| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Cracklin" |
| Date: |
26 Jul 2005 01:15:13 PM |
| Object: |
Pope and abortion |
Pope Pius IX in 1869 extended punishment of excommunication for the
abortion of an embryo at any age. In 1951, Pius XII restated the
principle, saying: “Every human being, even the child in the mother’s
womb, receives its right to life directly from God, not from its
parents.” Speaking in Kenya in 1985, John Paul II bluntly declared:
“Actions such as contraception and abortion are wrong.”
Many Catholics today, however, maintain that such an attitude is out of
date and must be revised. As a result, Roman Catholics are divided over
the issue.
.
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
02 Aug 2005 09:45:55 AM |
|
|
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> said:
m07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> said:
Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
Are you for or against:
1. Teaching teens about commonly used methods of birth control
2. The rhythm method
+ 3. Abstinence is the best policy.
+ These things CAN be taught if the parents are too lazy
to perform the job that God gave them.
And for the rest? A simple yes or no would suffice.
+ You are unable to comprehend a stance?
+ The answer (for Jim) is "NO>"
3. Coitus interruptus
4. Condoms and diaphragms
5. Vaginal spermicide
6. Intrauterine devices
7. Progesterone-containing IUDs
8. Oral contraceptives that prevent ovulation
9. Oral contraceptives that prevent implantation
10 Contraceptive implants
11 "Morning after" pills, aka "Plan B"
12. RU-486 (chemical abortion)
13. Surgical abortion
OK, now, since you are against all those things, do you feel that they
should be illegal?
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
03 Aug 2005 01:19:29 PM |
|
|
Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> said:
Any reply, MTA?
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> said:
m07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> said:
Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
Are you for or against:
1. Teaching teens about commonly used methods of birth control
2. The rhythm method
+ 3. Abstinence is the best policy.
+ These things CAN be taught if the parents are too lazy
to perform the job that God gave them.
And for the rest? A simple yes or no would suffice.
+ You are unable to comprehend a stance?
+ The answer (for Jim) is "NO>"
3. Coitus interruptus
4. Condoms and diaphragms
5. Vaginal spermicide
6. Intrauterine devices
7. Progesterone-containing IUDs
8. Oral contraceptives that prevent ovulation
9. Oral contraceptives that prevent implantation
10 Contraceptive implants
11 "Morning after" pills, aka "Plan B"
12. RU-486 (chemical abortion)
13. Surgical abortion
OK, now, since you are against all those things, do you feel that they
should be illegal?
Jim07D5
Do you, MTA?
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael The Archangel" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
04 Aug 2005 02:27:05 PM |
|
|
Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> said:
Any reply, MTA?
OK, now, since you are against all those things, do you feel that they
should be illegal?
Jim07D5
Do you, MTA?
+ Sorry, Jimbo, I have a life.
+ I don't answer to you.
+ I am a Catholic. Read up about Catholics.
+ You'll find what we believe and what we don't believe.
+ I do not think every act performed can be identified as
legal or illegal, moral or immoral, etc.
+ If you are merely interested in my stance, please let me know.
+ If you are interested in the Catholic stance, there are better
sources than me. Although, I certainly can provide you the answers
if you want.
+ As for something being legal or illegal, the Catholic Church has
learned throughout history that they really should NOT get too
involved in local politics - unless they are forced to get involved.
+ It is yahoos - perhaps like you - who demand the church give its
opinions on things considered moral or immoral. When that advice is
given, please don't whine about the church getting involved. It was
you who did it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
04 Aug 2005 08:43:29 PM |
|
|
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> wrote:
Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> said:
Any reply, MTA?
OK, now, since you are against all those things, do you feel that they
should be illegal?
Jim07D5
Do you, MTA?
+ Sorry, Jimbo, I have a life.
+ I don't answer to you.
+ I am a Catholic.
No you're not.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
04 Aug 2005 03:37:28 PM |
|
|
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> said:
Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> said:
Any reply, MTA?
OK, now, since you are against all those things, do you feel that they
should be illegal?
Jim07D5
Do you, MTA?
+ Sorry, Jimbo, I have a life.
+ I don't answer to you.
+ I am a Catholic. Read up about Catholics.
+ You'll find what we believe and what we don't believe.
+ I do not think every act performed can be identified as
legal or illegal, moral or immoral, etc.
+ If you are merely interested in my stance, please let me know.
+ If you are interested in the Catholic stance, there are better
sources than me. Although, I certainly can provide you the answers
if you want.
Some people here have jumped to the conclusion that because you
disapprove of these reproductive choices listed below you would make
them illegal if you could. I am not jumping to that conclusion.
+ As for something being legal or illegal, the Catholic Church has
learned throughout history that they really should NOT get too
involved in local politics - unless they are forced to get involved.
+ It is yahoos - perhaps like you - who demand the church give its
opinions on things considered moral or immoral. When that advice is
given, please don't whine about the church getting involved. It was
you who did it.
I didn't do that.. I am interested in your stance. If you say you
believe what Catholics believe about these things, then when you tell
me what you believe, you will also be telling me what Catholics
believe. But that is not important to me; I am asking you.
I know you have a life and don't answer to me, but you seemed today to
have time, so, unless there is there another reason, please tell me
which of these you do not want to be legally available?
