FB is the devil's work!!!!
* as much as the RC Church understands evidence.
A Spanish nun has been kicked out of her closed religious order after clocking up 600 friends on Facebook. After 35 years closeted at the 700-year-old Santa Domingo el Real convent in Toledo, Maria Jesus Galan is back living with her mum, and has declared she rather fancies visiting New York and London. The convent reportedly …
FB is the devil's work!!!!
* as much as the RC Church understands evidence.
Did the iPenance App get a papal thumbs up a few weeks ago? So iPhones are good, but FB is bad...
"Nuns. No sense of humour."
"NUNS! NUNS! REVERSE! REVERSE!"
Well those 88mm AA Nuns can make short work of a Priest.
As can Sister Assumpta (who can also make short work of a large amount of chocolate)
She's a big strong girl.
"Dominicans are known for their focus on education."
Also known for their inhumane toture. Just ask the Cathars....second thoughts you can't because they killed them all off.
we are talking about farcebook here...
The Catholic church ....
"What remained of the city was razed by fire. Arnaud wrote to Pope Innocent III, "Today your Holiness, twenty thousand heretics were put to the sword, regardless of rank, age, or sex." (on the taking of Carcassone in 1209 - from Wikipedia).
Who cares what this murderous organisation or it's representatives think?
Are you trying to judge an organisation based on something that was done EIGHT HUNDRED years ago??!
What were YOUR ancestors doing at the time then? All sweetness and light?
It was a very different, very BRUTAL, world back then - to try and apply today's morality to it is just idiotic.
"It was a very different, very BRUTAL, world back then - to try and apply today's morality to it is just idiotic."
Yet there are those from the church who want to apply the morality of two thousand or more years ago to the world today!
Don't be inconsistent - why can't you judge an organisation which claims its morality is based on teachings from 2000 to 5000 year old on events that happened merely 800 years ago?
I don't think anyone is judging the the modern organisation of the Domincans! Just saying it's founder Domingo Félix de Guzmán was not exactly a "Saint" going by modern day standards.
ALL I Know for certain is my ancestors were probably Catholics and certainly not Cathars.
>>Are you trying to judge an organisation based on something
>>that was done EIGHT HUNDRED years ago??!
I think on the basis that the organisation in question promotes living a life style popular a couple of millenia ago, I think it is justified.
Aliens - because they probably exist, somewhere, unlike the mythical big man.
...why said organisation applies morality from 'back then' to today.
to get away from the Israel-Hamas conflict on another page.
I never knew how exciting IT could be, until I discovered The Reg.
"why can't you judge an organisation which claims its morality is based on teachings from 2000 to 5000 year old on events that happened merely 800 years ago?"
Because the hierarchy of the church is composed of human beings, and the corruption of the clergy during the so-called Holy Roman Empire is well documented and accepted both within and outside of the church.
Changes caused by the era include the introduction of celibacy for priests (to avoid dynastic empire building and misappropriation of funds), a ban on clergy taking most positions of public office (effectively separating church and state) and the reform of the doctrine of "papal infallibility" from "the pope's always right" to applicability in vastly more restricted circumstances.
If you're going to try to judge the catholic church "in its own terms", you need to know what those terms are first, otherwise no-one's going to give any serious consideration to your argument.
Firstly, you are making an assertion that I don't know the terms of reference which constitute your organisation's philosophy. Maybe I do, maybe I don't - my question is agnostic to the underlying facts and only deals with the logic of the debate.
Secondly, you are trying to argue that the deeds of some human beings at some time in the past should be disregarded, while the writings of other human beings at some other time in the past should be accepted when forming an opinion of your organisation. This arbitrary selection of evidence invalidates your argument.
It is only because some people don't pretend that whatever is the "done thing" at the time is OK that anything improves. For example, some people didn't think slavery was acceptable even in societies where it was the norm. There were people *before* women got the vote who thought they should have it - otherwise they still wouldn't.
Maybe, just maybe, James 5 was not applying today's morality, but his own ... what's that thing called? Human decency.
In fact it is organisations like the Catholic Church that apply the morality of the day. They do whatever they think will be acceptable to enough people that they can get away with it. So if brutal mass murder is normal they'll do it. If it isn't they'll condemn it.
