A pro choice cardinal? Does one of those even exist?

Honestly it is wishful thinking if anyone thinks any of the possible Cardinals for election to pope was going to change policy on abortion, stem cell research or other pro life issues.

None of those criticisms mention abortion.

Stop the Presses. The MSM, NOW, ACLU and other prominent activist organizations Demands a NEW Election for the Pole be held. Following a hastily called meeting, funded by george soros, the spokesman for the group issued a demand to the Catholic Church that the election of the pope on April 19th be recanted. The spokesman stated that the group would provide the cardinals with a list of acceptable nominees for the position of pope from which the cardinals could make their selection. Rumored to be at the top of the list were bill clinton, ted kennedy, howard dean and rosie odonnel. When questioned on whether all of these individuals were Catholic, the spokesman stated that the ACLU was prepared to fight in court any requirement that the next pope be Catholic.

The Catholic Church has an EXCELLENT anti-AIDS program. Miraculously enough, it also is a 100% effective contraceptive program.

It's called chastity until marraige.

If you can't keep it zipped, it's not the Church's fault, nor is it the Church's responsibility to hand you a condom, nor is it the Church's duty to break its own rules of over a thousand years' standing because it has become socially fashionable to screw around.

The absurdity of the reaction of the secularized to the decision of the College of Cardinals is pretty funny. They'd just like it if the RCC would drop all the moralizing and judging and all that. They wouldn't join or attend mass or support the church anyway but they just can't stand all the preaching. whateva

DaveP wrote:

...nor is it the Church's duty to break its own rules of over a thousand years' standing because it has become socially fashionable to screw around.

...Since "the Church" is the infallible paragon of virtue when it comes to sexual restraint. Remember Dave, they're all humans and what happens in reality isnt always what is "supposed" to happen.

I would argue that "screwing around" hasnt just become socially fashionable, but that it has probably been a part of human societies from the start. Ideals are just that, and often people dont live up to them. Or do you actually think there was a time when all people were perfect? When was that time? The 1950s? Earlier?

There is no such thing as a "conservative" Pope - or even a "conservative" Catholic. There are only those that wish to follow the teachings of their Church, and those that do not. Personally, I feel that those who do not wish to follow the teachings of the Church should find a new house of worship, but that's just my opinion.

Paul writes: If only he supported abortion THEN we would just love him...

Wow. That was an interesting way to characterize what Tony Kerrigan said: "It looks like this particular cardinal will continue with the line on contraception, condoms, and HIV prevention that Pope John Paul II had."

So "contraception, condoms and HIV prevention" is equivalent to abortion on demand, eh? Outstanding, Paul— you really are a monster raving loonie.

Ryan, how old are you? Sure, there have always been people 'breaking the rules' - that's why the Bible says, "quit breaking the rules!" - but there have also been large blocks of human history when large numbers of people (definitely the majority) were chaste. When I was married 30 years ago I was a virgin as were most of my girlfriends. And I didn't die or have a complex or anything.

Yeah Paul, how dare you talk about abortion when abortion has nothing to do with the people criticizing the pope.

Shame shame shame.

We have reached a time when the liberals want to kick the Church (all sects of it) out of daily public life, but on the other hand they want to control it so that it "has the right ideas". How come you libs want to keep the Church out of the government, but you want the government all over the Church? Whatever happened to the REAL MEANING of "separation of church and state"?!?!? Thomas Jefferson was talking about precisely this problem! But remember, moonbats: IT'S NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION!

To paraphrase a great line, "Get your stinkin' paws off of [the Church], you damn dirty apes!"

Everything is political to these lefties - everything!

This party, who (at least in the past) hasn't even let a pro life Democrat SPEAK at their own convention, is upset that the new Pope doesn't represent their views.

Liberals never cease to amaze me.

It is truly amazing that the cardinals would elect a Pope who...

believes in following the teachings of the Bible and the doctrine of his faith.

Oh the outrage!

Religion is not a Nielsen Ratings game. You don't get more points in heaven if you have more butts in the seats on Sunday. In recent years, too many churches of all denominations have taken the position, "We don't care what you believe as long as you come to our church and put money in the plate." Too many of the people want to believe tht they are righteous without having to actually follow any of the rules of the church.

Take for instance the United Methodist Church. Their own church doctrine states that no person who is openly a homosexual may serve as a minister. Last year, there was a case of a woman minister WHO HAD BEEN LIVING WITH HER GIRLFRIEND FOR EIGHT YEARS. Someone finally figured out that she might not be following the church rules. They held a "trial" and determined that, despite the fact that she knowingly broke a major rule, there was no harm therefore they did nothing.

Let me repeat that. They did nothing.

Essentially, they threw out their own doctrine to pander to a group of people. That's what these yahoos are wanting the Catholic Church to do.

