Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Gold Jacket, Green Jacket...

I’m upset about news of the new pope.
Upset, but not surprised

I guess I was just hoping for some tiny sign
A message that the church was open to progressive change, however small

The new pope, Pope Benedict XVI, would most likely say that what I want is relativism, which according to him is letting oneself be “swept along by every wind of teaching.”

I have never been swept along by anything in my life and I resent the implication that those who yearn for change within the church don’t have strong beliefs and are simply mindless slaves to public opinion.

And according to him fundamentalism is actually “having a clear faith” based on the church’s creed.

Now that is a terrifying statement.

Pope Benedict XVI “has been the driving force behind crackdowns on liberation theology, religious pluralism, challenges to traditional moral teachings on issues such as homosexuality, and the dissent on such issues as women’s ordination.”

I’m done.

Mark it down people…it’s official. Whenever I do end up getting married, I will be the first person in our family not to get married in a Catholic Church.

PS- A big thanks to Liz and Nick for last night. Without them, I never would have been able to get Jeff the perfect anniversary present. I haven’t given it to him, so I can’t reveal the details just yet…but Operation Anniversary was a huge success…Off Air!

Psst…Happy 2 year my love

“I'm only here tonight because of you. You are the reason I am. You are all my reasons.”


At 6:13 AM, Blogger Amy Boyd said...

You & Jeff have been dating for 2 years already! Wow, time flies!
So Mary will you help me talk you brother into not getting our baby baptized in a Catholic Church? I too could not believe the choice, don't understand. anyway... we had the first ultrasound. Amazing to see the little heart beating. Fe Fe is displayed proudly on our fridge next to all the other amazing kids in our life. (calling the baby fe fe... the doctor kept referring to the fetus, needed something else ... so it's like fetus and Felix combined... my dad is honored) Have a great day!

At 10:10 AM, Blogger John said...

I"m what point was the Catholic religion supposed to change almost 2,000 years of belief as a result of the last 60 years of "progressive thought"? People seem all too eager to forget that the church is not supposed to listen to us, we listen to the church. We don't tell God what to believe, it works the other way people! If you don't like it, then you don't be a Catholic! I am dumbfounded by all these people who scream for the church to change. Who are we to demand such things?! What the church stands for and has stood for should NEVER change! That is the great and powerful thing about religion. It is a rock, a steady unchanging guide. It is not progressive, relativist or anything else. It has clear unambigious and unchanging principles. That is the whole point! Now do I agree with most of the Catholic dogma? Absolutely not. Do I care if I get married in a Catholic church? Not a bit. But any religion that shifts beliefs as a result of its followers doesn't deserve to be considered a religion. That would be a government.
I'm out, happy two years guys!

At 12:24 PM, Blogger Chris said...

I don't want to repeat what John just said but I can't emphasize enough how while the progressive movement is a good idea for some aspects of life, the Catholic church is built on tradition and we have no right to bend that. Unlike John, I do agree with "most" of the Catholic dogma, but then again, I don't know if you can find any one person who is 100 percent certain and in agreement of everything. But as far as change goes, we are Catholics because we believe in what our religion stands for, and we believe in Jesus Christ and how he fits in our life. I'm proud to be a Catholic and while I'm currently searching for change in my life, I can almost always count on the church for a consistent, traditional set of values that I can live on.

At 2:00 PM, Anonymous Jess said...

Come to the dark side Mary! See what the rage was all about with Martin Luther! I think his 95 theises will provide you with the answers you need. John and Chris make great points but ummm, there's one thing, these religions are MAN (not even inclusive human) made, and man makes mistakes in trying to worship perfection. And yes John God tells us what to believe...priests, popes, and the male clergy can make mistakes and their tradition tells us what to believe. God created beautiful women and made them the strongest, most faithful, individuals in the Bible - I missed the part that they are substandard and should not publicly express their love and struggles in trying to honor the lord, let alone should really steer clear of the altar (see John Paul II writings on altar girls). The Catholic Church makes mistakes -that's ok, what is not ok with me is a religion that is unwilling to take a hard look at itself and fix those mistakes. Not helping Jews during the Holocaust, being slow to call for the end of descrimination of blacks in this country, truning a blind eye to child abuse - mistake! Or in the case of Martin Luther, selling relics to the rich for a quick slip through pergatory to heaven, mmmm...well to me doesn't seem kosher (pardon the expression). Catholism is a beautiful religion, and has some beautiful traditions and I have made my reconciliation with the Catholic church, but God has given me the strength and courage to practice my faith as a Christian in a different house of worship. So don't worry as far as the folks are concerned on our side I've already soften the blow for you guys (that is if the wedding would involved Jeff) on our side. And I have some serious information gaps in the Boyd gossip! Is Amy pregnant too?! How exciting and Krissy hasn't been publishing comments, how is her little bundle doing? Later gator

