Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: Matthew on August 21, 2006, 11:21:21 PM
-
-
What makes me angry is when the laity -- often in their teens or 20's -- presume to reject the advice/wisdom/teaching of a learned priest or bishop.
That whole, liberal "I have a right to my opinion, you have a right to yours." and the corollary, "My opinion is every bit as valuable as yours."
And people who are infected with such liberalism will dismiss something, even if it's true, on a whim. Almost as an assertion of their independence. I must say, that Americans are pretty bad in this regard. Our society is very liberal and prizes independence over just about every virtue.
I'm sure most of you would be angry if a non-Catholic came up during Mass and punched your priest in the face. Well, I'm the same way, only with other forms of disrespect as well.
(I'd call it a pet peeve, but pet peeves are usually about something petty.)
Let's say I get angriest about when people reject the truth and/or assert their own puny, uninformed opinion in place of a respectable well-educated and trained priest.
If Bishop Williamson says something, it should not be lightly dismissed! He has spent the last 30+ years of his life as a priest -- teaching, studying, meditating, and praying -- plus he has the Actual Graces of state that came with his consecration as Bishop.
What in the WORLD is someone going to counter that with?
"Uh...I went to public school.. I've read a few books... I'm 26... I have a college degree?"
In Christ,
Matthew
-
Someone might ask, "Did he actually write those words given in Wikipedia?"
The answer would be yes, he is indeed against the Sound of Music.
I must confess I was a bit surprised when I first heard that myself. But he made his case, and as I continued learning about the modern world, history, the Faith, etc. I saw that he was right.
The flaws in The Sound of Music are very deep -- not as obvious as say, the flaws in The Crying Game or Brokeback Mountain. But they are there, and are more dangerous because of how subtle they are.
Anyhow, I would say that any 3-paragraph summary (especially with commentary by Wikipedia, a known anti-Catholic organization) will be unfaithful to the original. The explanation needs to be longer than that, or everyone will just laugh, scorn him, etc.
Like if someone asked you, "Why are you a Traditional Catholic? Why don't you go to your local parish?" but only allowed you 1 sentence for a response. You'd naturally like to explain a bit about the fact there is a crisis in the church, how we have a right as Catholics to the true Mass and sacraments, etc.
Any 1-sentence answer wouldn't be very convincing.
In Christ,
Matthew
-
Here is an example of something bad in The Sound of Music:
As Maria leaves the convent, she is singing and dancing around:
"To be out in the world, to be free... My heart should be wildly rejoicing...Oh, what's the matter with me?"
What's the matter with you, indeed! A religious vocation is the noblest calling there is, and life in a religious house is NOT like being in prison! That's a very worldly view of the religious life.
Think about the nature of spontaneity, which is a trait that Maria exhibits immensely. If you think about it, it's ridiculous. What's the opposite of spontaneity? Thinking, being rational, planning things out. Why prize "not thinking and planning"? Spontaneity is a fault -- it means you're unpredictable, and don't live by principles (and/or never think).
Matthew
-
I would wish that instead of the Sound of Music a true life of Maria von Trapp would have been filmed. From what I've heard, she was a very devout Catholic, unlike the 60's portrayal of Catholicism in the SoM movie.
-
Among the flaws of the movie Sound of Music, she is portrayed as cute, sassy -- and thin.
The real Maria Von Trapp was more...matronly (full-figured).
Matthew
-
I always had very mixed feelings about this movie, especially as I have learned more and loved more my Catholic faith.
I would get so much flack from most Americans whenever I said anything wrong about the SoM, you would think I was blaspheming!
Aside from the points mentioned by Bishop Williamson, my biggest contention was with the song "How do you solve a problem like Maria", especially since I had read a book all about the Holy Name of Mary. This book spoke at great lengths about the veneration of the name of Our Lady, along with the the all the meritorious benefits of invoking her name, how demons would kneel at the mention of her name and how most of society would value naming their children after her.
And when you listen to the lyrics of that song, it's as if it were mocking Catholics and Our Lady, one section in particular - "How do you find a word that means Maria? A flibsrtijjet, a will of a wisp, a clown!" Meanwhile historically the name of Our Lady is held in the highest of esteems. And if you read the rest of the lyrics it is simply appalling!
I also felt very uncomfortable in the glorification of JA's disregard for rightful authority (the father of the children), a lot of "ends justify the means" attitude, and constantly upholding (emphasizing the importance of) the children's feelings over their duties as good Catholic children.
-
Here is an example of something bad in The Sound of Music:
As Maria leaves the convent, she is singing and dancing around:
"To be out in the world, to be free... My heart should be wildly rejoicing...Oh, what's the matter with me?"
What's the matter with you, indeed! A religious vocation is the noblest calling there is, and life in a religious house is NOT like being in prison! That's a very worldly view of the religious life.
Think about the nature of spontaneity, which is a trait that Maria exhibits immensely. If you think about it, it's ridiculous. What's the opposite of spontaneity? Thinking, being rational, planning things out. Why prize "not thinking and planning"? Spontaneity is a fault -- it means you're unpredictable, and don't live by principles (and/or never think).
Matthew
I thought you were talking here about Pope Francis.
Wait a minute ---- this post was made in 2006!
.
-
Wikipedia is disgusting. What's even more disgusting is the Liberal establishment which has made Wikipedia its pet encyclopaedia, and led the public to believe that it is "unbiased".
Here's all you need to know about Wikipedia's claim to being "unbiased":
Youtube: Wikipedia - Israel is paying workers to manipulate online content. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x2DFnGI9Ac)
I think it's hilarious how the article on Christ is titled "Jesus". Not "Jesus Christ" as most people know Him, no, just "Jesus", as though they are going out of their way to discredit the idea that He is the Christ.
I don't endorse any particular encyclopaedia, but I find this one - Metapedia (http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia) - to be a good counterbalance to Wikipedia.
-
full-figured
:roll-laugh2: I've not heard this euphemism before.
-
...and Wikipedia is changeable.
I would suggest organizing a campaign to correct it.
-
...and Wikipedia is changeable.
It isn't, it only appears to be. The truth is that Wikipedia is managed by a hierarchy of editors who earned their positions by editing article after article and demonstrating their loyalty to Wikipedia's cause (which includes subtly defaming all people and points of view that contradict them). Their favourite method of defaming somebody is to pile on all of the criticisms that have been lain against them in the article, while including a relatively short list of praise (if any at all). They damn with faint praise.
Let's try changing the article. Here's the original:
Williamson holds strong views regarding gender roles and dress. He opposes women wearing trousers or shorts,[39][40][41] attending college or university, or having a career,[42][43] and has urged greater "manliness" in men.[40][41]
He supports authoritarian parenting style, denouncing the film The Sound of Music as "soul-rotting slush" and saying that, by putting "friendliness and fun in the place of authority and rules, it invites disorder between parents and children."[14][44][45]
Williamson supports conspiracy theories regarding the assassination of President Kennedy, and the World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theory, denying that the latter were terrorist attacks but were instead staged by the U.S. government.[16][41][46] He has also said that the 7 July 2005 London bombings were an "inside job" and propagated rumours about the likelihood of a nuclear attack on the London Olympics in 2012.[47]
Here's my edit:
Williamson holds traditional views regarding gender roles and dress. He urges against women wearing clothes typically worn by men,[39][40][41] and laments the movement which has lead women away from their homes and children, and towards colleges, universities and full-time careers,[42][43] and has encouraged a return to a more robust masculine identity among modern men.[40][41]
He supports traditional parenting styles, and in one letter to his friends and benefactors pointed to the film The Sound of Music as an example of popular entertainment which undermines traditional family values, saying that by putting "friendliness and fun in the place of authority and rules, it invites disorder between parents and children."[14][44][45]
Williamson supports more thorough investigation into controversial events such as the assassination of President Kennedy and the September 11 attacks, highlighting how the US government had used public deception regarding tragic events to spur the American public into supporting war efforts in the past.[16][41][46] He has also expressed similar concerns regarding the 7 July 2005 London bombings and identified the London Olympics as a potential target for a terrorist attack.[47]
See how something is worded can have such a drastic influence over how it comes across? Let's see how long my edit lasts.
-
My edit has already been undone. That's how changeable Wikipedia is - you can change an article, but unless you have the credentials your changes will be undone within minutes. A lot of articles these days are locked by default, so unless you are an established editor you can't edit the article at all.
