Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

This is real courage and leadership...

The congregation at Seattle’s Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church gave the Rev. Tim Clark a standing ovation Sunday when he announced that the parish would not gather signatures for a referendum to repeal same-sex marriage.

The parish became the sixth in Seattle to opt out of the petition drive for Referendum 74 that has been endorsed and foisted on parishes by Archbishop J. Peter Sartain.

“I am happy to report that Our Lady of the Lake parish-oners have been overwhelmingly and, thus far, unanimously supportive of the decision I made NOT to gather signatures in support of this Referendum,” Clark wrote in response to an e-mail.

“The standing ovation experienced during one of the Masses says less about me and much more about the health of this parish. I only wished the archbishop could have experienced the sustained applause — the ‘sensus fidelium’ — of the people. He needs to listen to this ‘voice.’ That is my prayer.”

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepoliti ... age-drive/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BUT FUCK YOU TO ARCHBISHOP NIENSTEDT

Clark is grateful that Archbishop Sartain did leave the decision whether or not to gather signatures to the discretion of pastoral leaders.

The conscience-driven dissent expressed by Seattle-area Catholics has been stifled elsewhere in the nation.

The Rt. Rev. John Nienstedt, archbishop of St. Paul-Minneapolis, is pressing to amend Minnesota’s state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.

In a fiery letter to priests that also condemned no-fault divorce and cohabitation outside of marriage, Archbishop Nienstedt said he would brook no public dissent from any priest in the archdiocese.

“It is my expectation that all the priests and deacons in this archdiocese will support this venture and cooperate with us in the important efforts that lie ahead,” Nienstedt wrote.

“There ought not to be open dissent on this issue,” he added. “If any have personal reservations, I do not wish that they be shared publicly.”

Archbishop Nienstedt has also mailed out 400,000 anti-gay DVDs to Catholics in his diocese and refused communion to students wearing rainbows at a diocesan mass.

dbackjon wrote:BUT FUCK

Good for him. I wish there were more like him that would stand up to the church. They are just like the politicians -focus on the gays, the $500 toilet seat, whatever. Don't pay attention to all the other stealing we do from you to give money to the unions, Wall Street, or spending $58 million to buy a church.

Well which is it? Tim Ryan, or Tim Clark?

Towson WR Tom Ryan caught the 4th and 29 pass!

dbackjon wrote:BUT FUCK YOU TO ARCHBISHOP NIENSTEDT

Clark is grateful that Archbishop Sartain did leave the decision whether or not to gather signatures to the discretion of pastoral leaders.

The conscience-driven dissent expressed by Seattle-area Catholics has been stifled elsewhere in the nation.

The Rt. Rev. John Nienstedt, archbishop of St. Paul-Minneapolis, is pressing to amend Minnesota’s state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.

In a fiery letter to priests that also condemned no-fault divorce and cohabitation outside of marriage, Archbishop Nienstedt said he would brook no public dissent from any priest in the archdiocese.

“It is my expectation that all the priests and deacons in this archdiocese will support this venture and cooperate with us in the important efforts that lie ahead,” Nienstedt wrote.

“There ought not to be open dissent on this issue,” he added. “If any have personal reservations, I do not wish that they be shared publicly.”

Archbishop Nienstedt has also mailed out 400,000 anti-gay DVDs to Catholics in his diocese and refused communion to students wearing rainbows at a diocesan mass.

Jesus, DB, tone it down. You don't want to hurt Joltin Joe's feelings.

The catholic church is a victim here, you bigoted homosexual.

So he's a Catholic Priest that doesn't believe in Catholicism. Great.

JohnStOnge wrote:So he's a Catholic Priest that doesn't believe in Catholicism. Great.

Tim Tebow?
Dick Clark?