At 8:26 PM, Blogger Jeff said...

I'm sorry John, but at what point did we "people" ever concede that religion wasn't supposed to change? At what point did Catholic believers agree to be sheep to the beliefs the Church dishes out? Enlighten me, because I think I missed that part of the assumpt..discussion.

My point is that religion is not unambiguous, as you claim a religion must be, but rather the reflection of the faith and spirituality of its people.

Under your definition, it sounds you'd be content to let people of the Church and other religions bang their heads into a theological wall simply because a stubborn dogma is the point of "religion". Call me a progressive or a relativist -- whatever words Benedict XVI and fellow conservative Catholics would like to use disdainfully for my position -- I'd rather work for change than mute my own sense of faith, of religious duty, and what it means to be Catholic.

Becoming silent, to me, seems like cutting off our nose to spite our face. As my brilliant sister pointed out, the Catholic religion, just like all religions, is a man-made construct capable of making mistakes. To say otherwise ignores, well, all the mistakes it's made in the past, as she pointed out.

As Mary thoughtfully pointed out, we are not being swept along by anything. I too resent the notion that those who "yearn for change within the church don’t have strong beliefs and are simply mindless slaves to public opinion."

And for Chris -- we began to get into this that night on the surf trip. What are the consistent, traditional values that you look to for the Church to provide and find appealing? I don't want to sound over-aggressive, but as your friend, I'm interested in knowing specifically what those values are that lead you to its defense, beyond "our belief in Jesus Christ" and other vagueries.

At 7:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well Mary Boyd, you have done it again. I think it is great! First, congrats on the 2 years you and Jeff have spent together and many wishes for the years ahead.
Now...Benedict...well I was not surprised by the decision at all. I was discouraged, however. Indeed the Catholic religion does have amazing traditions! I still remain true to my religion because in the end I believe it is about God and me, not about the Pope or a priest...they will not decide which way I go when my time here is over. With that said, I am incredibly irritated at the fact that not only has this man been labeled a "transitory" Pope, but he has ties to the Nazi regime. I am not saying that we needed to elect someone with the hope he too would last 26 years,but I think that if they were truly looking for a transition Pope then why did they not look for a moderate, or at least someone from Africa/Latin America who has experienced 1 priest for every 50,000 worshipping Catholics. Tradition is great, but will it not too crumble if the Catholic Religion loses it's followers because of it's traditions? Is tradition still great if it turns people away?
And let us not forget, this man was part of the Nazi regime in Germany. Maybe it was forced, I am sure it was...but regardless. How can this man gain the enormous respect of other religions, (i.e. Judaism) with this in his past. It makes me sick that we have elected a Pope who was linked to one of the most grotesque displays of mankind.
I understand one can be forgiven, but I think we are all being naive if we assume that he will unite people. Maybe I am wrong-I hope I am. Maybe this man will make decisions that stray from his conservative side. This man has been known as "God's Rottweiler?" Just ponder that for a moment.
I believe my ramblings have gone on long enough. I could go on forever about this, but I will not. I am discouraged by the decision. We shall see what the future holds. For now...I just remember that "in the final analysis- it is between you and God. It was was never between you and them anyways."

At 7:04 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey again Mary.
Just wanted to let you know that I am the "Anonymous." I forgot my password so I just logged in with that. Let me know.
Love ya Mary~ Jack (:

At 7:28 AM, Anonymous Jay said...