-
Here's the message I received explaining why my edit was unacceptable.
Hello, I'm Charlesdrakew. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Richard Williamson (bishop) seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Charles (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
That's how they maintain their control, by appealing to "neutrality". You can see how non-neutral their article is by referring to my edit of it and comparing it to the original. The original does not maintain neutrality in regards to Bsp. Williamson at all, it is scathing.
"Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions", :roll-laugh2:
-
McFiggly...your edit was doomed. I think there is a lack of sophistication going on here about Wikipedia.
If one is attempting to have one's edit approved on its neutrality, then
...highlighting how the US government had used public deception regarding tragic events to spur the American public into supporting war efforts in the past
...isn't going to fly.
I'm not sure why that is surprising. I'm sorry that this has increased your suspicion another notch.
What I had in mind was a sane, reasonable conversation among many people on where the entry was factually incorrect or non-neutral in tone, and a coordinated effort to correct it.
-
Williamson holds strong views regarding gender roles and dress.
This is a fact. Williamson would agree. His views are strong.
Williamson holds traditional views regarding gender roles and dress.
Ah, well, that's an opinion. If one wanted to make an entry with a chance of standing, one would need to explain to what traditional standard Williamson is appealing. A magisterial docuмent might suffiice.
---------------
He opposes women wearing trousers or shorts,
Fact.
He urges against women wearing clothes typically worn by men,
In society, women wear trousers and shorts as often as men. So, he's not actually urging what you wrote. He's urging a revolution in which people first begin to see certain clothing as gender-specific and THEN start wearing those clothes specific to their gender. So, I can see why they killed this one, too. It's not accessible to non-Traditional Catholic people. Remember, this is an encyclopedia. People who have no idea what clothes you mean are going to read it.
---------------
attending college or university, or having a career
Fact.
and laments the movement which has lead women away from their homes and children, and towards colleges, universities and full-time careers
You think anyone who reads and encyclopedia today understands this? They have no idea how going to college is leading women away from family. You're presuming that which cannot be presumed, and again departing from plain fact into rhetoric.
-----------------
He supports authoritarian parenting style, denouncing the film The Sound of Music as "soul-rotting slush" and saying that, by putting "friendliness and fun in the place of authority and rules, it invites disorder between parents and children."
Fact. "Soul-rotting slush" is obviously used to engender hatred of the man, but is still factual.
He supports traditional parenting styles, and in one letter to his friends and benefactors pointed to the film The Sound of Music as an example of popular entertainment which undermines traditional family values, saying that by putting "friendliness and fun in the place of authority and rules, it invites disorder between parents and children."[14][44][45]
These parenting styles are not traditional any more. they are, to the world, radical, and anything but traditional. In point of fact, they are radical and revolutionary. Calling them "Traditional" implies a value judgement that an encyclopedia is not going to allow.
I totally see their point.
-
McFiggly...your edit was doomed. I think there is a lack of sophistication going on here about Wikipedia.
Yes, but of course. Any belief that you disagree with on this forum is per se retrograde and backwards and so forth, so, naturally, the problem is a lack of sophistication. Please inform us on how to nuance our interpretations of our observations until, well, we accomplish sophistication by agreeing with your emotive ideology. Surely it's a sign of sophistication to think that anybody who believes that people with controversial plans tend to conceal them is mentally insane or a socially failed idiot...
If one is attempting to have one's edit approved on its neutrality, then
...highlighting how the US government had used public deception regarding tragic events to spur the American public into supporting war efforts in the past
...isn't going to fly.
I'm not sure why that is surprising. I'm sorry that this has increased your suspicion another notch.
It's not really suspicion when it is an honest appraisal of the facts. Would you describe a Ukrainian Catholic peasant of being "suspicious" of Soviet soldiers going house to house looking for signs of Christian belief ? If a man is pointing a gun at my head, am I "suspicious" of him ?
What I had in mind was a sane, reasonable conversation among many people on where the entry was factually incorrect or non-neutral in tone, and a coordinated effort to correct it.
