathoic Church, to many of you, looks like an old, antiquated, irrelevant, and even harmful institution. It appears much like the outside of a Catholic Church w/ many stained glass windows. From the outside, the windows appear dark, lifeless, prosaic. However, you have to go INSIDE to see the beauty, the life, the vitality. Therein you see the splendor of hte windows and the splendor of it's teaching. One last note, something I've never understood... some people so vehemently insist that the Church change and conform to societal standards, to "modernity." When the Church doesn't change, but instead develops and reports a better understanding if it's teaching (THAT was the mission of Vatican II), these people get so ugly and hateful towards the leaders of the church. Why? If you continue to disagree w/ the teachings of the church, if it hasn't changed to fit YOUR wishes, why not FIND ANOTHER CHURCH!?!? There are over 26,000 different Protestant denominations, many who ordain women even. And there are countless other nonChristian churches whom you could turn to. There are many, many, MANY Catholics who LOVE the Church as it is. We BELIEVE what the Church teaches. Hate us, persecute us, slander us, malign us, that's ok. But quit trying to change our Church. There are 1.1 BILLION Catholics in the world, most who are NOT in the western hemisphere. According to what I know, most of them do NOT dissent from Church teaching. On a personal note, while in Rome in 1999, my wife and I had the occassion to meet Cardinal Ratzinger and attend a Mass with him. We received communion from him and, after mass, spoke for a while with him. We found him to be humble, soft-spoken, joyful, and he made us feel like he was genuinely interested in us as people. He was very, very attentive. He'll be a good Pope. -the artist formerly known as sinker

glad you guys chimes in, 'cause I was really shaking my head on that one. -the artist formerly known as sinker

The sad thing Bill is that you REALLY BELIEVE this statement you made. -the artist formerly known as sinker

i'm beginning to wonder the same thing, can't find anything on it anywhere else on the web... -the artist formerly known as sinker

well, here we are again, two conservative, pro-life Catholics, crashing another liberal thread. feels pretty good, doesn't it. -the artist formerly known as sinker

Where are the [holy] men who rushed to Terri Schiavo's bedside, Randall Terry and the rest, and the priests who lecture us on the sanctity of all life, even stem cells? Mr. Rudolph's manifesto echoes themes more temperately expressed in respectable publications and Web sites. Are they at all embarrassed by this terrorism perpetrated in their cause? *** where are we? I don't know about the rest, certainly I don't consider myself "holy," knowing full well my own failings, but still here I am, kallend. And I quote the late John Cardinal O'Connor who said it best, in referring to murderers who call them self "pro-life." "I have repeated publicly what I have said before and mean with every fiber of my being: "If anyone has an urge to kill an abortionist, kill me instead." That's not a grandstand play. I do not want to die but I am prepared to die, if my death can save the life of another." -delivered in St Patrick's Cathedral Jan. 8, 1995 yes, I'm embarassed that Mr. Rudolf's actions "hurt" the pro-life cause. it just feeds the delusions that some hold that "we" are all hypocrites and crazy right-wing theocratic nut-jobs. -the artist formerly known as sinker

i'm surprised no one has come up w/ any other facts on the case, re: the 3rd shot and the moving of the body. interesting to me was (what I think I saw) in that after the perp went down behind the clothes rack, it appeared to me that the clerk realized he just possibly killed a man and appeared to be yelling at him or saying something. it reminded me of that scene in The Untouchables where Kevin Costner killed a perp and then yelled at him for not just putting his gun down, "why didn't you just listen?" if anyone gets any other details, please post 'em. as Kim du Toit says, another one for the good guys, another goblin dead. hate to sound caloused (sp?) but the perp made his bed and is now lying in it. -the artist formerly known as sinker

And you are being a jackass and just repeating yourself over and over again (as usual). gotta admit that was funny. -the artist formerly known as sinker

Now that really depends on how you define "sex" and "is". If you know what I mean. -the artist formerly known as sinker