Mary Kay,
i am sure that there are many, many people who feel the way you do - torn by the Catholic church. Not in agreeance with many of the teachings, but still believing the basics. And that's what i remind myself. When i stand in church, i am not asked to profess my belief that there should be no male priests, that homosexuality is a sin, etc. i am asked to profess that i believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen. That i believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ. And i do it with a group of people who believe it, too. And while others in the pew with me might have different views on the "issues" of the church, we can all agree on what we are professing in those pews. We are professing our faith - and that's something no pope can change!
And if you can't take anything away from the church, you can at least remember that our family is a result of that faith. Of those beliefs and of that upbringing. And that has made for some pretty incredible people and experiences.
Love you, Love, Jay

At 8:51 AM, Blogger John said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 8:55 AM, Blogger John said...

Jeff, I think after that post, you are officially banned from ever considering yourself a Catholic.

Before I get into it though, why the quotes and intentional reference to "people" at the beginning of your post? Are you not in fact a person?

Anyway, before getting into this it is important to establish one fact. That is the infallibility of the Church. This is a central tenant of Catholocism that was guaranteed by Christ before he died. It is THE Catholic dogma. If you do not beileve in the infallibility of the Roman Catholic church, you are not a true Catholic. This is not an assumption, you can go look this up for yourself in the Catholic Encyclopedia (I did). So if you don't believe in the doctrine of infallibility, stop reading now because you aren't a Catholic and no amount of arguing can change that.

That being established,
Your first question:

"At what point did we 'people' ever concede that religion wasn't supposed to change?"

By religion, I'll assume you mean Catholocism. To answer your question, you conceded that the moment you decided to be a Catholic.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"In the church there is a very extenive domain which is given over to theological speculation; and even in regard to doctrines that have been infallibly defined there is always room for further inquiry so as the better to understand, explain and defend them. The only thing one may NOT do is DENY or CHANGE them"

I added the caps :) Anyway, as you can see, church doctrine can only be further explained, defended and EXPANDED (gasp...) never changed. So that is where the "people" conceded this.

Question #2:

At what point did Catholic believers agree to be sheep to the beliefs the Church dishes out?

This is an interesting question because if you don't believe what the Church dishes out...why would you continue to follow that church? But I'll argue it anyway.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"One must listen to the voice of those whom God has expressly appointed to teach in His name, rather that to one's own private judgment deciding what God's teachment ought to be...he who chooses to make himself, instead of the authority which God has instituted, the final arbiter in matters of faith is far from possessing the true spirit of faith"

For the record, it is Catholic belief that Cardinals when congregated in decision (as in the recent conclave) are granted divine infallibility basically meaning that any pope they chose is God's choice. This means that popes and cardinals are expressly appointed by God.
So once again, you decided to be a sheep when you decided to say you're Catholic.

As for your statement that religion is not unambiguous, maybe some aren't, but Catholocism is not ambiguous. Maybe for you it is...but the Church does not consider itself to be ambiguous and that is what matters.

You say you would rather work for change than mute your own sense of faith, religious duty, and what it means to be a Catholic. Well, as you can see from above, it is a contradiction to say you are a Catholic and that you are working for change within the church. That is not our place. Our duty as Catholics is to obey, not question. That sounds very authoitarian...but that is the Church.

I do not question your sisters brilliance, but the Catholic religion (in its belief) does not make mistakes because it is infallible. What we perceive are mistakes, the Catholic religion deems part of a larger infallible plan (as in the decision wasn't a was what was supposed to happen). May sound like a cop out, but if you don't buy it, simply don't say that you're Catholic. Your sister also said religion is man made which Catholocism does not consider to be true. Catholics believe that Christ has guided every doctrinal decision the Church has ever made. Basically, men didn't make the Church, they are just the vocal instruments of God. So no, Catholocism is not man made.

Because your sister is the brilliant mature person she is, she doesn't try to change the church, she changes religions. That is what you do if you don't agree with religion, you don't try and pervert it with your own personal viewpoints, you find a better suited religion!

That is the point of all of this. The Church stands for what it does and it doesn't care if you agree or like it. If you don't like it, you don't be Catholic. Why should the church compromise its traditions and values because we question it? The Church believes it speaks for God and it is going to change for us!?

Doubt it!

So that's my point, don't say you're Catholic and trying to change the church. Say the church doesn't align with your beliefs so you'll find a new religion that does.

whew, that was some work! Speaking of which...I haven't done any in 2 horus....