Ever heard of William Randolph Hearst ? Remember the Maine ! :smirk:
I know that my bringing up of yellow journalism and my non-acceptance of official government and media stories makes me a lunatic in your eyes, but the evidence is clear. I know how you do not allow yourself to be overly bothered by evidence, though, so I will merely invite you to "take another look" and "reconsider" if you feel like it. Or not... whatever. (Hopefully you don't feel too pressured by the evidence to change your mind. Do what you want.)
-
I disagree icterus. I know you see straight through my pro-Williamson agenda, but I see just as clearly their anti-Williamson agenda. You went through those changes sentence by sentence and called many of them "Fact". Well, yes, they are "facts", and I didn't change the facts at all when I made my edit. All I did was change the interpretation of the facts. When they say Williamson has "strong" views on women what they are implying is, "don't take this man too seriously, he's an extremist." When I changed "strong" to "traditional" did I change the facts? If you asked Williamson himself, I'm sure he'd prefer my version to theirs. You especially objected to how I changed the conspiracy part. They said that "he supports conspiracy theories", and we all know that the term "conspiracy theory" is a propaganda term used to discredit someone's ideas. I changed that to encouraging "thorough investigation", which is not contrary to fact. I pointed out how the USA has used events THAT THEY ORCHESTRATED AND COVERED UP in order to urge the American public to war, JUST AS BISHOP WILLIAMSON DOES IN HIS ARTICLE. They don't mention this fact - that Williamson brings up a valid point regard "conspiracy theories" - because they want to use the term "conspiracy theory" as an argument against him, which they can't do if they lend any credence to conspiracy theories.
You go and have your reasoned discussion with them. You edit that same section of the article I edited, and when they revert your changes and send you a message saying that you weren't neutral enough, respond to that message saying that they have an anti-Williamson bias that you have corrected. See what response you get.
-
Icterus, why are you always so difficult ? Obviously there is a difference between what we consider to be neutral and what modern liberals consider to be neutral. That is because we have a different understanding of what is the normative order of the universe. We use natural philosophy, they have their materialist epistemology. For us, the natural law is normative. For them, the current behaviour of the majority, the sum of material facts, is what is normal, which to them is the same thing as normative. There is an obvious conflict between our two groups, between Catholics and liberals. It's not very complicated. You apparently seek to belong to both groups, so I can see how something so simple to the rest of us would be uniquely difficult for you to understand. :idea:
-
These parenting styles are not traditional any more. they are, to the world, radical, and anything but traditional. In point of fact, they are radical and revolutionary. Calling them "Traditional" implies a value judgement that an encyclopedia is not going to allow.
Of course they are traditional and of course they are radical, as tradition has become radical. Yes, "traditional" is a value judgement, but so are calling his views "strong" (implying "extremist") .
They also call the parenting style that he advocates "authoritarian" - is there any more blatant example, bearing in mind that the first most people think of when they heard the word "authoritarian" is "evil nαzιs", of a subtle use of value judgements to discredit a man? I changed "authoritarian" to "traditional", and I am right - modern liberals do consider tradition to be authoritarian, just as they would consider it radical and revolutionary to return to tradition.
How can you see my value judgements but not theirs? The only difference is that their values are negative and mine positive. It all comes down to whether you want to promote Bishop Williamson or discredit him, and it's clear that the governing body of Wikipedia seeks to discredit him. The idea that you can have a "neutral" view of a man is untenable, it is impossible to avoid value judgements.
-
What a regular reader of Wikipedia would take away from the article on Bishop Williamson is the following: he is an evil nαzι Bishop who wants us to take us back to the Dark Ages. That is what they are calling "neutrality".
-
Icterus, why are you always so difficult ? Obviously there is a difference between what we consider to be neutral and what modern liberals consider to be neutral.
Because you guys are always so nutso. McFiggly says he wants to change the entry...but obviously he doesn't. He wants to be persecuted. Why? So he can come back to his Trad friends with a new story about how the mean old liberals are persecuting him.
It's the same as loudly protesting a Kristellnacht Mass...not to effect some change in diocesan policy, but to get rolled out in the street and possibly hit with a baton. It's all sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing.
-
McFiggly wrote:
What a regular reader of Wikipedia would take away from the article on Bishop Williamson is the following: he is an evil nαzι Bishop who wants us to take us back to the Dark Ages. That is what they are calling "neutrality".
And you put approximately zero thought into how to change that. SO, it goes unchanged. Well done.
Now you losers can spend a few dozen posts blaming me. Well done.
-
Because you guys are always so nutso. McFiggly says he wants to change the entry...but obviously he doesn't. He wants to be persecuted. Why? So he can come back to his Trad friends with a new story about how the mean old liberals are persecuting him.
For all you know I expected my edit to survive. Honestly, I didn't expect it to be purged as quickly as it was, I thought I changed it subtly enough for it to escape the censor for at least 10 minutes. Yes, I am that naive.
You are very hasty in judging my character. You're saying that I'm a suck-up, that I only did what I did to add to my reputation here. That is false. I genuinely dislike Wikipedia and am eager to alert people to its flaws, it has nothing to do with getting people to like me.
Now you losers can spend a few dozen posts blaming me. Well done.
Blaming you for what, icterus? The only thing that I am blaming you for is defending what is indefensible, which is Wikipedia's claim to neutrality.
It seems that you are the one overly concerned with reputation, in that you become emotional when you are criticised. Well, I am not even criticizing you, I'm criticising the erroneous points that you have made.
Stop being silly, icterus, if you had followed the link to Metapedia that I gave earlier then you would already know that Wikipedia is a far-left and ʝʊdɛօcentric, multilingual wiki project, censored by an internal bureaucracy of tribal editing clans to conform to a largely neo-Marxist and Zionist viewpoint.
-
Because you guys are always so nutso. McFiggly says he wants to change the entry...but obviously he doesn't. He wants to be persecuted. Why? So he can come back to his Trad friends with a new story about how the mean old liberals are persecuting him.
As a worldly liberal, you clearly don't understand how Catholics see the world, but surely its ridiculous to assert that we all just have persecution complexes. Hey, maybe you could work for the DHS. They also love to use the Soviet tactic of marginalising groups that threaten their ideological worldview by suggesting that they are mentally unwell. You would fit in rather well, I think.
It's the same as loudly protesting a Kristellnacht Mass...not to effect some change in diocesan policy, but to get rolled out in the street and possibly hit with a baton. It's all sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing.
Or it's, rather, publicly making reparation for something offensive to God. You might think that that's just pious rhetoric masking what is in reality a PR stunt, but we actually believe that public crimes demand public reparation and that they merit punishment. Try to escape your cynicism for a moment and consider that we sincerely believe what the Church has always believed.
-
Stop being silly, icterus, if you had followed the link to Metapedia that I gave earlier then you would already know that Wikipedia is a far-left and ʝʊdɛօcentric, multilingual wiki project, censored by an internal bureaucracy of tribal editing clans to conform to a largely neo-Marxist and Zionist viewpoint.
And this, McFiggly, is why Wikipedia will never be changed by you. Or by anyone like you. The wrong will not be righted. You will feel affirmed, and your friends will help you to feel affirmed, but the world will continue in ignorance.
I'm sure that was how Jesus and the Apostles conducted themselves...can you help me find the verses?
-
Pere wrote:
Or it's, rather, publicly making reparation for something offensive to God. You might think that that's just pious rhetoric masking what is in reality a PR stunt, but we actually believe that public crimes demand public reparation and that they merit punishment. Try to escape your cynicism for a moment and consider that we sincerely believe what the Church has always believed.
It was a stunt. Done in public. And, it has the very, very predictable effect of hardening diocesan opinion against the Society and in-favor of worshipping with the Jews.
Heh...so funny...everything is obviously a conspiracy unless Society members do it! They are ALWAYS on the side of the angels! Yay!
-
icterus, that's twice that you've made me laugh. I find you hysterical.
And this, McFiggly, is why Wikipedia will never be changed by you.
The reason why Wikipedia is never going to be changed by me is that I'm never going to dedicate myself to becoming part of its exclusive editing club.
-
you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
-
Probably because it isn't thirsty.
-
I edited wikipedia one time. I was reading the article on King David and for some reason it said he was the third king of Israel. I changed it to the second king of Israel. I think that was the only time I edited wikipedia.
-
That was a terrible display of biblical literalism, Matto.
-
I recommend a strong five-minute hate against Wikipedia.
