fucking terrifying

[PR3SSUR3]

The apostolic succession doctrine makes valid ordinations and institutional affiliation the prime concern in clerical status. As long as the officiant has been validly ordained, his personal sins do not affect the validity of the baptisms, absolutions or masses he administers.

Which is not to say Catholic priest abusers attack children in the name of The Lord, but they do enjoy some of the benefits that go with the position. They have been having sex with young boys correctly understanding - through Catholic doctrines - that their work for The Lord remains unaffected.

Traditional Catholics have also charged the Second Vatican Council with fostering a climate that encourages priests to abuse children (Time Magazine, January 2003).

[The STE]

Traditional Catholics have also charged the Second Vatican Council with fostering a climate that encourages priests to abuse children (Time Magazine, January 2003).

Hehe, yeah.
SVC: Damnit, priest man, stop beating off?
Priest man: Then what am I supposed to do?
SVC: I dunno, fuck children for all I care, just stop beating off!
:p

[Haunted]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3


Now, are you angry because you cannot accept your mutated lack of penis?

;)

These are the things that I'm gleaning from your last statement:

1. You obliviously don't believe in orgasms either, considering that you've probably never had one.
2. ...And let's just lay it on the table here... You're upset that I'm infinitely more educated, smarter, and more articulate than you are. What makes this even more difficult for you to swallow is the fact that I am a woman.
3. You are a violating asshole. I did not invite you nor made any references or jokes of my own regarding my womanhood, and thus you have no cause to do so either.

I realize that you're trying to piss me off, because that is what people who try to argue with no basis in fact do when they are threatened by the more intelligent members of the conversations. However, that comment went way too far. Way too far. I'd love to threaten you with, "You'd better not ever say something like that to me again," but I realize that this is an internet forum.

By the way, those people who claim that the Second Vatican Council supported the abuse of young boys or advocated it are idiots of the worst kind. The Second Vatican Council convened to discuss world poverty and the digeneration of compassion and kindness. They tried to set about plans for the Catholic Church to reach out to the world in charity. They addressed the ideas behind what is known as "Liberation Theology." Also, there were others present at the Council besides the "inner circle" of the papacy. John Paul was Pope at the time, and he was one of the best Popes the world had seen in centuries. His predecessor, John Paul II tried to follow in his foot steps. (However his predecessor is a schmuck).

[PR3SSUR3]

Pope John Paul only managed a 33-day papacy in 1978, and only participated in Second Vatican Council sessions as a Bishop - he was not Pope during the three year Vatican II. Pope at the time was John XXIII, and the Vatican II was closed in 1965 under Paul VI. Whatever else the Vatican II set out to do, it also stands accused of inaction over child abuse (D Vincent Twomey, SVD professor of moral theology, St Patrick's College, Maynooth, and author of The End of Irish Catholicism?).

Successor to John Paul (who renewed birth control bans in spite of a Chruch commission's recommendation for change), John Paul II, was a reactionary who wanted to turn back the clock on modern reality. His highly conservative theology prohibited female ordination, birth control and abortion, and he branded overpopulation a myth. In 2003 he told countries stricken by AIDS not to use condoms because they are riddled with tiny holes through which HIV can pass. The Vatican made these claims across four continents. Despite The World Health Organisation reassurance than condoms are impermeable to HIV, the Vatican continued its claims.

But I agree you are an infinitely more eductated, smarter and articulate(d) woman than I am, if it makes you happy.


:)

[The STE]

actually, I think that's true, the pores in condoms are twice the size of the HIV virus cells

not saying don't use them, of course, but the holes thing I've heard before

[PR3SSUR3]

The NIH confirmed in 2001 condoms reduce the risk of HIV transference by approximately 85% - other studies (source unspecified, but backed up by the WHO) have shown that the proper and consistent use of condoms prevented HIV from spreading from an infected partner to a non-infected partner in every case.

Mike Roland of Rubber Chemistry and Technology claims the 0.1 micron size of an HIV virus can pass through the 5.0 micron holes in latex rubber. However these tests were made on rubber gloves. The US Public Health Service confirms condoms are manufactured to much higher standards than gloves, with at least double the amount of latex protection applied. If 4 out of 1000 condoms fail the leak test, the whole batch is rejected; the standard for gloves is 40 out of 1000. A study of latex condoms by the National Institutes of Health using an electron microscope found no holes at a magnification of 2000 X.

The Vatican recently attempted to exploit the apparent uncertainty of AIDS prevention in every single case by announcing to millions of followers that condoms do not prevent HIV, and not to use them.

[The STE]

well, nobody ever accused the Vatican of not being assholes

[The STE]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
(source unspecified, but backed up by the WHO)

Yeah, I hear Pete Townsend's been doing research in this area for years

[Haunted]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
[B
But I agree you are an infinitely more eductated, smarter and articulate(d) woman than I am, if it makes you happy.


:) [/B]

Sorry, got my Papal sucession wrong. It has been a while since I studied that particular area, and Catholic history was never my bag, nor any part of Christianity for that matter.

I still maintain, however, that once you start taking pot shots at people in the discussion, then you've exposed two things about yourself:

1. You're a jackass
2. You don't have the ability to discuss anything with any sort of intelligence. Sure you may have facts stored in your bean, but that doesn't make you any smarter than anyone else.

No where in this discussion has anyone made a comment to you concerning your genitalia and it's inability or ability to produce your focus. Nobody has discussed it's size or it's formation.

You owe me a sincere apology, godamnit, and I'm not goint to respect anything you say whatever until I get one. Up until now, it's been an interesting debate, but you've crossed the line.

You have no concern and no consideration. Your only desire is to be "right," and on a few points you have made some sense. However, you have been pulling a lot of information out of no where.

So, when you (A). Assert opinions instead of facts, then you don't have a good argument (B). Make despicable comments to people within the discussion in order to make yourself seem more astonishing than you really are, you have no business trying to have a reasonable and intellectual discussion with anyone except maybe yourself or your pets.

[PR3SSUR3]

I'm sorry for joking that you had a funny willy.

Friends?

:) :) :)