The Vatican on Wednesday gave Seattle Archbishop J. Peter Sartain the job of imposing discipline and adherence to dogma on America's largest organization of Catholic nuns, making it toe the line to "the teachings and discipline of the Church."
A Vatican document praised the women religjous for promoting social justice, but said they have not spoken out on issues of abortion and human sexuality.
In an eight-page "Assessment" from the Congregration for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican said that it found "serious doctrinal problems," instances of disagreement with the Church's bishops, and charged nuns with promoting "radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith."
The target of the Vatican's probe was the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), which includes leaders of Catholic women's religious orders in the United States representing more than 80 percent of America's 57,000 nuns.

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/connelly ... z1sUMHZY84" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fuck you Vatican - bunch of fossilzed bigots

dbackjon wrote:Fuck you Vatican - bunch of fossilzed bigots

There goes that hate again. Acceptance is the key.

I like Catholicism. Reminds me of the pantheistic idolatry of my Celtic ancestors, with a touch of adolescent poontang for good measure. I also like those psycho fvcking stupid ass southie irish chicks from Dorchester who think its ok to take it in the poop chute as long as they punch the right saint ticket at confessional.

CID1990 wrote:I like Catholicism. Reminds me of the pantheistic idolatry of my Celtic ancestors, with a touch of adolescent poontang for good measure. I also like those psycho fvcking stupid ass southie irish chicks from Dorchester who think its ok to take it in the poop chute as long as they punch the right saint ticket at confessional.

I'm not quite sure what you said here, but I think I agree.

JohnStOnge wrote:So he's a Catholic Priest that doesn't believe in Catholicism. Great.

If you believed it to be okay for bibles to printed in English a few hundred years ago, you weren't Catholic.

If you believe contraceptives are good for preventing AIDS, you are not a believer in Catholicism.

dbackjon wrote:This is real courage and leadership...

The congregation at Seattle’s Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church gave the Rev. Tim Clark a standing ovation Sunday when he announced that the parish would not gather signatures for a referendum to repeal same-sex marriage.

The parish became the sixth in Seattle to opt out of the petition drive for Referendum 74 that has been endorsed and foisted on parishes by Archbishop J. Peter Sartain.

“I am happy to report that Our Lady of the Lake parish-oners have been overwhelmingly and, thus far, unanimously supportive of the decision I made NOT to gather signatures in support of this Referendum,” Clark wrote in response to an e-mail.

“The standing ovation experienced during one of the Masses says less about me and much more about the health of this parish. I only wished the archbishop could have experienced the sustained applause — the ‘sensus fidelium’ — of the people. He needs to listen to this ‘voice.’ That is my prayer.”

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepoliti ... age-drive/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jesus doesn't HATE. Allegedly.

HI54UNI wrote:Good for him. I wish there were more like him that would stand up to the church. They are just like the politicians -focus on the gays, the $500 toilet seat, whatever. Don't pay attention to all the other stealing we do from you to give money to the unions, Wall Street, or spending $58 million to buy a church.

Though he is a Conk, this forward-thinking verbiage comes to us courtesy of that fine educational institution, the University of Northern Iowa.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:I like Catholicism. Reminds me of the pantheistic idolatry of my Celtic ancestors, with a touch of adolescent poontang for good measure. I also like those psycho fvcking stupid ass southie irish chicks from Dorchester who think its ok to take it in the poop chute as long as they punch the right saint ticket at confessional.

I'm not quite sure what you said here, but I think I agree.

I was drunk last night. I dont know what the fvck I said, either.

This is real courage and leadership...

Just wanted to mention that what he did didn't take courage and leadership at all. He did the "popular" thing. When it comes to the "normalization of homosexuality" issue in this culture right now, it takes a lot more courage and leadership to stand against that movement than it does to go along with it.

JohnStOnge wrote:

This is real courage and leadership...

Just wanted to mention that what he did didn't take courage and leadership at all. He did the "popular" thing. When it comes to the "normalization of homosexuality" issue in this culture right now, it takes a lot more courage and leadership to stand against that movement than it does to go along with it.