Ready.....go!
-
Stop being silly, icterus, if you had followed the link to Metapedia that I gave earlier then you would already know that Wikipedia is a far-left and ʝʊdɛօcentric, multilingual wiki project, censored by an internal bureaucracy of tribal editing clans to conform to a largely neo-Marxist and Zionist viewpoint.
And this, McFiggly, is why Wikipedia will never be changed by you. Or by anyone like you. The wrong will not be righted. You will feel affirmed, and your friends will help you to feel affirmed, but the world will continue in ignorance.
I'm sure that was how Jesus and the Apostles conducted themselves...can you help me find the verses?
"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet. Amen I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." -- Gospel of St Matthew, X, xiv-xv.
"And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off even the dust of your feet, for a testimony against them." -- Gospel of St Luke IX, iv.
-
I recommend a strong five-minute hate against Wikipedia.
Ready.....go!
Damn, I missed it.
-
Wikipedia isn't biased. Only things that go against the majority consensus are biased, because consensus defines reality. Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, and the final result is the product of popular consensus, therefore it is impossible that any bias exists within it's pages. "Systematic bias" is nothing but a crackpot conspiracy theory.
-
Oh, you go too far. Wikipedia is biased. I'm trying to explain to McFiggly that he has to be wise and cunning in order to defeat this bias.
-
Oh, you go too far. Wikipedia is biased. I'm trying to explain to McFiggly that he has to be wise and cunning in order to defeat this bias.
That's funny. Between all of your gratuitous insults stemming from your warped view of the world, that message was lost on me.
-
That's funny. Between all of your gratuitous insults stemming from your warped view of the world, that message was lost on me.
...he said with another gratuitous insult.
-
That's funny. Between all of your gratuitous insults stemming from your warped view of the world, that message was lost on me.
...he said with another gratuitous insult.
You are misusing the words "gratuitous" and "insult" here.
-
BTW, although the entry on Williamson has problems, if you want to see the bias at work, read the entry on Margaret Sanger.
-
.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=112&min=10#p2)
My edit has already been undone. That's how changeable Wikipedia is - you can change an article, but unless you have the credentials your changes will be undone within minutes. A lot of articles these days are locked by default, so unless you are an established editor you can't edit the article at all.
You should have just asked me. I could have told you that the Wikipedia system has a small army of volunteers (or perhaps employees of George Soros) whose accounts are pinged whenever an edit is made, such that any one of several volunteers who are assigned to blocks of 50 articles, when he get a ping, scrambles to his computer to see what the changes made were, and if for whatever reason they're objectionable according to his training criteria, he clicks a button and undoes the changes.
They compete with each other in teams, so that the one in the team who is quicker at the draw gets advantage points compared to the others who don't get points. But they can't delete changes that further the liberal agenda without losing points faster than they earn them, so they have to be careful. In your case, McFiggly, the edit sentry would only need to read the first sentence to see that the entire post, the edit was going to be an award point for him to delete your changes. In this way, topics of a sensitive nature (as certainly +W is) receive a lot of attention, and any such edit as yours is doomed to not endure for more than a few minutes.
It's actually daunting to think that with all the many thousands of articles in Wikipedia, the EACH are covered in some degree by these minions of sentries.
I have made edits that have lasted for an hour or two, but no longer than that. Most of the time, it's undone within 10 minutes or less. It's not worth the trouble. That's the way they like it.
And then they have the gall, the NERVE, to ask readers for donations!!
"If every reader reading this would donate just $3, our appeal would be over in one hour."
And I'm sure there are stupid readers out there who actually donate.
Like icterus -- he probably chipped in his 3 bucks. :jester: That's about his speed.
All the while, the multi-trillionaire George Soros who owns Wikipedia is laughing all the way to the bank.
.
-
Neil wrote:
Like icterus -- he probably chipped in his 3 bucks. :jester: That's about his speed.
Think so? You should try reading posts for content. You can sound out the words if you need to.
-
.
There is an obvious conflict between our two groups, between Catholics and liberals. It's not very complicated. You apparently seek to belong to both groups, so I can see how something so simple to the rest of us would be uniquely difficult for you to understand.
Liberal Catholics are the WORST ENEMY of the Church.
.