3. Coitus interruptus
4. Condoms and diaphragms
5. Vaginal spermicide
6. Intrauterine devices
7. Progesterone-containing IUDs
8. Oral contraceptives that prevent ovulation
9. Oral contraceptives that prevent implantation
10 Contraceptive implants
added: 10-a Voluntary vasectomy
added: 10-b Voluntary tubal ligation
11 "Morning after" pills, aka "Plan B"
12. RU-486 (chemical abortion)
13. Surgical abortion
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael The Archangel" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
05 Aug 2005 01:36:52 PM |
|
|
Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> said:
Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> said:
Any reply, MTA?
OK, now, since you are against all those things, do you feel that they
should be illegal?
Jim07D5
Do you, MTA?
+ Sorry, Jimbo, I have a life.
+ I don't answer to you.
+ I am a Catholic. Read up about Catholics.
+ You'll find what we believe and what we don't believe.
+ I do not think every act performed can be identified as
legal or illegal, moral or immoral, etc.
+ If you are merely interested in my stance, please let me know.
+ If you are interested in the Catholic stance, there are better
sources than me. Although, I certainly can provide you the answers
if you want.
Some people here have jumped to the conclusion that because you
disapprove of these reproductive choices listed below you would make
them illegal if you could. I am not jumping to that conclusion.
+ As for something being legal or illegal, the Catholic Church has
learned throughout history that they really should NOT get too
involved in local politics - unless they are forced to get involved.
+ It is yahoos - perhaps like you - who demand the church give its
opinions on things considered moral or immoral. When that advice is
given, please don't whine about the church getting involved. It was
you who did it.
I didn't do that.. I am interested in your stance. If you say you
believe what Catholics believe about these things, then when you tell
me what you believe, you will also be telling me what Catholics
believe. But that is not important to me; I am asking you.
+ I believe what most catholics believe.
+ That should give you are starting point.
I know you have a life and don't answer to me, but you seemed today to
have time, so, unless there is there another reason, please tell me
which of these you do not want to be legally available?
+ That is a totally different question than what you have asked in the
past. Before you asked which of the below should be made illegal.
Nothing should be made illegal unless its purpose is to harm another.
3. Coitus interruptus
4. Condoms and diaphragms
5. Vaginal spermicide
6. Intrauterine devices
7. Progesterone-containing IUDs
8. Oral contraceptives that prevent ovulation
9. Oral contraceptives that prevent implantation
10 Contraceptive implants
added: 10-a Voluntary vasectomy
added: 10-b Voluntary tubal ligation
+ These should never be made illegal.
+ Especially if it is required to save a life.
11 "Morning after" pills, aka "Plan B"
12. RU-486 (chemical abortion)
+ I certainly would not be unhappy if these two went away.
13. Surgical abortion
+ Certainly required to save a life in some cases. This decision
should be made between the Mother, the Father, the Doctor, and their
God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
05 Aug 2005 05:30:19 PM |
|
|
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> said:
Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> said:
Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> said:
Any reply, MTA?
OK, now, since you are against all those things, do you feel that they
should be illegal?
Jim07D5
Do you, MTA?
+ Sorry, Jimbo, I have a life.
+ I don't answer to you.
+ I am a Catholic. Read up about Catholics.
+ You'll find what we believe and what we don't believe.
+ I do not think every act performed can be identified as
legal or illegal, moral or immoral, etc.
+ If you are merely interested in my stance, please let me know.
+ If you are interested in the Catholic stance, there are better
sources than me. Although, I certainly can provide you the answers
if you want.
Some people here have jumped to the conclusion that because you
disapprove of these reproductive choices listed below you would make
them illegal if you could. I am not jumping to that conclusion.
+ As for something being legal or illegal, the Catholic Church has
learned throughout history that they really should NOT get too
involved in local politics - unless they are forced to get involved.
+ It is yahoos - perhaps like you - who demand the church give its
opinions on things considered moral or immoral. When that advice is
given, please don't whine about the church getting involved. It was
you who did it.
I didn't do that.. I am interested in your stance. If you say you
believe what Catholics believe about these things, then when you tell
me what you believe, you will also be telling me what Catholics
believe. But that is not important to me; I am asking you.
+ I believe what most catholics believe.
+ That should give you are starting point.
I know you have a life and don't answer to me, but you seemed today to
have time, so, unless there is there another reason, please tell me
which of these you do not want to be legally available?
+ That is a totally different question than what you have asked in the
past. Before you asked which of the below should be made illegal.
Nothing should be made illegal unless its purpose is to harm another.
3. Coitus interruptus
4. Condoms and diaphragms
5. Vaginal spermicide
6. Intrauterine devices
7. Progesterone-containing IUDs
8. Oral contraceptives that prevent ovulation
9. Oral contraceptives that prevent implantation
10 Contraceptive implants
added: 10-a Voluntary vasectomy
added: 10-b Voluntary tubal ligation
+ These should never be made illegal.
+ Especially if it is required to save a life.
11 "Morning after" pills, aka "Plan B"
12. RU-486 (chemical abortion)
+ I certainly would not be unhappy if these two went away.
13. Surgical abortion
+ Certainly required to save a life in some cases. This decision
should be made between the Mother, the Father, the Doctor, and their
God.
That's cool, I answered a similar reply elsewhere today (just now).
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
05 Aug 2005 07:24:36 PM |
|
|
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> wrote in
news:e4c7f1hf1hua0eihto3d9a08oi3moi6nqv@4ax.com:
+ I believe what most catholics believe.
do you endorse your bishops covering up the sexual crimes of their priests?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael The Archangel" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
06 Aug 2005 10:56:22 AM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> wrote in
+ I believe what most catholics believe.
do you endorse your bishops covering up the sexual crimes of their priests?
+ Do you think most catholics endorse this type behavior?
+ If so, you should pay closer attention to my posts. I will
show you the way, the truth, and the light.
+ However, you must change somewhat in order to read
and understand the truth as it is written out.
+ Watched a bit of Bishop Sheen yesterday.
+ He explained your dilemna perfectly.
+ Two glasses sit on the table.
+ One glass is red.
+ One glass is blue.
+ I come up with a pitcher of water, the water being truth.
+ I pour water halfway up into each glass.
+ As you look at the red glass, the water looks reddish.
+ As you look at the blue glass, the water looks bluish.
+ Is there any difference in the water, the truth?
+ NOPE.
+ However........................
+ perceptions of that truth are completly different.
+ You claim that your water is red.
+ I claim my water looks blue in my glass.
+ And alvin and karen demand to know who stole their water.
+ Who is correct?
+ Only me.
+ Life is like this.
+ You see through a tint of evil and hatred.
+ And.... that is all that filters into your life.
+ You need to remove the hatred.
+ Goodness and kindness will rush in and fill the vacuum.
+ Only you have the ability to do this.
+ .x.. 0 (the sun)
+ / \
+ y /
+ /
+ z /
+ Ask man x--- has the sun risen yet? Answer yes.
+ Ask man y - has the sun risen yet? Answer: almost
+ Ask man z - has the sun risen yet? Answer no.
+ Climb the hill, bubba.
+ You can find the sun.
+ You can find happiness.
+ You can find love.
+ You just have to "WANT TO."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Newk Indofman" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
06 Aug 2005 12:35:01 PM |
|
|
"Michael The Archangel" <defender@cath.org> wrote in message
news:fkm9f194fk90ckse22ks6bujc4bttuplth@4ax.com...
james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> wrote in
+ I believe what most catholics believe.
do you endorse your bishops covering up the sexual crimes of their
priests?
+ Do you think most catholics endorse this type behavior?
If we're to tell by their reactions, yes they do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael The Archangel" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
07 Aug 2005 05:05:21 AM |
|
|
Newk Indofman" <Newk@NewKindofMan.org> wrote:
"Michael The Archangel" <defender@cath.org> wrote in message
james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> wrote in
+ I believe what most catholics believe.
do you endorse your bishops covering up the sexual crimes of their
priests?
+ Do you think most catholics endorse this type behavior?
If we're to tell by their reactions, yes they do.
+ And that is why you are the fag outsider, peering inside the
windows.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Newk Indofman" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
07 Aug 2005 10:13:46 AM |
|
|
"Michael The Archangel" <defender@cath.org> wrote in message
news:06nbf1dhq337s41rvuogi4t9d0d86ui2ni@4ax.com...
Newk Indofman" <Newk@NewKindofMan.org> wrote:
"Michael The Archangel" <defender@cath.org> wrote in message
james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> wrote in
+ I believe what most catholics believe.
do you endorse your bishops covering up the sexual crimes of their
priests?
+ Do you think most catholics endorse this type behavior?
If we're to tell by their reactions, yes they do.
+ And that is why you are the fag outsider, peering inside the
windows.
I'd much rather be a fag outside their doors, than a proponent of child rape
inside their sanctuary.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael The Archangel" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
07 Aug 2005 04:22:54 PM |
|
|
Newk Indofman" <Newk@NewKindofMan.org> wrote:
I'd much rather be a fag outside their doors, than a proponent of child rape
inside their sanctuary.
+ Ah... but you could have been both.
+ perhaps that is why you are NOW on the outside, looking in.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
07 Aug 2005 07:26:08 AM |
|
|
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> wrote in
news:06nbf1dhq337s41rvuogi4t9d0d86ui2ni@4ax.com:
Newk Indofman" <Newk@NewKindofMan.org> wrote:
"Michael The Archangel" <defender@cath.org> wrote in message
james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> wrote in
+ I believe what most catholics believe.
do you endorse your bishops covering up the sexual crimes of their
priests?
+ Do you think most catholics endorse this type behavior?
If we're to tell by their reactions, yes they do.
+ And that is why you are the fag
please provide credible evidence that newk is a "fag," as you call it.
you need not reply if your remark was just another lie prompted by your
church.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael The Archangel" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
07 Aug 2005 04:21:56 PM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> wrote in
Newk Indofman" <Newk@NewKindofMan.org> wrote:
"Michael The Archangel" <defender@cath.org> wrote in message
james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> wrote in
+ I believe what most catholics believe.
do you endorse your bishops covering up the sexual crimes of their
priests?
+ Do you think most catholics endorse this type behavior?
If we're to tell by their reactions, yes they do.
+ And that is why you are the fag
please provide credible evidence that newk is a "fag," as you call it.
+ Ask him.
+ I don't have to prove anything that he has said and is proud of.
you need not reply if your remark was just another lie prompted by your
church.
+ My church does not prompt lies.
+ What prompts you to lie?
+ I didn't hear you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
07 Aug 2005 04:23:12 PM |
|
|
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> wrote in
news:dpucf1tc16jnllv3792ik4dv50kfddke1b@4ax.com:
+ My church does not prompt lies.
then do you accept the responsibility for all of the lies you have posted
here?
have you confessed these sins?
--
"What's so tough about the truth?" coward bobby heishman, the abortion
newsgroups most prolific liar posting as "Osprey," in
news:1123435349.198105.277950@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
07 Aug 2005 07:39:37 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 17:21:56 -0400, Michael The Archangel
<defender@cath.org> in alt.abortion with message-id
<dpucf1tc16jnllv3792ik4dv50kfddke1b@4ax.com> wrote:
james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> wrote in
Newk Indofman" <Newk@NewKindofMan.org> wrote:
"Michael The Archangel" <defender@cath.org> wrote in message
james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> wrote in
+ I believe what most catholics believe.
do you endorse your bishops covering up the sexual crimes of their
priests?
+ Do you think most catholics endorse this type behavior?
If we're to tell by their reactions, yes they do.
+ And that is why you are the fag
please provide credible evidence that newk is a "fag," as you call it.
+ Ask him.
+ I don't have to prove anything that he has said and is proud of.
you need not reply if your remark was just another lie prompted by your
church.
+ My church does not prompt lies.
All churches do this.
+ What prompts you to lie?
+ I didn't hear you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
06 Aug 2005 11:12:18 AM |
|
|
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> wrote in
news:fkm9f194fk90ckse22ks6bujc4bttuplth@4ax.com:
james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> wrote in
+ I believe what most catholics believe.
do you endorse your bishops covering up the sexual crimes of their
priests?
+ Do you think most catholics endorse this type behavior?
i think that all of those who have not formally and publically demanded the
removal of such bishops, as well as removal of the criminals they have
protected tacitly endorse the behavior of their bishops.
+ If so, you should pay closer attention to my posts.
have you called for the removal of of such sleazeballs?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael The Archangel" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
07 Aug 2005 05:04:39 AM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> wrote in
james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> wrote in
+ I believe what most catholics believe.
do you endorse your bishops covering up the sexual crimes of their
priests?
+ Do you think most catholics endorse this type behavior?
i think that all of those who have not formally and publically demanded the
removal of such bishops, as well as removal of the criminals they have
protected tacitly endorse the behavior of their bishops.
+ You are a child, lost in a huge world of reality.
+ Everything is not black and white.
+ There are hundreds of shades of grey's.
+ At one time, pedophilia was considered a disease.
+ Just as homosexual behavior was thought to be correctable.
+ The church acted according to the "EXPERTS" of the day.
+ Victims were protected and not outed.
+ And the sick priests were sent for therapy.
+ Just as many businesses have a means to send their
employees to the hospital to cure an illness, the church
did the same with pedophile priests.
+ It didn't work.
+ Instead of blaming the shrinks who lied to the church,
you wish to blame the church itself. It is easier. You feel better
about attcking the church because you are already mad at them.
Anything that makes the church looks bad - you like it and exploit it.
+ If so, you should pay closer attention to my posts.
have you called for the removal of of such sleazeballs?
+ I have called for the removal of every fag priest, yes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Newk Indofman" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
07 Aug 2005 10:12:06 AM |
|
|
"Michael The Archangel" <defender@cath.org> wrote in message
news:4ombf15t1grpntcmvisphpb6g1aveg9de6@4ax.com...
james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> wrote in
james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> wrote in
+ I believe what most catholics believe.
do you endorse your bishops covering up the sexual crimes of their
priests?
+ Do you think most catholics endorse this type behavior?
i think that all of those who have not formally and publically demanded
the
removal of such bishops, as well as removal of the criminals they have
protected tacitly endorse the behavior of their bishops.
+ You are a child, lost in a huge world of reality.
+ Everything is not black and white.
+ There are hundreds of shades of grey's.
+ At one time, pedophilia was considered a disease.
Your pervert bishops considered it a "sin against chastity", not a disease.
+ Just as homosexual behavior was thought to be correctable.
And "thought" is about as far as anyone gets on that subject.
+ The church acted according to the "EXPERTS" of the day.
Yes, their lawyers and certain individuals at the police station and the
courthouse they could count on.
+ Victims were protected and not outed.
TRANSLATION: "After being fucked, we fucked 'em again".
+ And the sick priests were sent for therapy.
In most cases, those priests were sent back into parishes, again and again.
And did the church provide therapy for the child victims and their families?
No, they fucked 'em again.
+ Just as many businesses have a means to send their
employees to the hospital to cure an illness, the church
did the same with pedophile priests.
Yet the church also realized how "scandalous" this was, and they realized
the legal implications, but after consulting with their lawyers and their
inside people at the courthouse, they were able to neglect reporting the
rape of children as required by law, and get away with it.
+ It didn't work.
You're damned right. It didn't work for them. They got caught. And now
they're paying, and they'll continue to pay.
+ Instead of blaming the shrinks who lied to the church,
you wish to blame the church itself. It is easier. You feel better
about attcking the church because you are already mad at them.
Anything that makes the church looks bad - you like it and exploit it.
The church couldn't look worse if they tried, *****. It's not our fault.
+ If so, you should pay closer attention to my posts.
have you called for the removal of of such sleazeballs?
+ I have called for the removal of every fag priest, yes.
It strikes me as amazing that a church wouldn't value one soul as priceless.
And that if a priest has injured one soul in such a serious way, to allow
him to be at risk of injuring another soul strikes me as contrary to the
mission of the church and incomprehensible to me.
-Gilbert Kliman, psychologist
The sinner ``must do what is possible to repair the harm. . . . He must make
`satisfaction' for or `expiate' his sins.''
-Catholic Catechism
For if a priest be fall'n, in whom we trust,
What wonder if profaner men should rust?
A fallen priest, 'tis shame to think upon-
Sheep with clean wool, their shepherd shitted-on.
-G. Chaucer, Canterbury Tales
Church doctrine supports this notion, holding, according to the official
Catechism of the Catholic Church, that "one must do what is possible in
order to repair" a wrong against one's neighbor: "return stolen goods,
restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries."
The fullest repair is a "must," an unavoidable moral duty.
-Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, LA Times 11/18/02
A canon from the Rule for the Monastery of Compludo (11th century)
"A cleric or monk who seduces youths or young boys or is found kissing or in
any other impure situations is to be publicly flogged and lose his tonsure.
When his hair has been shorn, his face is to be foully besmeared with spit
and he is to be bound in iron chains. For six months he will languish in
prison-like confinement and on three days of each week shall fast on barley
bread in the evening. After this he will spend another six months under the
custodial care of a spiritual elder, remaining in a segregated cell, giving
himself to manual work and prayer, subject to vigils and prayers. He may go
for walks but always under the custodial care of two spiritual brethren, and
he shall never again associate with youths in private conversation nor in
counseling them."
....other bishops wanted to restore the exemption for priests who had
committed
only one act of abuse in the past and sincerely repented of it. Why should
their whole lives be affected by a single act? Joseph Galante, the coadjutor
bishop of Dallas, answered that question for several of us journalists after
the public meeting. Recalling the horrors related by Dr. Frawley-O'Dea, he
said, "The victim's whole life has been affected, why should the priest's
not be?" In the public meeting itself, Francis DiLorenzo said that certain
social taboos disqualify a person from holding any position of honor-murder,
incest, cannibalism, and child abuse among them. He struck a note that too
few had struck-that the issue is not simply one of forgiving a sinner but of
maintaining the honor of the priesthood and of the Church. In the fifth
century, Saint Augustine said that any priest in his monastery who lied
about his vows would be forgiven his sin if he sincerely repented, but "he
shall not be a cleric so long as I am a bishop." Augustine would today be
called an advocate for "zero tolerance."
-Garry Wills, from the NY Times Review of Books
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael The Archangel" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
07 Aug 2005 04:20:27 PM |
|
|
Newk Indofman" <Newk@NewKindofMan.org> wrote:
"Michael The Archangel" <defender@cath.org> wrote in message
james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> wrote in
james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> wrote in
+ I believe what most catholics believe.
do you endorse your bishops covering up the sexual crimes of their
priests?
+ Do you think most catholics endorse this type behavior?
i think that all of those who have not formally and publically demanded
the
removal of such bishops, as well as removal of the criminals they have
protected tacitly endorse the behavior of their bishops.
+ You are a child, lost in a huge world of reality.
+ Everything is not black and white.
+ There are hundreds of shades of grey's.
+ At one time, pedophilia was considered a disease.
Your pervert bishops considered it a "sin against chastity", not a disease.
+ The shrinks in the APA in the 1950's and 60's considered it a
disease. They informed the world of this. Do I need to show you
where?
+ Let us consider this a sin also.
+ Since it IS a sin.
+ Just as homosexual behavior was thought to be correctable.
And "thought" is about as far as anyone gets on that subject.
+ Are you arguing with me?
+ Or... are you arguiing for the sake of arguing.
+ If you do not believe me, say so.
+ If you cannot follow a logic tree, say so.
+ I can always move on and talk with the adults.
+ The church acted according to the "EXPERTS" of the day.
Yes, their lawyers and certain individuals at the police station and the
courthouse they could count on.
+ Yup.
+ And the cooks, and the bottle washers.
+ Anything else you want to add, child?
+ Victims were protected and not outed.
TRANSLATION: "After being fucked, we fucked 'em again".
+ Perhaps you wanted all the victims to be outed.
+ You are sick.
+ And the sick priests were sent for therapy.
In most cases, those priests were sent back into parishes, again and again.
+ Not again and again.
+ You are speaking of a very few who went to therapy more than once or
twice. There aren't that many priests who had to go to therapy mor
than once. Shanley and Geoghan were two.
And did the church provide therapy for the child victims and their families?
No, they fucked 'em again.
+ The families were provided with what they asked for.
+ If they wanted anonimity, they got it.
+ If they wanted the priest removed, they got it.
+ If they were satisfied that the priest would be sent to a therapy
or counselling center, that is what happened.
+ If the child wanted or needed psychtherapy, that was provided.
Most of the time, the families wanted to hush it up and not have
the child identified as a victim.
+ You are sick if that is your chief aim.
+ Just as many businesses have a means to send their
employees to the hospital to cure an illness, the church
did the same with pedophile priests.
Yet the church also realized how "scandalous" this was, and they realized
the legal implications, but after consulting with their lawyers and their
inside people at the courthouse, they were able to neglect reporting the
rape of children as required by law, and get away with it.
+ It wasn't required by law.
+ At that time.
+ It is now.
+ And reporting is now mandatory.
+ Again, you show your stupidity.
+ There is no crime if there is no victim.
+ if no victim comes forward, they cannot prosecute
+ It didn't work.
You're damned right. It didn't work for them. They got caught. And now
they're paying, and they'll continue to pay.
+ And we have no problem with this.
+ We just wish the lawyers weren't taking so much of the victim's
money. But then, that is what happens.
+ Instead of blaming the shrinks who lied to the church,
you wish to blame the church itself. It is easier. You feel better
about attcking the church because you are already mad at them.
Anything that makes the church looks bad - you like it and exploit it.
The church couldn't look worse if they tried, *****. It's not our fault.
+ I didn't say it was your fault.
+ I merely point out that your lips are wet from exhiliration,
watching the RCC go through a rough period. Who is the
sick one here, enjoying suffering.
+ If so, you should pay closer attention to my posts.
have you called for the removal of of such sleazeballs?
+ I have called for the removal of every fag priest, yes.
