Would you want a job where you had to wear red shoes?

Santa never complains.

Is the inference that the retiring Pope enjoys the same fantasies of the flesh as the sacked Cardinal?

You can infer almost anything from anything else if you try hard enough! If I admire an attractive woman, you might even infer that I'm not gay.... but you would be wrong!

It's not unheard of for there to be gay Popes though.

Is the inference that the retiring Pope enjoys the same fantasies of the flesh as the sacked Cardinal?

You can infer almost anything from anything else if you try hard enough! If I admire an attractive woman, you might even infer that I'm not gay.... but you would be wrong!

It's not unheard of for there to be gay Popes though.

Unmarried and not practicing ?

Would you want a job where you had to wear red shoes?

Santa never complains.

He wears black wellies.

(And his reindeer get worried every time he puts 'em on)

It's not unheard of for there to be gay Popes though.

Unmarried and not practicing ?

This is the whole point of the law as set out in Leviticus 18 (and elsewhere).

The social position of preferring the company of one sex to the other is not commented upon.

What is forbidden, and referred to as an abomination, is the act of 'laying with a man as with a woman' - in other words there is no stigma in preferring the company of men, or even demonstrating close friendship (except for the old IDF saying that we have nothing to fear from an army that holds hands).

What is condemned is the act of sodomy - which, contrary to a statement earlier in this thread, is anal penetration of a male by a male - and acts of oral sex by a male on a male. These are supposedly acceptable between a man and a woman, but not between two males.

Remeber that other items forbidden are the sacrifice of children to Moloch (a fire sacrifice), the seething of a kid in it's mother's milk (a Canaanite practice) and worship of graven images - a practice common to most local religions of the time. All were partly proposed in order to distinguish the monotheistic religion of Moses and the jewish people from all other neighbouring tribes.

It's not unheard of for there to be gay Popes though.

Unmarried and not practicing ?

This is the whole point of the law as set out in Leviticus 18 (and elsewhere).

The social position of preferring the company of one sex to the other is not commented upon.

What is forbidden, and referred to as an abomination, is the act of 'laying with a man as with a woman' - in other words there is no stigma in preferring the company of men, or even demonstrating close friendship (except for the old IDF saying that we have nothing to fear from an army that holds hands).

What is condemned is the act of sodomy - which, contrary to a statement earlier in this thread, is anal penetration of a male by a male - and acts of oral sex by a male on a male. These are supposedly acceptable between a man and a woman, but not between two males.

Remeber that other items forbidden are the sacrifice of children to Moloch (a fire sacrifice), the seething of a kid in it's mother's milk (a Canaanite practice) and worship of graven images - a practice common to most local religions of the time. All were partly proposed in order to distinguish the monotheistic religion of Moses and the jewish people from all other neighbouring tribes.

Do graven images include symbols depicting the tortuous execution of a political prisoner? Or statues of his mother?

SC

It's not unheard of for there to be gay Popes though.

Unmarried and not practicing ?

This is the whole point of the law as set out in Leviticus 18 (and elsewhere).

The social position of preferring the company of one sex to the other is not commented upon.

What is forbidden, and referred to as an abomination, is the act of 'laying with a man as with a woman' - in other words there is no stigma in preferring the company of men, or even demonstrating close friendship (except for the old IDF saying that we have nothing to fear from an army that holds hands).

What is condemned is the act of sodomy - which, contrary to a statement earlier in this thread, is anal penetration of a male by a male - and acts of oral sex by a male on a male. These are supposedly acceptable between a man and a woman, but not between two males.

Remeber that other items forbidden are the sacrifice of children to Moloch (a fire sacrifice), the seething of a kid in it's mother's milk (a Canaanite practice) and worship of graven images - a practice common to most local religions of the time. All were partly proposed in order to distinguish the monotheistic religion of Moses and the jewish people from all other neighbouring tribes.

Do graven images include symbols depicting the tortuous execution of a political prisoner? Or statues of his mother?

SC

Don't forget that the New Testament supersedes the Old, and fortunately we don't have to observe the obsolete dietary laws which Jews are still supposed to keep. Nor is the prohibition of graven images still in force. Some sects, however, still thought/think so.... hence the destruction of many treasures in the English churches by the Puritans (and indeed by those charged with the dissolution of the monasteries). Hence indeed the word iconoclast.... which you can look up if you need to!

Is the inference that the retiring Pope enjoys the same fantasies of the flesh as the sacked Cardinal?

You can infer almost anything from anything else if you try hard enough! If I admire an attractive woman, you might even infer that I'm not gay.... but you would be wrong!

It's not unheard of for there to be gay Popes though.

I'm not applying for the job, JT!

Would you want a job where you had to wear red shoes?

Santa never complains.

He only works one night a year.