Sue Dohnim writes: Yeah Paul, how dare you talk about abortion when abortion has nothing to do with the people criticizing the pope.

You say that like abortion on demand is the only thing Marie Stopes International is about, and that's not even remotely true. They're primarily about the very thing they were criticizing the new Pope about: reproductive health services, particularly contraception and prophylaxis.

Both you and Paul seem to be drawing an equivalence between condoms and birth control on the one hand and abortion on demand on the other. Maybe you don't intend to do that. That's why I'm calling you on it.

But if you aren't making that equivalence, then you might want to respond to the actual criticisms that you are quoting. Is that so difficult?

s9 can you freaking read?

It is a self described "pro-choice" group you twit.

I even bolded it for my slow children.

I think the _____ missed a great opportunity to elect ________ for __________.

Democrats, Newt Gingrich, Party Chairman.

s9 wrote:
You say that like abortion on demand is the only thing Marie Stopes International is about, and that's not even remotely true. They're primarily about the very thing they were criticizing the new Pope about: reproductive health services, particularly contraception and prophylaxis.

Ah, so they support his views on abortion, but not on contraception.

Do you work for these people? You seem very defensive of them. Or defensive of something.

Does it matter what Kerrigan was actually saying about the new Pope? Or is it more important to misrepresent what he was saying as something you wish he would say about the Pope?

I realize this might be a hard question for you to answer, so take your time and think about it for awhile before you post.

s9 wrote:

take your time and think about it for awhile before you post.

Hahahahahahaha!

Oh God, I think I just broke a rib laughing.

Oh, I'm terribly sorry, s9, I mistook everything Tony Whats-His-Ass was saying.

"A missed opportunity" meme. A talking point, exactly as Paul predicted, except Tony Never-Heard-Of-Him decided not to mention the one plank in the leftist platform that holds together moonbat groups with seemingly divergent agendas.

I'm sure he didn't mention it because it was the only thing he agrees upon with the pope, after his organization has built all those abortion clinics.

I was going to ask you if you know how absurd you sound, but I can't top mesablue's contribution.

Today my American Politics teacher actually used the "missed opportunity" meme in a way that actually made sense: "The Catholic Church missed an opportunity to describe exactly how the church leadership works."

In other words, it doesn't matter at all what Tony Kerrigan actually said. The "missed opportunity meme" isn't in what he said. It doesn't have to be there, since he's a spokesman for an organization that provides, among other things, abortion services. You've fabricated the whole "meme" thing from your own fantasies about what you think Marie Stopes International expects the new Pope to be able to do. It doesn't matter what the actual criticism was— it only matters who was making it and how it can be spun. Outstanding.

And you call me absurd.

s9 wrote:
In other words, it doesn't matter at all what Tony Kerrigan actually said. The "missed opportunity meme" isn't in what he said.

"(It is) a missed opportunity," Tony Kerrigan, senior media officer at Marie Stopes International, told AFP.

I'm sorry, what were you saying?

Sue Dohnim wrote: I'm sorry, what were you saying?

Let's review the bidding.

Tony Kerrigan reportedly said: "It looks like this particular cardinal will continue with the line on contraception, condoms, and HIV prevention that Pope John Paul II had."

What does that particular "missed opportunity" have to do with abortion? Would you like to answer the question, or would you rather continue hanging yourself up over irrelevant side issues?

Irrelevant side issues? Like whether or not Paul was right in predicting an avalanche of "lost/missed opportunity" talking points parroted by leftist Communist mushbrains like yourself?

Or do you mean irrelevant side issues like whether or not an organization that builds abortion clinics supports abortion but chooses conveniently to avoid that in its litany of disappointment directed at the pope?

How can everybody else here see the blinding obvious and you can't? Why can't you put two and two together and come up with the right answer here? Is it because you attended too many feminist, gender-study, and post-modern jabberwocky courses in college or what?

Quick, tell me what Foucault or Derrida would say about this situation. Two plus two equals five for large values of two.

I don’t know how much value there is in my weighing in at this point. I can see that sides have been drawn and that insults are beginning to heat up. But….

Kerrigan referred only to contraception and HIV. Paul, in taking on his criticism, referred to abortion, which had not been Kerrigan’s point at all.

An argument ensued in which those who took issue with Paul altering the argument to a discussion about abortion became the target of those who could not make an adequate argument against what Kerrigan actually said?

When one side in a discussion descends to name calling it suggests that they have run of cogent reasoning.

Make that "When one side in a discussion descends to name calling it suggests that they have run "out" of cogent reasoning.

Michael(C) wrote:

Kerrigan referred only to contraception and HIV. Paul, in taking on his criticism, referred to abortion, which had not been Kerrigan’s point at all.

Kerrigan's point is disingenuous.

He pretends that his organization's only conflict with the Catholic Church is condom use.

You and s9 seem to believe that had the pope announced on his election day that the Church was no longer going to forbid condoms, that Kerrigan would have been happy and never expressed disappointment with him.

I posit that this is not true. Had that very unlikely event taken place, Kerrigan would have simply moved onto abortion, albeit couched in euphemism (e.g., "It's a missed opportunity for the Church to embrace full health services for women").

Kerrigan mentioned the issues he did in order to sucker people who refuse to look past the surface, like you and s9. Spokespersons for such organizations don't blast out of the gate with abortion talk, because they know it's a hot button issue that would immediately reveal their organizations' true natures. Instead, they mealy-mouth their way around it, avoiding mention of it as much as possible, even though it's a significant part of their business.

Of course neither of you could do all of this thinking on your own, which is why you are forced to be pedantic. Or maybe you can think but you're simply pretending that you can't in order to "frame the debate."

So which one are you, mentally shallow or intellectually dishonest?

Pray, tell why would it not have been just as factually accurate as the "opportunites lost" articles, to have a "secularist disaster averted" meme? Oh, this version connotes a writer's opinion, you say? heh

Meezer:

...but there have also been large blocks of human history when large numbers of people (definitely the majority) were chaste.

Are you talking about the majority of all people, or the majority of a certain group of people? And which large blocks of history are we talking about? Human history is pretty varied.

When I was married 30 years ago I was a virgin as were most of my girlfriends. And I didn't die or have a complex or anything.

There is no reason that you should have had a complex over it. I dont get your point.

Sue Dohnim writes: Or do you mean irrelevant side issues like whether or not an organization that builds abortion clinics supports abortion but chooses conveniently to avoid that in its litany of disappointment directed at the pope?

You're beginning to comprehend what I'm saying. Yes, I'm saying that issues revolving around abortion are irrelevant to the topic under discussion. Nobody is quoted expressing disappointment with any supposed "missed opportunity" to elevate a new Pope who is pro-choice on abortion. The issue you mention is certainly relevant in other contexts. It's just completely off-topic here.

So, would you like to come back to the topic?

Considering the venom that Sue feels necessary to make her point, I don’t really have all that much of an urge to continue commenting but like the rabbit held rapt by the swaying cobra I will dare her wrath once more.

It is clear that Sue wants to vent on a subject that was not mentioned by Kerrigan but which she assures us was what he was truly all about despite the naïve and clueless take on it by myself and at least one other person in this thread. Sue has ignored what Kerrigan said, informed us that he is really all about something else, and having established that as an irrefutable basis for her digression, proceeds to take people to task for discussing something else.

s9 has already made the point and I must concur, that Sue is the one that is off topic. And rude. The actual point under discussion appears to one that she is either unable or unwilling to discuss, and so Sue raises the abortion topic as much more explosive and controversial, something that she clearly has strong feelings about, and uses it to lambaste those who insist on discussing what was actually said as opposed to what Sue imagines the true agenda to be.

Having established this, in her own mind, she proceeds to castigate calmer voices for discussing something other than her topic. She is off in her own private conversation and is rather vitriolic when other opinions are offered which is a somewhat self defeating debate technique. Most people understand that when the mud starts flying, intelligent exchange has essentially ceased.

I must now retire to my shallow intellectual dishonesty and pray for a miracle so that I may learn to think these things through more clearly.

MichaelC wrote:

I must now retire to my shallow intellectual dishonesty and pray for a miracle so that I may learn to think these things through more clearly.

Good riddance, Three-Post Wonder.

s9 wrote:

So, would you like to come back to the topic?

Sure, I'm tired of doing all of the thinking and reasoning for both of us. What do you think the topic is?

Oh yeah, while you're at it, you can answer my questions you so conveniently ignored before. Why are you so defensive of Tony Kerrigan and/or Marie Stopes International? What dog do you have in that fight?

You dispose of those who question you with ad hominem in place of intelligent exchange. If you think no one has noticed, well, I imagine that is how you go through your life. Angry....and clueless.

MichaelC wrote:

You dispose of those who question you with ad hominem in place of intelligent exchange. If you think no one has noticed, well, I imagine that is how you go through your life. Angry....and clueless.

MichaelC previously lied when he wrote:

I must now retire...

I'm still dithering on whether you are mentally shallow or intellectually dishonest.

You repeat things constantly like someone without analytical capabilities (which is unintelligent), and yet you were able to succinctly state your arguments in your initial post (which is intelligent but wrong).

Now you've come back after saying you were retiring (which is dishonest), but your post merely repeats your assertion that because I have started name-calling that I am incapable of intellectual discourse and thus all of my points are moot (which is unintelligent).

I'm leaning towards your being mentally shallow.

Maybe you'll change my mind in a subsequent post, but this hypothesis fits best so far.