At 9:41 AM, Blogger Chris said...


I don’t know who “anonymous” is but you have to look out on who you term as a “Nazi,” and grouping him with a regime that systematically destroyed 11 million people. It is important to note that all Germans were not Nazis and not all Nazis were Germans (Austria and the Sudetenland had its fair share, but I digress). In fact, the anonymous writer starts to make it on the right track when he/she begins, “Maybe it was forced, I am sure it was...” But then stifles him/herself with, “How can this man gain the enormous respect of other religions, (i.e. Judaism) with this in his past. It makes me sick that we have elected a Pope who was linked to one of the most grotesque displays of mankind.”

One thing the Nazi regime was adept at was coercion, and virtually everyone in that nation that wasn’t an ardent Nazi (a very small part of the German population, in fact) experienced it in one form or the other. These tactics, levied by Hitler and true Nazis, touched on the army as well as the ordinary citizens daily. Are we to devalue the accomplishments and slander the personality of Werner von Braun, the scientist who was forced to develop the V-1 and V-2’s that wreaked havoc on London, when in fact he was forced to work for the Nazis? Nobody demonized him when he came to the United States to propel us into the lead in the “space race” with the Soviets? Nobody uttered a peep when he was made a U.S. citizen in 1955.

Just a few points:

1) Ratzinger was only 19 when called up to the Volksgrenider regiment. This was a exclusive outfit because (developed in late 1944) it was made up of boys under 20, seminary students, and old men who last saw action in World War I!!! The desperate Nazi regime, under assualt from the Soviets on the eastern front, and the Americans/British/Canadians on the western front threw these boys into the melee as a last-ditch effort to stem the allied tide. Those that resisted the compulsory military service were either A) sent to the camps, B) shot as examples, or C) endured the deaths and touture of family members at the hands of the SSD and Gestapo. Ratzinger had no choice but to go.

2) Membership for young German boys in the Hitler Youth (Hitlerjugen), was also mandatory for healthy young boys after WWII started. Anyone can check archives of diaries of these kids and find that many were not anti-semitic, national socialist, or even liked Hitler! An excellent source is a movie (based on a book) called “Europa, Europa!” which goes into detail about the feelings of a boy in the Hitler Youth.

3) Although Ratzinger served in the Volksgrenider, he deserted in April 1945, and then went back to his hometown – an incredibly risky move seeing that the penalty for desertion was absolutely and unequivocally death.

Not to harp on anyone, but be careful when you over-generalize. My grandfather was born and raised in Ireland and believed strongly in Irish independence, but that did not make him an IRA assassin, or a believer in their tactics.

As for the little, “Catholic Church Change – Yes or No,” I have to get a little work done, so, we’ll have to save it for later.


At 10:42 AM, Blogger Chris said...

First of all, To avoid confusion, I am NOT the same Chris that posted above. I think the MB gives away which Chris I am....

I want my post to be brief, because I think John covered a lot of what I was going to say (thanks John). In the most general terms, there is no Christian religion that has prevailed longer than Catholicism. That in itself is pretty special - I wish I knew more about my faith, but am lucky to have friends like Stroka and Pete who can guide me along the way. What makes our religion so special is its ability to remain unchanged. I would have a lot harder time believing a religion that was created by some guy in the 70s (Scientology I'm looking in your direction). But of course, that is an extreme example.

Jeff, I don't need to go into detail about what "traditions" I stand by, the core beliefs of the Catholic church (The Nicene Creed) I believe firmly. I'm glad we have elected a traditional new Pope because these traditions (as mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopedia) are what make our religion so strong.

At 11:14 AM, Blogger John said...

To avoid any confusion, the Chris that posted the Nazi stuff was Chris Potts (Jeff, Potts has a class with your sister!)--fun fact for the day.

I told Potts about some of the stuff being said and he was intrigued so I gave him the blog address. Of course Potts being a historian before anything else took more issue with the Nazi reference than our ideological debate! :) I am told he will chime in though

At 12:17 PM, Anonymous Tom said...