I'm not applying for the job, JT!

You never know. You may find yourself in the position of "superseding" without any desire.

Don't forget that the New Testament supersedes the Old

There goes the 10 commandment and original sin

It's not unheard of for there to be gay Popes though.

Unmarried and not practicing ?

This is the whole point of the law as set out in Leviticus 18 (and elsewhere).

The social position of preferring the company of one sex to the other is not commented upon.

What is forbidden, and referred to as an abomination, is the act of 'laying with a man as with a woman' - in other words there is no stigma in preferring the company of men, or even demonstrating close friendship (except for the old IDF saying that we have nothing to fear from an army that holds hands).

What is condemned is the act of sodomy - which, contrary to a statement earlier in this thread, is anal penetration of a male by a male - and acts of oral sex by a male on a male.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sodomy

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sodomy

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sodomy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggery

Please note part of the entry in the last link above talking about sodomy as an offense:

"At common law consent was not a defence;[5] nor was the fact that the parties were married.[6] " (My bold).

Sodomy as an offense between homosexuals in the UK was removed by the 1967 Sexual Offences Act. Sodomy as an offense between heterosexuals in the UK was removed by the 2003 Sexual Offenses Act.

It's not unheard of for there to be gay Popes though.

Unmarried and not practicing ?

This is the whole point of the law as set out in Leviticus 18 (and elsewhere).

The social position of preferring the company of one sex to the other is not commented upon.

What is forbidden, and referred to as an abomination, is the act of 'laying with a man as with a woman' - in other words there is no stigma in preferring the company of men, or even demonstrating close friendship (except for the old IDF saying that we have nothing to fear from an army that holds hands).

What is condemned is the act of sodomy - which, contrary to a statement earlier in this thread, is anal penetration of a male by a male - and acts of oral sex by a male on a male.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sodomy

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sodomy

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sodomy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggery

Please note part of the entry in the last link above talking about sodomy as an offense:

"At common law consent was not a defence;[5] nor was the fact that the parties were married.[6] " (My bold).

Sodomy as an offense between homosexuals in the UK was removed by the 1967 Sexual Offences Act. Sodomy as an offense between heterosexuals in the UK was removed by the 2003 Sexual Offenses Act.

I am sure we can agree that the RC curch leans a bit further to the right than the liberal UK justice system and still views sodomy as a sin.

It's not unheard of for there to be gay Popes though.

Unmarried and not practicing ?

This is the whole point of the law as set out in Leviticus 18 (and elsewhere).

The social position of preferring the company of one sex to the other is not commented upon.

What is forbidden, and referred to as an abomination, is the act of 'laying with a man as with a woman' - in other words there is no stigma in preferring the company of men, or even demonstrating close friendship (except for the old IDF saying that we have nothing to fear from an army that holds hands).

What is condemned is the act of sodomy - which, contrary to a statement earlier in this thread, is anal penetration of a male by a male - and acts of oral sex by a male on a male.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sodomy

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sodomy

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sodomy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggery

Please note part of the entry in the last link above talking about sodomy as an offense:

"At common law consent was not a defence;[5] nor was the fact that the parties were married.[6] " (My bold).

Sodomy as an offense between homosexuals in the UK was removed by the 1967 Sexual Offences Act. Sodomy as an offense between heterosexuals in the UK was removed by the 2003 Sexual Offenses Act.

I am sure we can agree that the RC curch leans a bit further to the right than the liberal UK justice system and still views sodomy as a sin.

I think you presume too much when you identify things on which you believe we could agree. I trust that over-confidence is the worst of your failings

SC

Excerpt from a x-refferenced post. Also from other sources i funded my opinion on him,

Joseph Ratzinger joined the Hitler Youth in 1941 when, according to him
and his supporters, it became compulsory for all German boys

He was with the Hitler Jugend.

Also Razinger said: "The problem is not out there but there lies a problem within the curch"

Excerpt from a x-refferenced post. Also from other sources i funded my opinion on him,

Joseph Ratzinger joined the Hitler Youth in 1941 when, according to him

and his supporters, it became compulsory for all German boys

He was with the Hitler Jugend.

How do Dutch Catholics feel about this Pope?

He's history now. Not dead but hidden away.

Next ...

How about having two popes? One old, known to be progressive, and knowing how things work in the Vatican, and the second young, energetic, and prepared to stick his neck out and get things done. The Pope Mentor and the Executive Pope! The final word should lie with the Executive Pope.

Excerpt from a x-refferenced post. Also from other sources i funded my opinion on him,

Joseph Ratzinger joined the Hitler Youth in 1941 when, according to him

and his supporters, it became compulsory for all German boys

He was with the Hitler Jugend.

"according to him and his supporters"

= bullshit! joining the HJ was compulsory. period!