It strikes me as amazing that a church wouldn't value one soul as priceless.
+ It strikes me amazing that you make up such a statement.
And that if a priest has injured one soul in such a serious way, to allow
him to be at risk of injuring another soul strikes me as contrary to the
mission of the church and incomprehensible to me.
+ Some day when you grow up, understand business and
risk analysis, we can talk again.
+ DId Ford Motor Company stop making Explorers when they were found to
be unreliable? Many people died. Should they have closed up the
plants, put all those people out of work, and wrung their hands?
Church doctrine supports this notion, holding, according to the official
Catechism of the Catholic Church, that "one must do what is possible in
order to repair" a wrong against one's neighbor: "return stolen goods,
restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries."
The fullest repair is a "must," an unavoidable moral duty.
+ Yup.
+ And every victim who comes forward has been addressed.
-Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, LA Times 11/18/02
A canon from the Rule for the Monastery of Compludo (11th century)
"A cleric or monk who seduces youths or young boys or is found kissing or in
any other impure situations is to be publicly flogged and lose his tonsure.
+ I'm sure that is still the law of the land in Compludo.
+ So what?
only one act of abuse in the past and sincerely repented of it. Why should
their whole lives be affected by a single act? Joseph Galante, the coadjutor
bishop of Dallas, answered that question for several of us journalists after
the public meeting. Recalling the horrors related by Dr. Frawley-O'Dea, he
said, "The victim's whole life has been affected, why should the priest's
not be?" In the public meeting itself, Francis DiLorenzo said that certain
social taboos disqualify a person from holding any position of honor-murder,
incest, cannibalism, and child abuse among them. He struck a note that too
few had struck-that the issue is not simply one of forgiving a sinner but of
maintaining the honor of the priesthood and of the Church. In the fifth
century, Saint Augustine said that any priest in his monastery who lied
about his vows would be forgiven his sin if he sincerely repented, but "he
shall not be a cleric so long as I am a bishop." Augustine would today be
called an advocate for "zero tolerance."
-Garry Wills, from the NY Times Review of Books
+ OK.
+ Nice quote.
+ WHat is the relevence?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Newk Indofman" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
07 Aug 2005 05:34:31 PM |
|
|
"Michael The Archangel" <defender@cath.org> wrote in message
news:sktcf156bfgvv62e6f496k259jgsaqi35s@4ax.com...
Newk Indofman" <Newk@NewKindofMan.org> wrote:
"Michael The Archangel" <defender@cath.org> wrote in message
james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> wrote in
james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> wrote in
+ I believe what most catholics believe.
do you endorse your bishops covering up the sexual crimes of their
priests?
+ Do you think most catholics endorse this type behavior?
i think that all of those who have not formally and publically demanded
the
removal of such bishops, as well as removal of the criminals they have
protected tacitly endorse the behavior of their bishops.
+ You are a child, lost in a huge world of reality.
+ Everything is not black and white.
+ There are hundreds of shades of grey's.
+ At one time, pedophilia was considered a disease.
Your pervert bishops considered it a "sin against chastity", not a
disease.
+ The shrinks in the APA in the 1950's and 60's considered it a
disease. They informed the world of this. Do I need to show you
where?
+ Let us consider this a sin also.
+ Since it IS a sin.
I don't give a damn whether you consider it sin, crime or disease. The fact
is (according to your cult's own study) up to seven percent of your priests
have perpetrated sexual abuse against children and youth, and your bishops
tried to hide this, all the while ignoring the victims and enabling more
felony behavior.
+ The church acted according to the "EXPERTS" of the day.
Yes, their lawyers and certain individuals at the police station and the
courthouse they could count on.
+ Yup.
+ And the cooks, and the bottle washers.
+ Anything else you want to add, child?
Yes, You're part of the problem as well. It doesn't take "experts" to know
that raping kids is wrong. Your bishops are highly educated. They should
know this already, but you seem to think they need help in understanding
this.
+ Victims were protected and not outed.
TRANSLATION: "After being fucked, we fucked 'em again".
+ Perhaps you wanted all the victims to be outed.
+ You are sick.
It's sick to report the rape of a child? The victim's names are already
protected in those cases.
+ And the sick priests were sent for therapy.
In most cases, those priests were sent back into parishes, again and
again.
+ Not again and again.
Yes, again and again. Two-thirds of your perverted and immoral bishops did
this.
+ You are speaking of a very few who went to therapy more than once or
twice. There aren't that many priests who had to go to therapy mor
than once. Shanley and Geoghan were two.
Yeah, that was real helpful, wasn't it? How many of their victims were
offered therapy at the time? NONE. Why do you think your hero Law had to
resign?
And did the church provide therapy for the child victims and their
families?
No, they fucked 'em again.
+ The families were provided with what they asked for.
+ If they wanted anonimity, they got it.
+ If they wanted the priest removed, they got it.
+ If they were satisfied that the priest would be sent to a therapy
or counselling center, that is what happened.
+ If the child wanted or needed psychtherapy, that was provided.
Most of the time, the families wanted to hush it up and not have
the child identified as a victim.
Shut up. You don't know what you're talking about. If you were opposed to
the rape of children, you wouldn't be this committed to protecting those
guilty. You're the sick one. Besides needing your ***** kicked, you need a
boatload of psychotherapy besides.
+ You are sick if that is your chief aim.
+ Just as many businesses have a means to send their
employees to the hospital to cure an illness, the church
did the same with pedophile priests.
Yet the church also realized how "scandalous" this was, and they realized
the legal implications, but after consulting with their lawyers and their
inside people at the courthouse, they were able to neglect reporting the
rape of children as required by law, and get away with it.
