[Coleus]

Reviving a bogus thread....for what? >>>

are you for real or what?

what do you mean bogus? you're the only catholic who thinks so.

first of all one can not RE POST a thread, it was posted once. the info. provided came from lifesite news and Les Femmes both reputable websites run by Catholics. http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/mar/040330a.html
http://www.lifesite.net/aboutlifesite/

there is nothing bogus about it, the info. came from homosexual organizations which listed these parishes, lifesite news just collated the info. and posted it on their website.

Reviving a thread? I guess I'll now bttt it everyday just to make you happy.

[Robert Drobot]

For the second tine: Why did you chose to write a response on May 15,2005 to a post written to you by Dudoight on April 2, 2004 if only to bring further undeserved attention to an article wrought with error?

You ask, "what do you mean bogus? you're the only [C]atholic who thinks so."

The article's clueless author, blindly accepted her single-source sodomite-friendly list, without checking it out! Her source wrongly listed a church the source named "Christ the King, Our Lady of the Sacred Heart -- Santa Clara" .

Dangus attempted to cover for this lie suggesting,

"Christ the King and Our Lady of the Sacred Heart are meant to be two separate listings. Apparently, however, the author is slightly confused: There are parishes called "Christ the King," and "Sacred Heart." There is no Our Lady of the Sacred Heart."

No church or parish by any of these names has EVER existed in Santa Clara.

Further, ArrogantBustard's Post #55 also casts a questionable light on the veracity of the 'list' promoted by the article's author.

You need to revise the number of Roman Rite Catholics who question the accuracy of the list by 100%. There are at least two of us now; perhaps because we are the only two who made the effort validate it.

You might also like to speak with your Confessor about the sinfulness of promoting a lie ( this article ), by attempting to give standing to sinners.

You have not addressed my question about your motivation for dredging up this article for FReeper re-consideration. One year to respond to a post. It's got to be a FReeper record.