Posted on 09/21/2005 5:34:27 AM PDT by marshmallow
That's an excellent explanation. I'm filing it.
My, my, my, aren't we picky. :o)
My cousin the priest, who is 82 years old, undoutedly would not like it.
My gay nail guy would also NOT like to see it. Neither would his partner.
Well, there are three men who wouldn't. Dang, you are right.
Happy now?
True, pornography is a strong element in "normal" Sleazywood movie fare. It's called "art" though I use the term loosely.
It doesn't take much thinking to see the connection T.V./movies and the acceptability of drugs, prostitution (now called "sex workers), violence, filthy language, shacking up, out-of-wedlock births, promiscuity, gambling, hooker-fashions-for-teenage-girls, pornograhy masking as "art" and child porn/abuse.
Sleazywood has consistently and relentless portrayed what USED to be deemed unacceptable in our morality as glamorous, fun, desireable and morally correct.....a normalization of evil. It all is really just coarseness, lewdness, vulgarity....well, you get my drift.
Sad to say, we can all call ourselves "experts" on this because it seems to be shoved in our face and rammed down our throats every time we turn on the boobustoobus or try to see a movie.
Americans COULD simply NOT watch, but.....
I'm right with ya.
Too bad DRUGS, booze and/or money make many women sometimes see things differently.
Pornography's availability makes promiscuity and kink (sadism, masochism, bondage, submission, domination, punishment, etc.) a real factor in people's lives. It's very private, but ugly, vicious and sick. The "models" they use are beautiful young people who are always smiling, laughing and having such a good time.
There are even documentaries and T.V. coverage about it -- not to mention movies about it.
If I stare at this sentence long enough, will it eventually start to make sense?
How very ... interesting.
If you stare at the ravings of a madman will they ever make sense?
Americans COULD simply NOT watch, but.....
You'd be left with little to watch at all.
I like to play cards and enjoy the slots. I like adult things.
BUT: they are ADULT things and are simply not suitable for children.
My parents and I am sure many others had the fortitude to say "its not for you." Period. End of discussion. Just like no coffee, no whiskey and a whole raft of "no's".
Parents don't say that any more. They seem to believe their kids are simply small adults who should be treated like adults. Why, if its ok for me to do that how can I deny my kids?
They have gone insane and we are raising kids to be insane.
Your examples are well taken: I have a grandaughter who is TWO. I have looked at clothes for her and some of them look like they belong on a cheap whore: fake leopard capris? some kind of blouse thing with maribou collar and wrist bands?
Pulease.
But her mother thinks such trash is "cute". CUTE!??
One thing I have done which worked was to strongly write to the stores that sell this garbage and decry it. Most have email adresses and it takes just a few seconds to dash one off. I did that for some misandrous garbage clothing they were selling and it has quietly disappeared.
Complain and don't buy it and that will help.
But if they are selling the stuff and making money on it then they will continue to do so.
We cannot expect the merchants to be the moral arbiters for our kids. We have to be.
Too many parents don't seem to want to do that any more.
Moving from ECUSA to the Catholic Church is a little like escaping hurricane Katrina by going to Houston.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_Nulla_Salus
I can only claim two years of High School Latin taught by communists posing as teachers but check out wikipedia and 1000 other sources on something called google.com
As for your rejection of the Novus Ordo (I agree it needs revision and should never have been promulgated and should have made much more modest changes but none of those things changes it's validity) as the product of homosexuals, well, that is nothing but Protestant schismatic bile. Abuse does not remove use. The term "novus ordo" is meaningless by itself--the vernacularization was indeed carried out in a mannter that results in doctrinally false texts, but the Novus Ordo Latin text, while ill-advised in some places, contains nothing heretical or doctrinally erroneous. The deemphasis of the sacrificial character in the Offertory prayers was ill-advised, but only in the verncualar translations is the theology of sacrifice systematically stripped out. The translations are mendacious and false but the Latin text is in conformity with the Latin Catholic faith.
Go ahead, vent your Protestant bile. The mark of a Catholic is to adhere to Peter even when the reforms are slow or the bishops govern unjustly or err in discipline. As much as I prefer the 1962 Missal, I will defend the validity of the Novus Ordo in Latin. I have studied it in detail, know both 1962 and 1970 Ordinaries in Latin by heart and have compared most of the Novus Ordo propers word for word in Latin and English. Whereas relatively minor revisions to the Latin text need to be made (particularly in the Offertory, restoring the Placeat Tibi at the end etc.), in contrast the ICEL translations are total junk. Rantings against the Novus Ordo that fail to distinguish between the mendacious translations and the Latin text itself don't deserve serious consideration. e
Yes, I guess it does.
The San Francisco Opera got rid of its opera director, Pamela Rosenberg, because she put on such a flow of garbage opera productions. It was quite amazing considering she was FEMALE (and Jewish). Her faith was always included with her biography or with any article of any length about her. I never understand why we have to learn of a person's religious background. It seems so irrelevant, but it's always there.