+ It wasn't required by law.
Yes, it was. And it was required by basic human compassion and morality, of
which they apparently were all out.
+ At that time.
+ It is now.
+ And reporting is now mandatory.
You've already lost this argument to the tune of over $1 billion, so why not
show some humility?
+ Again, you show your stupidity.
+ There is no crime if there is no victim.
+ if no victim comes forward, they cannot prosecute
Yeah, too bad for those 10-year-old bastards, right?
+ It didn't work.
You're damned right. It didn't work for them. They got caught. And now
they're paying, and they'll continue to pay.
+ And we have no problem with this.
Yes, you do. Your cult is STILL fighting release of documents and STILL
protecting pedophiles.
+ We just wish the lawyers weren't taking so much of the victim's
money. But then, that is what happens.
Maybe you're just upset because your bishop's lawyers aren't getting paid as
much. Sour grapes?
+ Instead of blaming the shrinks who lied to the church,
you wish to blame the church itself. It is easier. You feel better
about attcking the church because you are already mad at them.
Anything that makes the church looks bad - you like it and exploit it.
The church couldn't look worse if they tried, *****. It's not our fault.
+ I didn't say it was your fault.
+ I merely point out that your lips are wet from exhiliration,
watching the RCC go through a rough period. Who is the
sick one here, enjoying suffering.
I see you're confused. Whose suffering are you referring to? Neither you,
your bishops or the perpetrating priests have suffered. Indeed, you're the
ones who've been busy inflicting the suffering for so many years. Your cult
*excels* in this. For the same reasons I "enjoy" watching murderers and
thieves get caught, I do enjoy watching the RCC Clergy Club go down in
flames. Yes, I enjoy it. It makes my day. Thanks for pointing that out.
[]
Church doctrine supports this notion, holding, according to the official
Catechism of the Catholic Church, that "one must do what is possible in
order to repair" a wrong against one's neighbor: "return stolen goods,
restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for
injuries."
The fullest repair is a "must," an unavoidable moral duty.
+ Yup.
Yup my *****. You've degraded victims consistently -- just like your bishops,
who have no real contrition.
+ And every victim who comes forward has been addressed.
Um, no. There are hundreds of lawsuits pending here in the US alone. Paying
off victims and issuing lawyer-penned public apologies doesn't amount to
"addressing" the situation. No, as far as I am concerned, because of the
heinous nature and extent of these crimes by people who should know better,
because this has been going on for centuries (not decades), because of its
incredible hypocrisy, and because the RCC represents a detriment to
societies all over the world, nothing less than its total collapse will do,
thanks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attilla" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
08 Aug 2005 04:23:00 PM |
|
|
Newk Indofman" <Newk@NewKindofMan.org> wrote:
I don't give a damn whether you consider it sin, crime or disease. The fact
is (according to your cult's own study) up to seven percent of your priests
have perpetrated sexual abuse against children and youth, and your bishops
tried to hide this, all the while ignoring the victims and enabling more
felony behavior.
+ Simply not true.
+ Any of it.
Yes, You're part of the problem as well. It doesn't take "experts" to know
that raping kids is wrong. Your bishops are highly educated. They should
know this already, but you seem to think they need help in understanding
this.
+ Of course they understood this.
+ That is why they consulted the EXPERTS of the day.
+ These experts were wrong.
+ Don't blame the bishops for trying to find a solution.
+ Perhaps you wanted all the victims to be outed.
+ You are sick.
It's sick to report the rape of a child? The victim's names are already
protected in those cases.
+ Now they are.
+ They weren't 30 years ago.
+ And the sick priests were sent for therapy.
In most cases, those priests were sent back into parishes, again and
again.
+ Not again and again.
Yes, again and again. Two-thirds of your perverted and immoral bishops did
this.
+ Name them.
+ You are speaking of a very few who went to therapy more than once or
twice. There aren't that many priests who had to go to therapy mor
than once. Shanley and Geoghan were two.
Yeah, that was real helpful, wasn't it? How many of their victims were
offered therapy at the time? NONE. Why do you think your hero Law had to
resign?
+ LIAR!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
07 Aug 2005 07:24:45 AM |
|
|
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> wrote in
news:4ombf15t1grpntcmvisphpb6g1aveg9de6@4ax.com:
james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> wrote in
james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> wrote in
+ I believe what most catholics believe.
do you endorse your bishops covering up the sexual crimes of their
priests?
+ Do you think most catholics endorse this type behavior?
i think that all of those who have not formally and publically
demanded the removal of such bishops, as well as removal of the
criminals they have protected tacitly endorse the behavior of their
bishops.
+ Everything is not black and white.
+ There are hundreds of shades of grey's.
you endorse the sick, criminal behavior of yoru priests and bishops.
+ If so, you should pay closer attention to my posts.
have you called for the removal of of such sleazeballs?
+ I have called for the removal of every fag priest, yes.
why did you run from my question?
have you called for teh removal of the sick pedophiles and criminal bishops
who protect the pedophiles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael The Archangel" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
07 Aug 2005 03:59:51 PM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> wrote in
james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> wrote in
james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Michael The Archangel <defender@cath.org> wrote in
+ I believe what most catholics believe.
do you endorse your bishops covering up the sexual crimes of their
priests?
+ Do you think most catholics endorse this type behavior?
i think that all of those who have not formally and publically
demanded the removal of such bishops, as well as removal of the
criminals they have protected tacitly endorse the behavior of their
bishops.