We're much more civilised today than the Catholics of 1200AD.
We use the word "terrorists" instead of "heretics".
Instead of an imaginary friend, we have imaginary WMDs. We are so much more advanced, don't you know?
When we go rampaging around, killing people, it's for a good cause. Or votes, or oil.
We give our allegiance to Science rather than the Christian God and this has brought so many benefits, one of which means that when we go to war, very few of our own people die and lots more of our enemies die, even those not yet born at the time of our attacks.
Mind you, it isn't surprising that we are willing to sacrifice the unborn children of our enemies. We sacrifice almost 200,000 our own on the altar of adult's rights and lifestyle choice *every year* in the UK alone. We do the Cathar slaughter 10 times every year using our children as Cathars. That's over fifty 9/11's-worth of dead babies. It's ok though because we agreed between ourselves that it is ok and wrote it down on a bit of paper. I'm sure the worshipers of Moloch didn't do that.
Sorry, were we talking about murderous organisations and brutal societies?
I'm sure religion is the problem. All hail Science and Democracy! See how much we've changed since the middle ages!
"It's good to see people referring to the Roman Catholic Church as an organisation as distinct from any personal means towards spiritual fulfilment."
Sorry to be harsh here, Chuts, but spiritual fulfilment is not anything good or meaningful if it means uncritical faith and the worship of a hypothetical being.
Personal development begins with seeking truth, regardless of which organisations you associate with.
"Sr Maria's expulsion does appear to be a result of internal strife, rather than any Church position on Facebook."
So she (a) used Facebook and (b) got kicked out of the convent, but there is no clear indication about what the relation between (a) and (b) is? And I thought El Reg was read by people with a scientific mind-set. (Perhaps global warming is caused by a lack of pirates after all)
...one less brainwashed member of a cult.
Always the stickler, I read "Sr" as the (former) nun's "title", but to the best of my knowledge, "Sr" is the abbreviation of "Señor". So, unless she has had gender reassignment or been quick to get married after being expelled from the convent, I would expect her to be a señorita and thus "Srta" -- in case she has been married, she should be "señora", "Sra".
I might, obviously, be completely off on this and "Sr" meaning something completely different -- and appropriate -- in this context, thus making an arse of myself! (That would certainly not be the first time ;-)
Sr == Sister
Quite common for nuns, so I'm told
now call me Dr.
As "Sister" in this context.
Frankly though, who cares?
Sr. would be Sister
but while reading, I interpreted Sr as Sister. eg Sister Mary....
Sr. stands for "Señor" which would translate as "Sir", "Dear Sir" = "Estimado Señor", aprox.
for a nun it would "Sor"
(The pirate flag as we need more pirates to avoid global warming )
I think you're right. Sr couldn't possibly be an abbreviation for anything else.
In addition to this gender reassignment, the saint after whom the convent is named has been feminised. He should be Santo Domingo el Real.
The author uses English-language honorifics
That means you owe money, doesn't it?
Or is that joke too old.
Coat for obvious reasons as is the anon!
"the Pope issued a warning to social-networking Catholics not to trivialise or dilute the message of Christianity"
they are working on this - lots of enthusiasm for the old Latin mass from all these recent converts (plus those who were always opposed to Vatican 2); yet another thing p*sing off those cradle catholics who haven't moved elsewhere yet.
I wonder how many times she got poked?
In a short period of time the expelled sister will learn to regard what has happened to her as a miraculous blessing...
Give it up on the ancient feuding people, I'm all for multiculturalism! For instance I'm *just* starting to get uses to all those Roman/Frenchy/Viking sorts hanging around these Isles. It does add a bit of colour to the place you know.
PS: I really don't mind them but hey do often reek of garlic and drink that awful alcoholic red stuff made from some some bizarre small squishy fruit clumps. As for not believing in lots of gods that you can actually see (sun,rock,plant,animal,sky) and only in one invisible one, Well, It might impact the hut prices around here (its already at two goats and a hen!) Thats all I'm saying, you know.
/ tongue, cheek, coat.
...she tried to sell her virginity on eBay.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017