Posted on 03/15/2013 3:07:42 PM PDT by Kaslin
Some journalists are remarkably ignorant--or at least think their readers are.
The Roman Catholic Church has a new pope, and The New Yorker's Jane Kramer brings her readers the astonishing news that "you will not see women in the priesthood anytime soon; or married clergy; or an end to the bans on divorce, abortion, and contraception; or a reprieve for the nuns in trousers who go forth to give food, music, and solace to the poor; or even an acknowledgement that 'unrepentant' gay and lesbian Catholic men and women might, conceivably, get to heaven."
Kramer got scooped by National Journal's Amy Sullivan, who reported yesterday that "the cardinals . . . were never going to elect a pope who supports married clergy or female priests." Sullivan explained that "there was some discussion in the media about whether the cardinals would elect a 'reformer.' But that word does not mean the same thing in a Catholic context that it might elsewhere."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I’m not a Catholic...but I’m sitting here wondering...why does she even want to BOTHER with the the Bible and Christ’s beliefs?
If she’s not going to go to mass...what the heck should SHE care?
I already know the answer, but I just thought I’d throw it out. My fingers needed the exercise. :)
OMG! You mean that the will uphold the teachings of the Church?
How awful is that?/sarc
Oops—should be “HE”, not the.....
You have to wonder why they even care? What does it really matter to them what a church says?
The answer is they do not believe it should be legal to have an opposing viewpoint
“They do not believe it should be legal to have an opposing viewpoint”
- or a consistent, or deeply held one.
I’m going to do my blood pressure a huge favor and move on, and not read any more of the article.
She cares, because her Father the Devil wants to use her to damage the Church.
This creature does not believe as a Catholic, does not act as a Catholic, but still self-identifies as one ...
And other folks, people of ill-will, attempt to tar believing and practicing Catholics with the brush of her infidelity.
Sad.
People pay money for this crap?
I am not a Catholic either but have many Catholic
friends and I respect the religion. I would say
that if the church has changed it’s doctrines at
the highest levels in the past it would seem that
the door would be open for those who promote changes
no matter how dumb they might be. In my lifetime
I have seen the Catholic practice of no meat consump-
tion on Fridays go by the wayside but I can’t say that
the origin of that edict came from the highest of
sources in the first place. Maybe a few of our Catholic
FRiends can enlighten.
Seriously, I'd pay good money if a bunch of staunch conservatives became Unitarians en masse and began calling for the Unitarian church to elect a "reformer" President of the Unitarian Universalist Association who will "expand the tent" and more "inclusive" toward conservative Unitarians by dropping the church's "divisive" support for gay marriage, start to condemn abortion on demand and Roe v. Wade, cease ordaining gay people and women as clergy, ban non-Christians from serving as clergy ("as conservative Christian Unitarians, this practice deeply offends us and having a non-Christian lead our congregation is discriminatory and hurtful towards those of us who believe Christianity is the true faith") stop supporting taxpayer funded embryonic stem cell research, etc., etc.
There really haven't been any noteworthy conservative Unitarians for decades, the last one I can think of was President William Howard Taft. Probably because conservative people go find another church instead of demanding a liberal church change its beliefs. But since the same is NOT true of liberal Catholics, Baptists, etc., maybe it's time we give it a shot. Wonder how the mainstream media would feel about the "oppressed" conservative Unitarians trying to "reform" their church.
Not sure what you mean in this instance with “People pay money for this crap?”?
Just guessing but Jane KRAMER is probably JEWISH!!!
The point on clerical celibacy excepted, THANK GOD!!!
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations in North America
Membership 162,796 (adult members)
Heh. With those kinds of numbers, we could change this “church” overnight by joining en masse and becoming non-practicing conservative Christian “Unitarians” who are disenfranchised and demanding the church change its ways to make us comfortable. If 600,000 conservative christians across the U.S. started self-identifying as “Unitarian” (don’t need to actually join or attend their churches, just use the label like liberal Catholics do), we’d have:
“Latest polls show over 80% of self-described “Unitarians” say abortion is a mortal sin and should be illegal in almost every circumstance. When will the out of touch pro-abortion leadership of the Unitarian Church get with the times and listen to the voice of its members?”
Bingo!
Because they know they are going to hell and they want to take you there with them.
Idiot
The edict of not eating meat on Fridays has been reduced to just during Lent.
Where it came from exactly I am not sure, however according to Mary of Agreda and a few other sources, the Mother of Jesus never ate meat, only fish. But, she happily fixed it for Jesus and Joseph. That may or may not be part of the source for the eventual edict.
You do not adjust to changing times when it concerns the Gospels. You adjust to the teachings of Jesus Christ. In the Catholic Church, there will be no women priests, there will be no abortion of any kind, and there will be no acceptance of sodomite “marriage”. It does look like braindead liberals could get this through their thick-ass heads.
She's proudly, yet VERY sadly...marching herself to hell.
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.