After careful consideration I have come to the conclusion the a major
problem regarding the sexual abuse and the Catholic priests could have
easily be solved if Public Flogging were made legal again.

Dimitri

On 5/10/2010 5:47 PM, Dimitri wrote:
> After careful consideration I have come to the conclusion the a major
> problem regarding the sexual abuse and the Catholic priests could have
> easily be solved if Public Flogging were made legal again.

It is quite legal in the Vatican if the Pope orders it.

"J. Clarke" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/10/2010 5:47 PM, Dimitri wrote:
>> After careful consideration I have come to the conclusion the a major
>> problem regarding the sexual abuse and the Catholic priests could have
>> easily be solved if Public Flogging were made legal again.
>
> It is quite legal in the Vatican if the Pope orders it.

Then he should have so the "faithful" could have seen punishment for those
"scumbags"

Dimitri

On May 10, 4:47*pm, "Dimitri" > wrote:
> After careful consideration I have come to the conclusion the a major
> problem regarding the sexual abuse and the Catholic priests could have
> easily be solved if Public Flogging were made legal again.

What did the priest say to the altar boy?
If you come in my rectory, I'll come in your rectum.
>
> Dimitri

--Bryan

Dimitri wrote:
> After careful consideration I have come to the conclusion the a major
> problem regarding the sexual abuse and the Catholic priests could have
> easily be solved if Public Flogging were made legal again.


Good idea, except that the way the Catholic church has acted over the
centuries they would more likely flog the people who dared to accuse a
priest. The major issue these days is not that there was abuse. There
are far to many cases of it for them to deny the extent of the problem.
The big issue now is that they covered it up and moved diddling priests
to other parishes where they found more kids to diddle.

In article > ,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> Dimitri wrote:
> > After careful consideration I have come to the conclusion the a major
> > problem regarding the sexual abuse and the Catholic priests could have
> > easily be solved if Public Flogging were made legal again.
>
>
> Good idea, except that the way the Catholic church has acted over the
> centuries they would more likely flog the people who dared to accuse a
> priest. The major issue these days is not that there was abuse. There
> are far to many cases of it for them to deny the extent of the problem.
> The big issue now is that they covered it up and moved diddling priests
> to other parishes where they found more kids to diddle.

Gives the word "Rectory" a whole new meaning?
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

On May 10, 4:47*pm, "Dimitri" > wrote:
> After careful consideration I have come to the conclusion the a major
> problem regarding the sexual abuse and the Catholic priests could have
> easily be solved if Public Flogging were made legal again.

Is that supposed to be cool and funny? **** you.

"Dimitri" > wrote in message
...
> After careful consideration I have come to the conclusion the a major
> problem regarding the sexual abuse and the Catholic priests could have
> easily be solved if Public Flogging were made legal again.
>
> Dimitri
>
>

Really? Just because you marked the post "Very OT" you felt that this
"revelation" of yours was appropriate to this cooking group? You should
have cross posted it to uk.food+drink to get some real mileage from your
troll. AMF.

In article >,
"Paco" > wrote:

> "Dimitri" > wrote in message
> ...
> > After careful consideration I have come to the conclusion the a major
> > problem regarding the sexual abuse and the Catholic priests could have
> > easily be solved if Public Flogging were made legal again.
> >
> > Dimitri
> >
> >
>
> Really? Just because you marked the post "Very OT" you felt that this
> "revelation" of yours was appropriate to this cooking group? You should
> have cross posted it to uk.food+drink to get some real mileage from your
> troll. AMF.

I'm surprised you didn't. ;-) Or even one of the political
newsgroups... (note I did NOT crosspost it!)
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

"Dimitri" > wrote in message
...
> After careful consideration I have come to the conclusion the a major
> problem regarding the sexual abuse and the Catholic priests could have
> easily be solved if Public Flogging were made legal again.
>
> Dimitri
>
>

It is a world wide and long long ongoing tragedy and it isn't confined to
catholic only. there is one faith that states the need for 'professional'
clergy is over and has none. they use what they call independent
investigation and you are left to read on your own. i mean really, why pay
some clod to read to you what you can read for yourself and make your own
decisions.

--
regards, piedmont (michael)
The Practical BBQ'r - http://sites.google.com/site/thepracticalbbqr/
(mawil55) Hardiness Zone 7-8

On May 11, 6:57*am, "piedmont" > wrote:
>
>
> --
> regards, piedmont (michael)
> The Practical BBQ'r -http://sites.google.com/site/thepracticalbbqr/
>
One of these days you should try some of this:

http://www.maull.com/sauces.html

You mop it on while Qing. I have a technique where I add heat
(capsaicin in whatever form)* to the sauce in a bowl, use 2/3-3/4 of
the contents to baste, then top off the sauce, thus diluting the
heat. I repeat for a second, then third basting, the third basting
have even less heat than the second. Doing the math for the ''2/3'',
the second basting will be only 1/3 as hot as the first, the third
basting, only 1/9 as hot, so you can make the first batch pretty hot.
That cooks into the meat somewhat, while the final saucing--the one
that will get on the outside of ones mouth--will be non-injurious. Of
course you can use that technique with any mop on sauce, but Maull's
(and some people really dislike the stuff) is certainly unique.

* You can use ground cayenne/arbol/whatever, but I prefer going
straight to the Pure Cap:
http://www.cosmicchile.com/site/pure-cap.html

--Bryan

Mike wrote:

> there is one faith that states the need for 'professional' clergy is over
> and has none. they use what they call independent investigation and you
> are left to read on your own.

Scientology?

Bob

"Omelet" > wrote in message
news
> In article > ,
> Dave Smith > wrote:
>
>> Dimitri wrote:
>> > After careful consideration I have come to the conclusion the a major
>> > problem regarding the sexual abuse and the Catholic priests could have
>> > easily be solved if Public Flogging were made legal again.
>>
>>
>> Good idea, except that the way the Catholic church has acted over the
>> centuries they would more likely flog the people who dared to accuse a
>> priest. The major issue these days is not that there was abuse. There
>> are far to many cases of it for them to deny the extent of the problem.
>> The big issue now is that they covered it up and moved diddling priests
>> to other parishes where they found more kids to diddle.
>
> Gives the word "Rectory" a whole new meaning?
> --

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpuYoK6wv_Y

On May 10, 11:00*pm, Omelet > wrote:
> Gives the word "Rectory" a whole new meaning?

I believe the word "rectus" is Latin for "straight", as in rectus
abdominus, rectus femoris (the straight muscles of the abdomen and
thigh) and of course the rectum which is the straight segment of large
intestine immediately following the sigmoid colon.

Just some entomological trivia for ya! I have no idea how that Latin
root figures into the word "rectory".

John Kuthe...

How about the catholic church returning to what the bible says about
marriage being okay for men to marry women instead of trying to obey
"church" laws which obviously don't work.

cal

Jesus loves you.

On May 11, 8:57Â*am, (€* cal) wrote:
> How about the catholic church returning to what the bible says about
> marriage being okay for men to marry women instead of trying to obey
> "church" laws which obviously don't work.

And the Bible specifically addresses that very thing. In Chapter 7,
verses 8-9 of 1 Cor it says, ''I say therefore to the unmarried and
widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they
cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn
[with lust].''

In this chapter, Paul says that celibacy is good, if you can do it
without it messing with your mind, but otherwise it is fine to marry.
The Vatican could have rescinded the priestly celibacy thing, while
making it policy that the very highest ranks of church hierarchy would
be reserved for those who lived as Paul did.

It also says:

3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise
also the wife unto the husband.

4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and
likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the
wife.

5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time,
that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together
again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

Which specifically recommends (not commands*) that husbands and wives
dedicate themselves to sexually satisfying each other, which is nice.
It uses the word, ''defraud'' to describe denying sex to your spouse.

* 6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
>
> cal
>
--Bryan, rfc's unofficial resident Biblical scholar

On May 11, 8:08*am, "Bob Terwilliger" >
wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > there is one faith that states the need for 'professional' clergy is over
> > and has none. they use what they call independent investigation and you
> > are left to read on your own.
>
> Scientology?

Their ''clergy'' are the *most* professional. The whole thing is a
business to scam initiates by getting them to pay for ''auditing.''
>
> Bob

--Bryan

"Dimitri" > wrote:
>
> After careful consideration I have come to the conclusion the a major
> problem regarding the sexual abuse and the Catholic priests could have
> easily be solved if Public Flogging were made legal again.

That's utterly inane... simply castrate them... all priests should be
castrated... they take a vow of celebacy so why do they need
testicals? duh

Anyone thinks the pope didn't rise all the way to king buggerer
without abusing a whole lot of altar boys along the way has their head
up their ass... nuns too, WTF do they need clits and ovaries... jesus
ain't gonna sneak into their beds at night and diddle them...
waitaminute, jesus is the pool guy! LOL

brooklyn1 wrote:
> "Dimitri" > wrote:
>> After careful consideration I have come to the conclusion the a major
>> problem regarding the sexual abuse and the Catholic priests could have
>> easily be solved if Public Flogging were made legal again.
>
> That's utterly inane... simply castrate them... all priests should be
> castrated... they take a vow of celebacy so why do they need
> testicals? duh

Works for me.
IMO, if you recruit only from the ranks of those who are willing to give
up a normal, healthy sex life, you are limited to those people who think
that sex is dirty and sinful, so you are likely to get a number of
perverts.

The sad thing is that this stuff has been going on for years. It has
been a standing joke even among Catholics. Despite the fact that they
knew that (some) priests were molesting children, many Catholics
accepted it, and the upper echelons did their best to cover up the
abuse. Instead of having them arrested or even booting them out of the
priesthood, they simply moved them to another parish.

"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote in message
...
> Mike wrote:
>
>> there is one faith that states the need for 'professional' clergy is over
>> and has none. they use what they call independent investigation and you
>> are left to read on your own.
>
> Scientology?
>
> Bob

Baha'i

--
regards, piedmont (michael)
The Practical BBQ'r - http://sites.google.com/site/thepracticalbbqr/
(mawil55) Hardiness Zone 7-8

On Mon, 10 May 2010 14:47:23 -0700, Dimitri wrote:

> After careful consideration I have come to the conclusion the a major
> problem regarding the sexual abuse and the Catholic priests could have
> easily be solved if Public Flogging were made legal again.
>
> Dimitri

Abstinence makes the church grow fondlers.

- some yo-yo on the 'net

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 11 May 2010 09:57:38 -0400, † cal wrote:
>
> Jesus loves you.

well, sure, but He never calls the next day.

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 10 May 2010 21:29:40 -0700 (PDT), projectile vomit chick wrote:

> On May 10, 4:47*pm, "Dimitri" > wrote:
>> After careful consideration I have come to the conclusion the a major
>> problem regarding the sexual abuse and the Catholic priests could have
>> easily be solved if Public Flogging were made legal again.
>
> Is that supposed to be cool and funny? **** you.

aww, were projectile vomit chick's delicate sensibilities offended?

blake

On Tue, 11 May 2010 06:08:39 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> Mike wrote:
>
>> there is one faith that states the need for 'professional' clergy is over
>> and has none. they use what they call independent investigation and you
>> are left to read on your own.
>
> Scientology?
>
> Bob

l. ron hubbard couldn't write worth shit, but he did invent himself a dandy
and profitable religion. the only 'followers' heinlein can claim are
goofy libertarians.

your pal,
tanstaafl

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 11 May 2010 09:57:38 -0400, ? cal wrote:
>>
>> Jesus loves you.
>
> well, sure, but He never calls the next day.
>
> your pal,
> blake

<SPEW>

Felice

On May 11, 11:39*am, blake murphy > wrote:
> On Mon, 10 May 2010 21:29:40 -0700 (PDT), projectile vomit chick wrote:
> > On May 10, 4:47*pm, "Dimitri" > wrote:
> >> After careful consideration I have come to the conclusion the a major
> >> problem regarding the sexual abuse and the Catholic priests could have
> >> easily be solved if Public Flogging were made legal again.
>
> > Is that supposed to be cool and funny? ***** you.
>
> aww, were projectile vomit chick's delicate sensibilities offended?

Maybe her boyfriend is a priest.
>
> blake

--Bryan

""? cal"" > wrote in message
...
> How about the catholic church returning to what the bible says about
> marriage being okay for men to marry women instead of trying to obey
> "church" laws which obviously don't work.
>
> cal

They used to be able to marry until some Pope thought better of it a few
hundred years ago. Celibacy is a church law, not a doctrine and a Pope
could change it at any time. Doubt it will happen though, for another few
generations anyway.

"Omelet" > wrote in message
news
> In article >,
> "Paco" > wrote:
>
>> "Dimitri" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > After careful consideration I have come to the conclusion the a major
>> > problem regarding the sexual abuse and the Catholic priests could have
>> > easily be solved if Public Flogging were made legal again.
>> >
>> > Dimitri
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Really? Just because you marked the post "Very OT" you felt that this
>> "revelation" of yours was appropriate to this cooking group? You should
>> have cross posted it to uk.food+drink to get some real mileage from your
>> troll. AMF.
>
> I'm surprised you didn't. ;-) Or even one of the political
> newsgroups... (note I did NOT crosspost it!)

Not me. I try my best to avoid crossposting irrelevant nonsense. I even
try to keep Jerry out of this group when I can, and save that nonsense for
where it belongs: in the a.f.f-f playpen. As you know, anything goes
there! I could carry on about this post, but what's the point? Suffice it
to say that, IMO, the OP has dropped down to the "Peter Lucas poser" status.
Not that my opinion means anything to anyone besides me, but I can post it;
this is Usenet.

On 5/11/2010 11:01 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> ""? cal"" > wrote in message
> ...
>> How about the catholic church returning to what the bible says about
>> marriage being okay for men to marry women instead of trying to obey
>> "church" laws which obviously don't work.
>>
>> cal
>
> They used to be able to marry until some Pope thought better of it a few
> hundred years ago. Celibacy is a church law, not a doctrine and a Pope
> could change it at any time. Doubt it will happen though, for another
> few generations anyway.

My understanding is it was because of the property laws of Europe of the
time. The church property was held in the name of the priest and
property went to the surviving spouse so if the priest were married the
wife could end up owning the church property.

I am sure that there are truly sincere folks who can be and are celibant.

But that life is also a safe place for a *** guy who likes young boys.

2Now a bishop (superintendent, overseer) must give no grounds for
accusation but must be above reproach, the HUSBAND of one WIFE,
circumspect and temperate and self-controlled; [he must be] sensible and
well behaved and dignified and lead an orderly (disciplined) life; [he
must be] hospitable [showing love for and being a friend to the
believers, especially strangers or foreigners, and be] a capable and
qualified teacher,
*** 3Not given to wine, not combative but gentle and considerate,
not quarrelsome but forbearing and peaceable, and not a lover of money
[insatiable for wealth and ready to obtain it by questionable means].
*** 4He must rule his own HOUSEHOLD well, keeping his CHILDREN
under control, with true dignity, commanding their respect in every way
and keeping them respectful.
*** 5For if a man does not know how to rule his own household, how
is he to take care of the church of God?
*** 6He must not be a new convert, or he may [develop a beclouded
and stupid state of mind] as the result of pride [be blinded by conceit,
and] fall into the condemnation that the devil [once] did.(A)
*** 7Furthermore, he must have a good reputation and be well
thought of by those outside [the church], lest he become involved in
slander and incur reproach and fall into the devil's trap.

1 Tim 3:2----

cal
-----don't want to argue, just want the bible to be state in full and
correctly.

On May 12, 11:14Â*pm, (€* cal) wrote:

> 1 Tim 3:2----
>
> cal
> -----don't want to argue, just want the bible to be state in full and
> correctly.

>
>
Periods and spaces after numbers certainly make for much easier
reading.

Example:

2. Now a bishop (superintendent, overseer) must give no grounds for
accusation but must be above reproach, the HUSBAND of one WIFE,
circumspect and temperate and self-controlled; [he must be] sensible
and
well behaved and dignified and lead an orderly (disciplined) life;
[he
must be] hospitable [showing love for and being a friend to the
believers, especially strangers or foreigners, and be] a capable and
qualified teacher.

On May 12, 11:14Â*pm, (€* cal) wrote:
> 2Now a bishop (superintendent, overseer) must give no grounds for
> accusation but must be above reproach, the HUSBAND of one WIFE

Sure, but that is pretty obviously to forbid him being the husband of
multiple wives.
Paul of Tarsus was not always the most consistent dude.
>
> cal
> -----don't want to argue, just want the bible to be state in full and
> correctly.

--Bryan