| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 08/17/2002 11:40:04 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Flame war. |
Posted on 08/16/2002 9:50:33 AM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:34:28 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
NEW YORK
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Grump; Your right, but my argument is with the audience. What kind of nitwits would watch or listen to that kind depravity.
They are no different than people who watch befus and butthead, or jerry springer, and his bunch of goofs.
I think society is on its last legs. Regards.
"Venerable Father Hooper," said he, "the moment of your release is at hand. Are you ready for the lifting of the veil that shuts in time from eternity?" Father Hooper at first replied merely by a feeble motion of his head; then, apprehensive, perhaps, that his meaning might be doubtful, he exerted himself to speak."Yea," said he, in faint accents, "my soul hath a patient weariness until that veil be lifted."
"And is it fitting," resumed the Reverend Mr. Clark, "that a man so given to prayer, of such a blameless example, holy in deed and thought, so far as mortal judgment may pronounce; is it fitting that a father in the church should leave a shadow on his memory, that may seem to blacken a life so pure? I pray you, my venerable brother, let not this thing be! Suffer us to be gladdened by your triumphant aspect as you go to your reward. Before the veil of eternity be lifted, let me cast aside this black veil from your face!"
I really can't see why church officials would be outraged.
From all reports, this has been going on for years... maybe hundreds of years.
And after all, in this case, it was heterosexual, and between consenting adults!!
Nothing to worry about.
Thank you for understanding. Your words bear repeating.
So the Church should remain silent? That would be a sin of ommission. Let the dogs return to their vomit.
I guess if some strangers came into your trailer while you were watching Oprah with your family and proceded to have SEX on your sofa, that would be funny???? I would ALSO think that was disgustng, but not sacriligious.
Ordinarily I avoid saying things like this, but you've earned it: You're a truly vile individual. If you're a "devout Roman Catholic", I'm the Queen of England.
I can't conceive of anyone not being a Thomist. There's either realism or nothing.
I'm missing the humorous part about either. Perhaps you can fill me in since you "get it" and I don't.
I don't know what you mean by my making a connection. I explained what the two types of sex were that were involved in the discussion in this thread- - the stunt that took place at St. Patrick's and the abuse by priests. What else is there to discuss? My very first reply, which was meant to be humorous, compared the two. How is that considered an attack?
That's just it, stanz. The only reason there are "two types of sex" being discussed on this thread is because folks like you (1) are having a little fun with this humorous story about strangers who trespassed in a Catholic Church on the feast of our Lady to fornicate for the fun and giggles of some comic's depraved listeners AND/OR (2) are using the incident to somehow draw a connection between the two types of sex.
I don't get that connection. It's a little hard to believe your waxing all pious about the sanctity of sex when you think this incident's the stuff of which jokes are made.
Have you made it a practice to crack jokes on threads regarding the molestation of young men and boys by homosexual priests? If not, why not?
Will you do so in the future now that you've made a connection between this Funny Sex Incident and the humor inherent in other perverted acts?
I really don't want to think about them! LOL!
What's the old computer saying: "Garbage-in = Garbage-out?" In other words, I fully agree with you.
And, as predicted, the attendant publicity is having the opposite effect from that desired by the Church.
I'll find the article and post it in a separate thread.
So tell me, stanz: What made the stunt funny? Was it funny because it was a sex act (though not according to BJ Clinton, of course)? Does the thought of sex always make you smirk and giggle? Or was it funny because it was in church? Churches are just naturally funny, perhaps, or else the uptight prigs our lovers-from-Virginia met there? Possibly it was funny because of the incongruity: something forbidden going on in a sacred space. Was that it? In terms of funniness, how does that rank with, say, burning down a synagogue, or pissing on the Constitution, or crapping on the flag? It's a question you should be asking yourself, because if you should happen to come home one day and find your house fouled by teenagers seeking to drive you out of your neighborhood, or if you were to pick up the paper and read that your mother had been raped, you'd have to know just how hard to laugh about this funny old world and the madcap things people will do for attention.
I'm going to tune into Jay Leno tonight and get his take on this.
Or maybe it's no more than this: is it funny because a clown on the radio told you so, and you're waiting to see how you must adjust your perceptions based on a superior clown's infallibility (a word you should know, having been raised Catholic and all)?
I ask only for information.
Evidently the Church has no right to defend itself against trespassers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.