There was WAY too much hoopla at her hiring. There never had been SO much hoopla for any of the previous opera directors, even though most were foreigners and minorities. I guess it was because she was female. Dunno.
I was one of those complaining letter writers who donated zip at the very important donation line. She wanted us to donate 100% of our tickets' worth. Yeah, right, with all the garbage she put on....it was pretty dreadful.
Just three examples:
1. Handel opera, a very old BAROQUE opera, Alcina, updated with singers in modern clothes, faux fornicating on the floor during a "love" scene, while the soprano is singing. When she wasn't doing that she was disrobing.
2. Rossini, Barber of Seville: Figaro (main character) enters the stage on a Vespa and during his MOST famous aria, shaves a woman's legs.
3. Parsifal by Wagner (about the Holy Grail) was presented in a Nazi concentration camp with the chorus wearing storm-trooper long coats and gas masks as headgear.
These were/are all "new" German garbage productions which Rosenberg ALWAYS thought were WONDERFUL. Imho, the Germans produce fabulous music, have fabulous singers and musicians, but their "new" operas suck big time. Government paid-for garbage.
I was in Germany this past summer and saw three operas. I waned to check out the source of her brainstorms....just to see for myself what the deal was.
One opera was ok (French, typically too long and boring); one was just stupid (SO silly and schticky, but not offensive); one was so HORRIBLE that even the bums outside knew it and got the disgusted opera-goers to give them their tickets at intermission when half of the only 2/3-full opera-goers FLED in disgust....as those opera tickets had a free-ride-on-the-train chitty on the back of each ticket. Lol.
I finally got Rosenberg mad at me, personallly. All I said was that the opera productions she foisted on us were peurile, vaudevillian, schticky and in BAD taste. :o) She resented the "schticky" comment.
She's now in charge of the Berlin philharmonic ORCHESTRA. No one in the opera world would take her after her collossal failure with THIS country's oldest opera company. (Yes, the San Francisco Opera is America's oldest opera company -- and ballet company -- even older than New York or Chicago. Go figure.)
Apparently the angry letter writing and $maller contributions were pretty hefty. The opera board took the heat for hiring her.
I wrote to the president and he got really huffy and pissed at me, saying he was "fully behind" Ms. Rosenberg. THEN, he and the board dumped her, with all the lies of their fond farewells and her wanting to spend time with her family, blah-blah-blah. Hah, if that were true she wouldn't have gone to work in Berlin for a mere symphony.
Yes, complaining via letter-writing is good.
It takes a lot out of me to do it. I don't know why, but it does.
Well put.
I don't think this is conscious or a conscious conspiracy.
Well, here we disagree. I think there is at least some measure of a conscious attack on theology.
Clean house. Top to bottom.
New book promotes sex with children
Kinda scary how blantant the homosexuals are getting in publishing this endorsement of pederasty.
THIS (^^) IS ONE PERSON WHO SHOULD LEAVE THE PRIESTHOOD AND IMMEDIATELY.
I read from his statement all the wrong reasons he should be in a position of leadership among the faithful. This man needs to leave or be asked to leave the Priesthood.
Yeah, and many "psychologists" are members of and/or promoters of the "Man-Boy Association," so it is naive for the public to attempt to distinguish homosexuality from pedophilia, because there's a blending of behaviors across the board there.
I agree with you, as to there being a measure of a conscious attack on theology. The effort is to "normalize" (by the 'attackers') deviant behavior and to promote as deviant objections to that, those, as in, to promote as deviant whoever and whatever believes and instructs that certain behaviors are not acceptable.
And that's been going on for some time and particularly in use of the public school system and various liberal dogma.
" "I'm hearing that some men will choose to leave, because if they don't it would be like living a lie," said Father Robert Silva, president of the American National Federation of Priests' Councils, who opposes a ban because it would be "extremely hurtful" to chaste gay priests who are serving the church."
ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt
Hey Silva, for the sake of Roman Catholic Christians step down. That goes for you too "Chicago-area Catholic priest who is gay."
http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2005/09/22/1126982182075.html
Are you going to tell me what color to prefer, too?
(I agree it needs revision and should never have been promulgated and should have made much more modest changes but none of those things changes it's validity) Well, don't we sound like the Pope...Pope Dionysiusdecordealcis how very Protestant.
as far as "validity" you are assuming a fact not yet in evidence. I made no mention of "validity." You made mention of it as you attempted to bash me over the head with your rant.
The salus was a typo I thought I had corrected...either way there is no Salvation outside the Church...something the Novus Ordo has disqualified...which, as a newly invented religion, it has the right to do as all other Protestants have done.
You are a poster child as to why people reject the Novus Ordo, go in peace.
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.