The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroups
These Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To These Or Any Other
Newsgroups. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroups And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: email@example.com (Ardal Xavier O'Donnell)
Subject: You know you're a redneck when you agree with Cardinal Sinner Renato Martino
Date: 23 Dec 2003 09:03:59 -0800
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:03:59 +0000 (UTC)
In article ,
> The REAL "Beacon" wrote in message news:firstname.lastname@example.org...
> > Protecting *all* children from the vatican: What sayeth Mary Robinson?
> If I were Mary Robinson I would agree that the church drop the edict that
> forbids priests to marry. That way, priests who continue to remain
> unmarried can be placed to work in orders and parishes where there is less
> direct family involvement. This would remove the lifestyle of the church
> from being an option of haven for those without self-esteem, to seek the
> twisted ego fulfilment of becoming a religious authority. This is a common
> practise for people with infantile egos and trouble with parental figures;
> not to join the church to help and work for people, but to join it for the
> sake of having authority over people's fear and fulfilment. In combination
> with infantile obsessions left unaddressed, it's a real psychic powder keg.
Mary Robinson should be "given away" to Cardinal Sinner Renato Martino
in matrimonial bliss.
> I mean, if a woman can't trust you, why should families?
Why should anyone trust Mary Robinson + Cardinal Sinner Renato
> But the issues aren't about which priests are gay, rather than which are
> driven by infantile ego-obsession. If you can't have that in a real
> marriage, then you can't have it being married to the church either, and
> marriage to a woman keeps a healthy psyche out in the open.
The vatican + markku grönroos
believe: why marry a woman when you can have
little boys for free?
> Forbidding priests to marry has nothing to do with faith or overcoming the
> sins of the flesh.
"Sins of the flesh"? I thought our bodies are God's temple and that
big Irish Catholic families with no contraception and 20+ kids was a
Good Thing™ under vatican ii? Oh wait, catholic schizophrenia.
> Marriage is a healthy diet as compared to not eating at
> all; eventually one will sneak a meal behind closed doors. Priests were
> forbidden to marry in the early middle ages due to the claims that bastards
> or heirs could make on church property.
Priests, by definition, produce bastards from the underage girls they
> Even though it sounds ridiculous
> today, a bastard or heir could barge in and take the property for himself
> and the church would quite often be forced to do nothing.
Why is it "ridiculous"?
Indeed, here in the civilised UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND
NORTHERN IRELAND (as opposed to the backward hick Rednecks of
Ireland), children have the same legal rights to inheritance and
support irrespective of their parents' marital status. Why punish the
child(ren) for the sins of the priests? Why should the innocent have
less rights? Why should the guilty go free?
> Making abstinence
> a dogmatic law simply sealed off all claims as being the fault of the priest
> and not the church.
Wrong again you are, as always. Respondeat superior: priests take a
vow of obedience and are simply "following orders" of the vatican,
which actually *encourages* priests having sex with little boys as
there are no heirs, bastard or not. Of course, the vatican
miscalculated that the Anglo-American legal system will bring Truth
and Justice to light. ;~) Let there be Light!
Yours in Christ,
F. Ardal Xavier O'Donnell, S.J.
+++ +++ +++
Is this the face of Irish "science writers"?
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The alt.politics.org.fbi Newsgroup