+ Everything is not black and white.
+ There are hundreds of shades of grey's.
you endorse the sick, criminal behavior of yoru priests and bishops.
+ Just because you want me to and you say so, this does not make this
true at all. I wish you would stop making up "stuff."
+ If so, you should pay closer attention to my posts.
have you called for the removal of of such sleazeballs?
+ I have called for the removal of every fag priest, yes.
why did you run from my question?
+ Your question is invalid without substance.
+ Answer my question first:
+ Are you finally listed on the Sherrif's list of pedophiles in your
county? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.
have you called for teh removal of the sick pedophiles and criminal bishops
who protect the pedophiles.
+ OK.
+ THat answer is easy.....
+ The answer is "yes."
+ Since most of the sick pedophiles are homo fag evil priests, I have
called for their removal for a long time. We don't need no homo fags
as priests.
+ Since there are no criminal bishops who protect pedophiles, I
certainly demand if any are proven to exist, they should be removed.
I hope we all use the same yardstick to ensure what we are talking
about: Any bishop who has been indicted, arrested, tried, and
convicted of a crime is a criminal. Any bishop who is a criminal and
has been proven to hide pedophiles should be removed from the ministry
immediately.
+ Ya see, Jimmy....
+ All ya gots ta do is ask a decent, honest question.
+ none o yer trick questions with no answers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Newk Indofman" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
07 Aug 2005 04:54:57 PM |
|
|
"Michael The Archangel" <defender@cath.org> wrote in message
news:u4tcf1te468o2ahjtt7o9qa2lsjimukqub@4ax.com...
+ Since there are no criminal bishops who protect pedophiles, I
certainly demand if any are proven to exist, they should be removed.
I hope we all use the same yardstick to ensure what we are talking
about: Any bishop who has been indicted, arrested, tried, and
convicted of a crime is a criminal. Any bishop who is a criminal and
has been proven to hide pedophiles should be removed from the ministry
immediately.
Just this morning, you distinguished between legalities and morality. Now,
you've conveniently forgotten about morality? Any bishop who has "hidden" or
protected pedophiles (two-thirds of the American bishops) doesn't deserve to
be bishop any longer, whether or not it's possible to prosecute him.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attilla" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
08 Aug 2005 04:19:22 PM |
|
|
Newk Indofman" <Newk@NewKindofMan.org> wrote:
"Michael The Archangel" <defender@cath.org> wrote in message
+ Since there are no criminal bishops who protect pedophiles, I
certainly demand if any are proven to exist, they should be removed.
I hope we all use the same yardstick to ensure what we are talking
about: Any bishop who has been indicted, arrested, tried, and
convicted of a crime is a criminal. Any bishop who is a criminal and
has been proven to hide pedophiles should be removed from the ministry
immediately.
Just this morning, you distinguished between legalities and morality. Now,
you've conveniently forgotten about morality? Any bishop who has "hidden" or
protected pedophiles (two-thirds of the American bishops) doesn't deserve to
be bishop any longer, whether or not it's possible to prosecute him.
+ Your statement simply is not true.
+ Therefore, it cannot be defended.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
09 Aug 2005 02:15:40 AM |
|
|
Attilla <prochoice@here.now> writes:
Newk Indofman" <Newk@NewKindofMan.org> wrote:
"Michael The Archangel" <defender@cath.org> wrote in message
+ Since there are no criminal bishops who protect pedophiles, I
certainly demand if any are proven to exist, they should be removed.
I hope we all use the same yardstick to ensure what we are talking
about: Any bishop who has been indicted, arrested, tried, and
convicted of a crime is a criminal. Any bishop who is a criminal and
has been proven to hide pedophiles should be removed from the ministry
immediately.
Just this morning, you distinguished between legalities and morality. Now,
you've conveniently forgotten about morality? Any bishop who has "hidden" or
protected pedophiles (two-thirds of the American bishops) doesn't deserve to
be bishop any longer, whether or not it's possible to prosecute him.
Your statement simply is not true.
Therefore, it cannot be defended.
Funny words, coming from a person who had no problem with trying a loaded
question (which also was simply not true) on the real Attila.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Friday, October 7 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
09 Aug 2005 07:30:40 AM |
|
|
The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com> wrote:
Attilla <prochoice@here.now> writes:
Newk Indofman" <Newk@NewKindofMan.org> wrote:
"Michael The Archangel" <defender@cath.org> wrote in message
+ Since there are no criminal bishops who protect pedophiles, I
certainly demand if any are proven to exist, they should be removed.
I hope we all use the same yardstick to ensure what we are talking
about: Any bishop who has been indicted, arrested, tried, and
convicted of a crime is a criminal. Any bishop who is a criminal and
has been proven to hide pedophiles should be removed from the ministry
immediately.
Just this morning, you distinguished between legalities and morality. Now,
you've conveniently forgotten about morality? Any bishop who has "hidden" or
protected pedophiles (two-thirds of the American bishops) doesn't deserve to
be bishop any longer, whether or not it's possible to prosecute him.
Your statement simply is not true.
Therefore, it cannot be defended.
Funny words, coming from a person who had no problem with trying a loaded
question (which also was simply not true) on the real Attila.
+ Attila and James k are caricatures of whiney geek kids.
+ I speak more honestly with those who also speak honestly.
+ Newk isn't my favorite guy, but he at least he is honest
( at least I think he is most of the time.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneekers_loves_kitties E-mail me" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
09 Aug 2005 07:37:57 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 08:30:40 -0400, Patrick
<life-is-good@let's-live.com> wrote:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
