[Philosopher]

Getting complicated, but I'm trying to answer every point. Here's the color key for all the quotes below.

Black=My words this post.
Blue=You quoting me from my previous post. My words.
Red=Quotes from your last post. Your words.
Orange=Quotes from other people in this thread that I am being forced to call attention to so you understand why a Catholic would be offended, since you claim that after several readings you found nothing objectionable. Other poster's words in orange.

[Originally Posted by Philosopher 1) Come on, you know well I meant Popes John Paul II and Benedict (Ratzinger). You’re just trying to get my goat.

I thought that was likely, but I looked through the thread and saw no ridiculing of JP2. That was my way of bringing that to the forefront.

I said the Faith, and the two men. Let’s see:

a) Juxtaposing (and ridicule by association, a long political cartoon practice, let’s not be naïve) JPII and Cent L wearing a Pope outfit)
b) Placing a crucifix right over Cent L’s crotch.
c) "Spread your tithes, Bitch" - nice. I hope the women on this forum appreciate that.
d) "Your Momma ain’t no virgin now" - deliberate swipe at the Virgin Mary, probable intimation of sexually assaulting a statue of Mary
e) "Nuns be fun" - alone, an innocent sentence. In this context, obviously means they are fun to screw around with.

That was just the opening post. Also….

a) "I nominate Bono. Since he didn't get the world bank gig, maybe he could head the church instead." Cute. Implying the Church is such an inconsequential, non-serious body that anyone, including a rock star, could/should run it..
b) Making an April Fool joke about the death of the best loved Pope in 500 years where his core men whack him. A man for whose funeral 5 million people showed up, an unprecedented event in history. That even newscasters and reporters who are known to normally pooh-pooh (at best) anything Christian, spoke about in tones of gratitude and/or respect. Try doing that regarding the death of Golda Meir, a political leader, and watch the fireworks directed at you sometime. As they should be, by the way, if you did.
c) "Well, now there is no ambiguity for Schiavo, so we had to move on to the next one." - Implying that the Pope was brain dead, and should or was put out of his misery deliberately by the Cardinals.
d) Comparing the Vatican to the Kremlin. Particularly galling comment since Lech Walesa, the head of the Polish Solidarity labor union, whose courageous stand against his own country’s Communist government, triggered the fall of the Soviet Union, and freed a couple of hundred million people from the boys who brought you the Gulags and the tender mercies of the Lubyanka, has stated repeatedly that 50% or more of that collapse was due to the help, funding, advice, and direct interventions of the Holy Father and his trusted aides at the Vatican, from the beginning of the organization. Do yourself a favor and read "The Black Book of Communism", written in France (and translated to English) by six very famous European men of the left to far left who were there, in and out of the Communist dominated zones, and tell the horror stories of the system they supported for decades. Have you noticed how nobody ever tells Polish jokes any more? <smile> In the seventies, they used to be VERY common. Not any more. And rightly so, for anyone with a clue about history and a little bit of shame left.
e) The picking of the spiritual leader of a quarter of Humanity described as something out of a Three Stooges show. A light one, to be sure, and eminently dismissable were it not with all the other stuff in post after post, it does add increase the blood pressure. To wit: "a process shrouded in mystery, which may or may not involve arm wrestling. A bunch of time will pass, and the Cardinals will amuse themselves by tossing different things, including leftover pasta from lunch, into the Very Sacred Furnace to see what color smoke comes out. When they accidentally get something that burns white smoke, they panic and draw straws to be able to decide who is really going to be the pope."
f) "The new low calorie communion wafer --- I CAN’T BELIEVE IT’S NOT JESUS!" Yeah, I guess we’re not ‘sposed to be offended by that either, nah… it really wasn’t meant to insult, nah…
g) And finally, the match-up side by sides of Pope Benedict XVI and the Star Wars evil Emperor. Nah… no bad intentions there either, right?

This enough for ya?