Excerpt from a x-refferenced post. Also from other sources i funded my opinion on him,

Joseph Ratzinger joined the Hitler Youth in 1941 when, according to him

and his supporters, it became compulsory for all German boys

He was with the Hitler Jugend.

"according to him and his supporters"

= bullshit! joining the HJ was compulsory. period!

After leaving the NJ he joined the Nazi party a few years later, was that compulsory?

How about having two popes? One old, known to be progressive, and knowing how things work in the Vatican, and the second young, energetic, and prepared to stick his neck out and get things done. The Pope Mentor and the Executive Pope! The final word should lie with the Executive Pope.

How about letting the 1 billion+ Catholics let their own light shine without instruction from the Vatican?

I would also quit if i had to wear red shoes

How about having two popes? One old, known to be progressive, and knowing how things work in the Vatican, and the second young, energetic, and prepared to stick his neck out and get things done. The Pope Mentor and the Executive Pope! The final word should lie with the Executive Pope.

How about letting the 1 billion+ Catholics let their own light shine without instruction from the Vatican?

most of the catholics i know give very little consideration to the vatican.

How about having two popes? One old, known to be progressive, and knowing how things work in the Vatican, and the second young, energetic, and prepared to stick his neck out and get things done. The Pope Mentor and the Executive Pope! The final word should lie with the Executive Pope.

How about letting the 1 billion+ Catholics let their own light shine without instruction from the Vatican?

I think you would get the fragmentation which has happened among Protestants.... and most Catholics value their unity.

most of the catholics i know give very little consideration to the vatican.

Yes, we can do that so long as we are united as a Church. In certain ways, and despite all the rules, that enables us to be more rather than less independent. But as a gay Catholic, who am I to say?

It's easy to post silly reactions to my 'suggestion', and I'm sure some people will.... but I think the concept has some merit, even if it does sound a bit Singaporean!

Excerpt from a x-refferenced post. Also from other sources i funded my opinion on him,

Joseph Ratzinger joined the Hitler Youth in 1941 when, according to him

and his supporters, it became compulsory for all German boys

He was with the Hitler Jugend.

How do Dutch Catholics feel about this Pope?

To be frank i do not know any.

How about having two popes? One old, known to be progressive, and knowing how things work in the Vatican, and the second young, energetic, and prepared to stick his neck out and get things done. The Pope Mentor and the Executive Pope! The final word should lie with the Executive Pope.

Good idea, but why call the bloke who does not have the final say a pope.

I think it would be more palatable to the theocracy to have a doddery old pope, and a more active pope's representative. That would work so long as the pope was fit enough to wield a rubber stamp.

SC

Excerpt from a x-refferenced post. Also from other sources i funded my opinion on him,

Joseph Ratzinger joined the Hitler Youth in 1941 when, according to him

and his supporters, it became compulsory for all German boys

He was with the Hitler Jugend.

"according to him and his supporters"

= bullshit! joining the HJ was compulsory. period!

I understand he was there against his will, obviously, but still, it doesn't look very well on his resume..

Apologies sir, Naam.

Excerpt from a x-refferenced post. Also from other sources i funded my opinion on him,

Joseph Ratzinger joined the Hitler Youth in 1941 when, according to him

and his supporters, it became compulsory for all German boys

He was with the Hitler Jugend.

"according to him and his supporters"

= bullshit! joining the HJ was compulsory. period!

I understand he was there against his will, obviously, but still, it doesn't look very well on his resume..

Apologies sir, Naam.

I didn't think he was applying for another job. I thought he was quitting for personal reasons.

If I'm wrong there, then I wish him every success in whatever career he chooses to follow.

SC

EDIT: Perhaps, with their vast breadth of experience from all walks of life and all corners of the globe, the TV membership could offer him some constructive career guidance; it must be a challenge for a chap who has worked most of his life in one company.

I think his experience in the Hitler Youth, and the moral compass instilled in him at the highest levels of the Vatican would make him ideally suited to a successful career in the Royal Thai Police

How about having two popes? One old, known to be progressive, and knowing how things work in the Vatican, and the second young, energetic, and prepared to stick his neck out and get things done. The Pope Mentor and the Executive Pope! The final word should lie with the Executive Pope.

Good idea, but why call the bloke who does not have the final say a pope.

I think it would be more palatable to the theocracy to have a doddery old pope, and a more active pope's representative. That would work so long as the pope was fit enough to wield a rubber stamp.

SC

I don't want a doddery one, SC! I was thinking of one of the 70-80 year olds who are still perfectly fit, but just not up to the full rigours of the job. Even the splendidly-named Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, who is over 80, and gets my vote just for his name. And I want the younger one to have the last word. But I don't mind what their titles are.

The theocracy, as you call it, has got another think coming; indeed, a lot more thinks!