Today's Gospel, April 21st, 2005:

"Amen, Amen, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. I am not speaking of you all; I know whom I have chosen; it is that the scripture may be fulfilled, 'He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.' I tell you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he. Amen, amen I say to you, he who receives anyone whom I send receives me; and he who receives me receives him who sent me." (John 13:16-20)

Let's give His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI a chance, now that he is the Holy Father and no longer acting solely as Guardian of the Faith. Let's open up our minds before we call him closed-minded. The pope not only takes on a new name, he takes on a new identity, our beloved "German Shepherd."

At 12:26 PM, Anonymous Tom said...

See Pope Benedict XVI's first message:

At 12:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I do not believe that I ever stated the newly elected Pope was a Nazi? I am not an idiot and I would never make such a generalization. I have never once believed the Pope was a Nazi or supported anything that was going on. However, thank you for generalizing my words.

At 1:16 PM, Blogger Chris said...

Tsk tsk Jackie, no need to be upset. I apologize if I misinterpreted you. However, a quick glace at your words will show you with how I came away with what I did… Your words are obviously in quotes.

1) “With that said, I am incredibly irritated at the fact that not only has this man been labeled a "transitory" Pope, but he has ties to the Nazi regime…”

Oh yes? What sort of ties are you speaking of? Was a general in the luftwaffe? Perhaps one of Hitlers aides in the SS? No. He was just a common German pressed into military service by the Nazi regime in its death throes. Based on your logic, a 92-year-old woman living in a Bavarian nursing home circa 1940 had ties to the Nazis. In the context written above, it is implied that his “ties” were more along the lines of: concentration camp guard, or Gestapo informer.

2) “And let us not forget, this man was part of the Nazi regime in Germany.”

Again, what part did he play? Being pressed into service against his will at the end of the war is a bit different than volunteering for the SS and setting about exterminating Jews in Latvia, isn’t it? Again, your logic implies that everyone in Germany was a willing part of the Nazi regime.

3) “How can this man gain the enormous respect of other religions, (i.e. Judaism) with this in his past.”

Again, you make it sound like he himself ordered the extermination of European Jewry. Not true. What exactly in his past would make Jews not like him. If anything, his rigid interpretation of church doctrine would anger the Jews more than his being forced into Nazi service.

And finally…

4) “It makes me sick that we have elected a Pope who was linked to one of the most grotesque displays of mankind.”

Again, how was he linked to the Holocaust, other than the fact that he lived in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s? See point #1.

My point is not to bludgeon you to death with these points but to show you how I (and maybe others) came away with the thoughts that I did. Of course, I don’t always review my rough drafts either…


At 1:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I appreciate your comments. I respect your view and I thank you for pointing out how words can be interpretted. In all seriousness, I thank you for taking the time to point that out to me.

At 1:49 PM, Blogger John said...


I'm glad that you clarified your original statement because I have to admit that from the way you phrased it, it sounded like you were calling the pope a straight up Nazi who was involved in atrocities against Jews.

I'm not sure how else one could have interpreted what you said so I definitely see where Chris got his impression.

Again though, very glad to hear that you don't consider the Pope a Nazi

At 8:19 PM, Blogger Kasey said...

"I think after that post, you are officially banned from ever considering yourself a Catholic."

I'll have to consult my Catholic Encyclopedia but I believe John's attempt at excommunicating Jeff wasn't quite kosher....Nope, I checked, we definitely can't excommunicate each other through Mary's Blog. Well that's good. In case you ever run into anyone who actually has the authority to kick you out of our church, here are the officially sanctioned extenuating circumstances that will mitigate your offenses.

(1) Lack of the full use of reason.
(2) Lack of liberty resulting from grave fear.
(3) Ignorance.

Mary, how can you swear off a church that accepts "Ignorance" as an excuse?

Next issue- The Catholic Church doesn’t change and is never wrong? Alright I was at for quite a while with this one. Apparently the Church has apologized for the way it ignored Jews during the holocaust or the way it gently persuaded Galileo but that in no way demeans Papal Infallibility. A couple Money Quotes: Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. And Infallibility, applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching. Doesn’t this sound a little bit like Bill Clinton trying to define the word “is”?

I was quite relieved with what I learned, Mary this is the greatest Bible Study ever, anyway I guess when a Pope decides to relocate a pedophile to a new parish and to a whole new flock of little boys, that is simply a disciplinary action and Jesus has no hand in it. But when a Pope decrees that homosexuality is a sin and gays will spend all eternity nuzzled up between Satan and Saddam Hussein—that is the word of our Lord and Savior. Lastly, the idea that is wrong to question the Church or pray for change struck me as ridiculous. If every Catholic in America who disagreed with one aspect of their Church left to “greener” pastures, how many congregations would remain?

At 8:32 PM, Blogger Chris said...

No problem Jackie...


At 6:50 AM, Anonymous Chris said...

I think you are muddling two issues that need to be clarified - there is a difference between disagreeing with what the Pope believes and disagreeing with what the Catholic church stands for. On personal issues such as relocating priests to other parishes, I have no problem with anyone who disagrees with the pope's decision; but like you said - "Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability."" - this goes both ways.

In other words, John and my argument focused entirely on those "infallible" concerns the Church is rooted in that people want to change.

The whole point of this argument can be summarized with what a friend said to me yesterday, "If you are a true Christian, your focus is not on who is the pope, or the priest, or the clergy. It is on God. The argument that people make for female priests just shows that their focus is not on God or even the church, their focus is on themselves. Catholicism is not a power struggle, or even a democracy. It is FAITH... it is RELIGION."

At 7:28 AM, Blogger John said...


There is one other circumstance in which one can be excommunicated and that is if John says it is so. I'll e-mail with the update. Thanks for pointing out their error to me.

As for the infallibility, you still missed the overall point that while certain actions in our eyes may be deemed mistakes (ie church treatment of Jews/galileo etc.) those "mistakes" according to Catholic doctrine are part of an overall larger infallible plan. Again, as I said before it is like those "mistakes" were supposed to occur in order to reach the infallible plan.

As Chris said, you are confusing two issues. If a pope isn't addressing child molestation correctly, that is wrong. Plain and simple. This is not the infallibility of which we are speaking though. I am talking about the infallibility the pope has when defining the morals and doctrines of faith for the church. (ie stances on homosexuality, abortion, etc.) So I was never trying to imply the pope was impeccable, only that church doctrine is infallible. I apologize if I didn't make that clear in my earlier posts.

I'm sorry that you find the idea that you aren't supposed to question the church "ridiculous". This is not an argument for me though, argue that with the church. I didn't make it up or try and claim that as my idea. I cited verbatim from the Catholic encyclopedia when defending that point. As Jeff said, it appears that we would then be cutting off our noses to spites our faces because it does lead to the possibility that the Church could eventually collapse with everyone leaving for other religions.

That is the point of religion though, it is a test of your faith. It isn't supposed to be easy to be a Catholic. You earn it. It would be a tragedy if the Church were to someday crumble but Christ would rather there not be a church than a church that sways from his word in order to retain a following. It isn't a popularity contest. The church says "This is what we believe and if you don't like it, go somewhere else and risk eternal damnation". Simple as that.

Ok, I'm going to get some work done and then go excommunicate some more people!

At 9:38 PM, Blogger Mary said...

I wasn't going to comment again on this...but congratulations Chris, your ridiculous and insulting comment about how people that push for female priests are focused on themselves rather than God has forced me out of hiding...expect a response in the near future.

At 10:24 AM, Blogger David said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 10:26 AM, Anonymous Chris said...

As an FYI -
I did not say that comment, that was a quote by a friend of mine.

The whole point of quoting him was not to insult you (and I'm sorry it came across that way) - it was to simply say the same argument John/Stroka/I have been trying to defend - the church is not a government. Our religion is not a political view, it is a belief based on 2000 years of doctrine that you can either agree with, accept, or reject.

At 10:32 AM, Anonymous Chris said...

..And David
I don't know who you are, but thanks for insulting all the millions of Catholics in the world.

It's one thing to disagree with a religion, but to insult all those who believe in it is uncalled for.

At 10:52 AM, Blogger David said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 1:15 PM, Blogger David said...

'Two tickets torn in half
And a lot of nothing to do
Do you you say you do?'

I'm ready for you to be back in person.

-The One

At 10:22 PM, Anonymous Jeff said...

John, Chris, and Tom,

Check your email.



Post a Comment

<< Home