[Quote:
But Mr. Kerry's face is so well known, and his stance on the mortal sin of abortion is ALSO so well known (because he trumpets it often enough),
Well, you don't seem to know it. He agrees with the Church that abortion is a sin, and he hasn't had or suggested that anyone have an abortion. However, he realizes that it is not a Catholic's duty to enforce Catholic law on non-Catholics. He believes that Catholics who have abortions should be excommunicated, not jailed.

Ah! Now Kerry’s an authority on who should or should not be excommunicated? Who made him Pope? If he were to say, correctly, that the Church teaches that abortion is not only a sin, but the sin of murder, and then says that it’s not up to Catholics to enforce it on others IF the law permits it, but it IS up to Catholics to speak up against it, just like they can, like anyone else speak out on anything, that would be one thing.

But that’s not what he says. By saying that he believes Catholics who have abortions should be excommunicated, not jailed, he is saying that he doesn’t believe it’s murder, and that he will side with those who want it to continue to be the law of the land. And it is THAT that is an untenable Catholic position. If you hold it, and are unrepentant, and would actually aid those who want to continue it, then you are automatically excommunicating yourself as a Catholic. By all means, be honest with yourself, and go campaign away, but call yourself what you are. And that is NOT a Catholic.

What a Catholic is required to do is to vote his conscience (like everyone else) and have it re-declared murder. And if enough Americans do that (bless our allies in this, the Evangelicals especially, but many mainline Protestants as well) for taking a principled stand on such an important issue, we might change that. And like any Americans, we are entitled to politically argue and persuade people to our viewpoint. Or are we somehow different from other Americans, that you believe we should be muzzled?

Quote:
3) As to your final point being that anything you can’t joke about is something you aren’t allowed to think about, that’s a glib dismissal.

Your entire second post to me is a perfect example of glib dismissal. You expect me to believe you missed all the points mentioned above? You are not arguing in good faith, Sir. Do you think people would get away with saying stuff like that about women, blacks, gays, or Jewish people? Hmmm?

Quote:
Would you not take offense (and action) against a man slipping his hand up your wife’s skirt at a restaurant? What would you say to him if he defended himself by saying: "Hey, bud! Can’tcha take a joke?"

Which post in this thread plays the part of sexual assault in the analogy?

You take me for a fool, Sir? This is a straw man argument. You misdirect the intent, and then knock it down. You know perfectly well I used that as an example of how your comment about "if we can’t joke about stuff, it means we’re not being allowed to think about it." I repeat what I said right before using the example to illustrate my statement: "What, are we not allowed to get indignant at carelessly disseminated outright falsehoods and outrages?" Then I used the example to illustrate that there are certain things few men would allow as material for joking about. And that that is as it should be. And the list of them, some much worse than others, of course, but all deliberate digs, I printed above to show you and others.

Heck, I didn't even see any jokes about sexual assault, which would have been justified given the lack of any disciplinary action by and then against Cardinal Law, who spoke at the funeral.

Oh, yeah? Missed this one, did you? "Nothing But Yet"’s post said:

"Rome is with you on the penguins, but the first Papal Bull will be quite clear on the subject: it's Nasty habits and No names."

And as you well know, Cardinal Law lost his Archbishopry, and was given a ceremonial post in Rome, with no supervisory function over any priests.

On the other hand, if 4% of an organization (perceived as having deep pockets and easy to embarrass) gets accused (not indicted, mind you, just accused) of molestation, is it OK to slander not only the unproven cases, but also the innocent other 96%, AND their flocks with it? Let’s hope you never wind up with a family member either pulling something like that or just getting accused of it. Then we’ll see how you feel when people like you start talking behind your back about ALL your family being that way.

Quote:
I remain hopefully a new friend or at least a respected acquaintance, and with no intent to offend, but not a patsy either.
Likewise, I'm sure. Take nothing I say personally.

Likewise. Correct the injustices you hear, don’t commit injustice yourself in the process. That’s what we are taught. We may not always achieve it, being human, but you’ll agree it’s a good target to teach to.