It takes a lot more courage to be pro-slavery, pro-cult of domesticity for women, pro-Jim Crow, pro-segregation in today's world than it does to stand against such things, but that doesn't mean it's right, in fact it means you are a dumbass bigot.

grizzaholic wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Fuck you Vatican - bunch of fossilzed bigots

There goes that hate again. Acceptance is the key.

Agreed, these US democrats are the most hate filled people in the world.

It takes a lot more courage to be pro-slavery, pro-cult of domesticity for women, pro-Jim Crow, pro-segregation in today's world than it does to stand against such things, but that doesn't mean it's right, in fact it means you are a dumbass bigot.

Well, at least you agree that it takes more courage to stand against the "normalization of homosexuality" movement than with it.

I think one indication of bigotry is when you see somebody calling people who disagree with them names. That's what bigotry really is. It's being intolerantly devoted to your own belief system.

And we are probably all bigots at times. There's some anti Catholic Church bigotry in this very thread, for instance.

If you believe contraceptives are good for preventing AIDS, you are not a believer in Catholicism.

Obviously the only "contraceptive" that has an impact on risk of AIDs transmission is a barrier like a condom. It "prevents" AIDs in the sense that, all other things being equal, the risk of transmission is reduced. But it is not eliminated. I think that in practice, considering the reality that not everybody uses them properly ever time, it reduces the risk by about a factor of 10. So the extent to which it reduces the number of transmissions in a population depends on whether or not behavior changes as a result of a false sense of security (i.e, thinking that it eliminates the risk entirely) and therefore increases the number of contacts.

I keep a risk assessment published during the 1980s around to reference during conversations like this one. It's Prevenging the heterosexual spread of AIDS, by Norman Hearst and Stephen B. Hulley, and it appeared in the April, 1988, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The conclusion of the authors was that whether or not one uses a condom is not the most important factor in AIDS risk. Instead, they concluded, the most important factor is the risk status of the partner (i.e., are they a member of a high risk group?). A quote:

Condoms reduce the risk of HIV infection, and condom use can play an important role in AIDS prevention in many situations. It is important, however, to remember that the protection provided by condoms is not complete. Even if condoms were 99% effective, wehther one uses condoms would still be less important than the risk status of one's partner

.

So, for instance, if people who otherwise wouldn't go to illegal prostitutes (a high risk group) do so because they think condoms will "prevent" them from getting AIDS or other venereal disease the risk of AIDs and venereal disease transmission increases due to the false sense of security they have.

In that vein, the authors wrote:

Encouraging the use of condoms may in some circumstances even be harmful if it gives a false sense of security in a high risk situation.

Obviously the risk assessment is 24 years old. But I see no reason for thinking the conclusions have been compromised by the passage of time. The distribution of AIDS cases within various groups is similar. The high risk groups the authors identified are still the high risk groups in terms of proportion of each group infected. I have seen nothing to indicate that estimates of trasmissability during unprotected sex have changed substantially if at all. And I don't think estimates of the level of protection offered by condoms has changed either (I've seen estimates ranging from 99% if they are always used properly to about 90% for what actually happens in practice).

Another thing: You can believe me or not. But I am the type that will call scientists and ask them questions when I get interested in something. There was a time when I was very interested in the AIDS issue and would call CDC scientists with various questions. And I am confident that the basic picture presented by that 1988 risk assessment is correct.

Since I'm writing "War and Peace" again I'll mention that if you use the authors' estimates you can kind of ballpark the point at which condom use would become counterproductive in practice if a beleif that using them "prevents" AIDS and other problems such as pregnancy increases the frequency of sexual contacts. Talking about the general population here and not necessarily interaction with high risk groups. It's that factor of 10. If encouraging condom use were to result in more than a 10 fold increase in sexual intercourse contacts we'd be about the point at which we'd probably have more AIDs, etc., than we otherwise would have as a population.

Public health officials must have calculated that that won't happen and they're probably right. But it's something to think about.