Defiant Catholic Laity against "same-sex unions", despite little support from the Vatican

Rotate Caeli ^ | 1/30/16 | New Catholic

[Mrs. Don-o]

Violation of privacy.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"The Pope did not enter into the details of the situation of Mrs. Davis and his meeting with her should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects."

In other words, the Pope does not hold himself out as an expert on the oath of office taken by Kentucky county clerks, or Kentucky statutory and Constitutional law.

Isn't it fascinating how the tone of a statement will change, depending on which parts you chose to highlight?

[ebb tide]

Silly response. Nobody was in a confessional. So the homos can talk about the meetings; but the Pope can’t?

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Lombardi, another Jesuit, is constantly tasked, as hard it may be, in trying to 'interpret' what Bergolio is 'vomiting out his mouth'. "

Your use of quotation marks is interesting. You make it look like you're quoting Lombardi, but actually you are quoting yourself.

Enough. Goodbye now.

Please respect my wishes to discontinue this conversation. Thanks in advance.

[ebb tide]

But he’s an expert on “global warming” and socialism and addresses Congress and the U.N. on those very matters of faith and morals?

[Mrs. Don-o]

It's you who stated,

"Get real; over 98 percent of the humans are straight."

Annulments have nothing to do with your stated opinion about the percentage of gay "humans."

[ebb tide]

Your accusation is not true. I was paraphrasing the Bible.

“But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.” Apocalypse; Chapter 3.

[ebb tide]

It does when one is talking about historical statistics (which can and do change).

I thought you were done with me.

[ebb tide]

>>Annulments have nothing to do with your stated opinion about the percentage of gay “humans.<<

Why did you thank me for my correction and rephrase your post?

>>Mrs. Don-o to ebb tide

Very true, ebb tide. I will amend my statement:

“I don’t think we should try to isolate homosexual vice as a somehow unique kind of wickedness, nor minimize the abomination of all these other sins.

“I suspect 98% of us do that because we are not personally tempted by homosexual vice, but are tempted by many of the others.”

Thank you for that improvement.<<

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies