HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Cal33 » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Sat Jun 13, 2009, 06:39 PM
Number of posts: 5,391

Journal Archives

Do you think it would help any, if you said that to the big corporations -- especially the big oil


For the Pope to make changes and recognize same-sex marriage, he'd probably have to call for a Third

Vatican Council. In the entire 2000-year history of the Catholic Church, there have been only
2 Vatican Councils held thus far -- the last one was called by Pope John XXIII in the 1960s.
High officials of the Church from all over the world were meeting in Rome and debating. Nobody
could know the results of the various topics discussed until a final decision on each was made.
The Council lasted some 3 years.


Pope Francis and Kim Davis (II). More recent info from Vatican sources:

Here's later information on the meeting between Pope Francis and Kim Davis:
Vatican sources had previously merely acknowledged a meeting between them.
Now the following has been revealed: The Pope had met individually with a few
dozen people prior to his departure from Washington DC to New York, among
whom Davis was one. The meeting with her does not mean support of her
views on his part.........

To me this is beginning to look like the Right-Wingers wanted this case
to be blown up, and the visit of the Pope to the US presented an excellent


Pope Francis and Kim Davis.

To all you people who, because of his one act (the unpublicized interview
with Kim Davis) have changed your minds about Pope Frances altogether,
let me say that I left the Church in my early twenties, and I have never
gone back. I had gone through parochial school all the way, so I do know
the Catholic religion fairly well. Some things have changed since Pope
John XXIII's Second Vatican Council of the 1960s, and I am not up-to-date
about them, and I don't intend to become up-to-date either. I am just not

What I am writing below comes from my understanding about the
Church, before the 1960s: There are the Church's DOCTRINES and
DOGMAS, which the Pope cannot change on his own. He hasn't got
the power to do it, even if he wanted to. For any changes to be made
here (dogmas and doctrines), the whole Catholic Clergy will have to
be involved. It would be at least as difficult -- if not more so -- as for
us to make changes in the Constitution of the United States.

An example of a dogma or doctrine: Catholics have to believe that
there are Three Persons in One God - the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit. And these Three Persons are One God, not Three. If
one doesn't believe that, then one is no longer a Catholic.

I personally think that God, Himself, couldn't care less about this
point. This idea, the Church claims, has been so revealed in the Bible.
There have been those who argued this point in the early days of the
Church. Wars have been fought. To me, most doctrines and dogmas
have been man-made ideas, and killing one another over them, and in
God's name, no less, is the height of egoistic thinking: "I am right, and
anyone who thinks differently from the way I do, doesn't deserve
to live, and will go to hell." I am glad the Church has evolved since
then. She no longer has religious wars. But a Catholic who knowingly
refuses to believe that there are Three Persons in One God, is
automatically excommunicated, even if he keeps it all to himself
and nobody else knows anything about it.

Another area is TRADITION. To make changes here, it might be
slightly less difficult than trying to make changes in dogmas and

SEXUALITY is an area that is highly taboo. Masturbation is a mortal
sin, and so are any sexual activities outside of those between husband
and wife. Meaning that if one had performed them and died, and didn't
have the time to regret or confess the sin, that individual would be
condemned to hell for all eternity.

In all my years at the school, I've never heard any teacher openly
say that sex was evil. But somehow or other I (as well as some of
my fellow classmates) couldn't help but get the idea that it was evil.
In fact, never have I heard the word "sex" mentioned by any of my
teachers at all. Not even once! The word, itself, was avoided like
the plague. One teacher mentioned that celibacy was spiritually a
higher state of being than that of marriage. This was the closest
any teacher ever got to the word "sex."

Later in life I read that the attitude of the Church towards sex had
very likely been greatly influenced by the Apostle, St. Paul. Some
of these writers who had studied his life closely, came to the con-
clusion that St. Paul probably did have some sexual problems that
he was trying to fight against within himself.

There were also some of the early "Church Fathers" (religious teachers
who had also done a good deal of writing) of the 2nd to the 4th
Centuries A.D., who had very strict ideas concerning sex. One of them
named Origen, was at first recognized as an early Church Father for
his holiness, and then his name was removed later from the list of
Church Fathers. Origen was so disturbed for having sexual desires and
sexual dreams), that he castrated himself.

As late as two or three centuries ago, the Church permitted married
couples to have sex just 4 days a week. Fridays and Sundays were
forbidden days. (Jesus died on a Friday? And resurrected on a Sunday?)
I don't remember which was the third day. Even in marriage, in the eyes
of the Church, sex was to be tolerated only. There was no other way to
continue the human race. As for gay people, any homosexual acts
between them is automatically a sin.

As I've mentioned above, I don't know if there have been any changes in
this area since the 2nd Vatican Council. I doubt it that any serious
changes could have been made. It would have made the news head-
lines. So, the Church's basic idea that homosexuality is sin is most likely
still there.

As for the concept "Infallibility of the Pope," non-Catholics, and even some
Catholics, don't realized what a small, tiny area that infallibility is confined
to. He is infallible only when he is speaking as Head of the Church on
something that is to be believed in and followed by the whole Catholic world.
These topics usually involve something that has been studied by numerous
theologians for many years and already believed in and followed by the
entire Catholic faithful for a long time -- like the Blessed Virgin's Assumption
into heaven. This day is celebrated on August 15.

On everything else the Pope can make mistakes just like the rest of us --
including when he is teaching catechism (religion).

We all tend to judge others' values using our own backgrounds as a frame
of reference. Of course this wouldn't lead to a very accurate assessment.
Try to see things through the eyes of someone coming from a background
such as the above, (and I have enough space only to describe just a few
events), and you would probably understand better that
(1) Could it be that Kim Davis thinks she would be committing a mortal sin
each time she hands out a marriage permit to gays? If she is convinced
about the realities of hell, it sure is an incentive not to do it. Many religions
use fear as an incentive to keep their followers in line. Some Conservative
politicians use that trick, too.
(2) Pope Francis is actually quite a bit involved in modernizing the Church.
Trying to make changes in a 2000-year-old church is bound to be extremely
slow and laborious. I read that there already are Conservative Catholics who
are referring to Pope Francis as a possible "Anti-Christ." Pope John Paul I,
who was pope for 33 days and died suddenly and mysteriously, was also
one who hit the ground running, trying to reform the Church. Many think
he was assassinated with poison. It is traditional not to do autopsies on
popes, so none was performed. And no one knows what caused his death.

For anyone who is interested, another helpful way to find out how much Pope
Francis has already done in his two-and-a-half years: Just compare him
with some of the other more recent popes.

His job can't be very easy, can it?

Hi Milliesmom, to write and post an original message:

1. On the page you are looking at right now, in the left column, there is a series of 9 short
short titles, each headed by a tiny yellow box. CLICK on the 4th title up from the bottom
"General Discussion."

2. On the next page that shows up, an inch to the right and half an inch higher from the
"General Discussion" that you had just clicked, CLICK on the large letters "Start a discussion."

3. On the new page that shows up, below the red "Stop" sign, CLICK the choice on the right
"General Discussion."

4. The new page that shows up is where you write your original message. CLICK in the empty
space for the box titled "Thread title" and write in the title you choose for this message.

CLICK in the empty space of the box for "Message text" and write in your message.

When you have finished, go to the bottom of the box, go below the line and CLICK on
"Post my thread." Your message has been posted. That is it.

All the best,


Thanks for the link. This is the first time that I've ever read anything from the Bureau of

Labor Statistics. For years I've been reading about people describing the Official Unemployment Rate and
the real Unemployment Rate. In time I automatically came to look upon that as the truth.

I'll be looking for more info on unemployment rates.

Do we have too many sadists among our nation's cops and prison guards?

From the large number of cases we've seen lately of cops badly beating up innocent
civilians for no apparent reason, it wouldn't be difficult to come to the question, "Are
Police Departments Hiring Too Many Sadistically Inclined Job Applicants to be Cops?"

Sadists enjoy causing pain and suffering to others. I can imagine the numbers of
them might be even higher among prison guards, where they can beat and humiliate
prisoners and not be found out for having done so. Prison guards can do it with

Police Departments and Prisons ought to be provided by their superiors with the means to
screen out sadistically inclined job applicants, and fire those sadists already employed,
who are found performing such acts. Such primitive types should not be given authority
over people. They, themselves, need to bear watching!

Is there any way of starting such a movement -- and nationwide? Enough is enough.!

Nadin in Reply #5 just informed that taking pics. in voting booths is not allowed in some states.

It is unfortunate, but not hopeless even in these states, since this ruling may be challenged
(on 1st Amendment grounds).

As for the other states, how does one proceed with the matter if one suspects them of having
committed vote fraud? Do all those picture-takers band together and demand a recount
to see whether or not any of them have been "miscounted?" They have the evidence of how
they had voted with them.

The above also supposes that a group has already been formed functioning as a headquarters
where all parties interested in picture-taking have already registered and may be contacted to
show up with their pictures when needed.

I can see a good deal of preparation for unexpected eventualities is needed.

Your gentle statements are simply admirable and most worthy of emulation.

I wouldn't expect much in the way of change for the first two years, should Bernie

win the Presidency in Nov. 2016. Things might go as follows:

1. If Democrats should also win both Houses of Congress (and by a large
margin), great changes will take place. But winning both Houses is not
likely to happen.
2. If Dems. should win only the Senate, some change will take place, but
don't expect much and you won't be disappointed.
3. If Dems. should lose both Houses to the Repubs., little or no change
can take place.

In cases 2 and 3, the Dems., of course, will be working hard to make the
changes anyway. And each time the Repubs. slam down on what the
Dems. are trying to do, Bernie and the Dems. should tell the American
people loud, clear and often, what the Repubs. have done, how it would
make things more difficult for all the American people, and not to forget
what the Repubs. have done when the next Election Day comes. Dem.
leaders should repeat over and over again, and each time, how important
it is to vote during the non-presidential years, if Americans want to better
things for themselves. It is the Republicans who are preventing the Dems.
from making life better for all.

I've noticed in recent years that the Dem. leaders (with the exception of a
few like Eliz. Warren and others) don't bother to talk on this point much,
when it should be driven home loud and clear each time it happens. In
every negative there is usually some positive opportunity. Each time the
above happens, it is an opportunity to let the lazy voters know that the
Repubs. are the bad guys, and they must be voted out of office in the next
Election. And there is no other way for Dem. leaders to get things done --
their votes are needed. It is an absolute must.

Dem. leaders need to hammer this point home time and time and time again.
If they should do this steadily for two years, there is some chance that we
might have both Houses - and by good margins - beginning in Bernie's third
year. Only THEN will things start popping!

If the winning of both Houses should be by small margins only, remember
the 400+ filibusters of Obama's first term. Dems. should keep on hammering
away at the Repubs. for their recalcitrance, making sure that they get the full
blame. More of the general public will get to understand who the bad guys
really are. And Dems. will be able to accomplish more during Bernie's second
term. Some people are slow in catching on. That's the way things are.

Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »