That is exactly the problem. You "have been instructed" to not respond to people in need or in crisis based upon your personal prejudice (hide behind your cardinal and pope as much as you want). God, who IS Love, teaches us to love everyone and to reach out to our neighbor without stipulations. It appears that you think you're pure and holy while rejecting the teachings of Jesus for the worldly teachings of a bunch of men who enjoy rank, privilege and money. Yet, these same men failed miserably to protect children from priests who abused them by the thousands and for many years. On this Easter Sunday, I'm sure you'll get dressed up for "church" and pretend that you're a Christian. I take pity on all who believe as you do. I think you need to take a deep look into your soul and ask for God's forgiveness.

"... we the True Christian do Understand that we need to help our neighbors but no neighbors with self inflicted wounds.

Yes, the RC Church still teaches that it is the one true religion, doesn't it? And so many who are totally unable or unwilling to think for themselves still follow the doctrine and call themselves Christians. I wonder what your version of Jesus would think of that.

How wondrous it would be to wake and feel god’s presence, the warmth of love and compassion - words used today to manipulate us poor souls. Could be there is such a god to wake to, but only within ourselves, not from any mouth that puts forth hell and damnation, fear and hate; that separates each of us to hide and cringe. A spirit in the skies would not carry a moral template of rules, laws, and regulations set forth by common man, a combination of humanity’s traits of punishment and temptations. We would have little or none of that. What is this religion that was devised? A means of elevating only a certain few, for what reason, but to control the masses? This should lay a few eggs.

Islam and Judaism teaches about a vengeful God. Christianity teach of Jesus Christ and a loving God. Roman Catholicism tends to cling towards its Judaic past.

...True Christian do Understand that we need to help our neighbors but no neighbors with self inflicted wounds. Do not give to a lazy man. even he is our neighbor... we've been instructed to stay away and keep away from this kinds of people.

The most profound thing I ever learned in years of Catholic religous instruction was from a priest (yes a priest!) who told us that it was not up to us to determine if the person needing or begging for help was worthy of our help. We should not deny help to anyone because we thought they didn't deserve it or that they would use the help unwisely. The giving of help, he said, is not about the person receiving it - its about the heart of the person (us) giving it. What we choose to do is not about our judgement of the worth of the person needing help but it is about our souls, or spirits or humanity (however one wants to define it) and the quality of our mercy.

Even today, and even as a non-practicing Catholic, I remember that as the most important message I ever received from my church. Obviously I received a different "instruction" than you did. I don't believe that only "perfect" people deserve help.

Christianity teach of Jesus Christ and a loving God. Roman Catholicism tends to cling towards its Judaic past.

As does most if not all evangelical Christianity. The term "fire and brimstone" is traditionally associated with Methodists, not Catholics, and that kind of literalist Christianity is regularly practiced today by many Protestants in the United States.

Johnnie,

"we the True Christian do Understand that we need to help our neighbors but no neighbors with self inflicted wounds. Do not give to a lazy man. even he is our neighbor... we've been instructed to stay away and keep away from this kinds of people."

It sounds to me like you have never read the parable of the Good Samaritan in the New Testament. If you have a Bible, you can find it in Luke 10:29-37. It was just after Jesus had said "you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and your neighbor as yourself" that a Jew who wanted to test Jesus asked him, "Who really is my neighbor?" It was in reply to that question that Jesus gave his parable about the Good Samaritan. The Jews and Samaritans hated each other for historical and religious reasons, but, according to the story Jesus told, when a certain Samaritan came across a Jew who had been beaten and robbed lying by the side of the road and who had just been passed by by both a Jewish priest and another religious Jew, neither of whom helped him, he (the Samaritan) was moved with pity and not only treated the Jew's wounds, but took him to an inn and gave the innkeeper money to take care of the man. Jesus then questioned the man who had asked him, "Who really is my neighbor?" saying, "Who of these three seems to you to have made himself neighbor to the man that fell among the robbers?" The man replied, "The one who acted mercifully toward him". Jesus then said to him: "Go your way and be doing the same yourself." It should be obvious from that story that by "your neighbor" Jesus meant everyone without distinction. No one who calls himself a Christian has the right to pick and choose who he wants to consider his neighbor.

I don't see how you are including Methodists in this. They accept gay members into their congregations, and I think, although I am not sure, there may even be some gay bishops.

I don't see how you are including Methodists in this.

You must have missed the word "traditionally" in the sentence you replied to. I was pointing out the historical context for the appellation. The core point was the end of the sentence, "that kind of literalist Christianity is regularly practiced today by many Protestants in the United States."

Johnnie, you seem to have the idea that gay people choose to be gay, referring to it as a 'self inflicted wound.' I assure you, nothing could be further from the Truth. They were 'created' that way. They have no more control over their 'gayness' than you do over the color of your skin.

According to the science reports I've read, one's gender is decided in utero, when god creates a hormonal rush to go through the fetus. s/he does this twice, and if the 'wrong' amounts of hormones are given by your loving creator, voila!

Contrary to what all the religious folks want you to believe, being LGBT is not a choice, and allowing them full citizenship rights will not adversely affect anything unless it's the collection plate on Sunday. And that is the real crux of the matter, isn't it? Money and Power.

Johnnie - Your statement makes no sense at all. You are NOT a "True Christian" in my book or according to Jesus' teachings in the New Testament. Jesus healed a great many people, according to the Bible. Do you really think he avoided those with "wounds"?

Unfortunately, you probably represent many so-called "Christians" in the world. What a shame.

True Christian exists as much as True Scotsman

Anybody can call themselves True Christian, even members of Westboro Baptist Church.

Catholicism honors its judaic roots. You could say the litany of saints comes from the jewish faith. But we tend to lean towards a loving Father an accepting Father a forgiving Father. Which is why some of our christian brothers don't understand we do believe in salvation through Christ. We just never say we are saved because we think it is presumptious to speak for God.

JOHNNIE-2714217

Sorry Amodou, we the True Christian do Understand that we need to help our neighbors but no neighbors with self inflicted wounds. Do not give to a lazy man. even he is our neighbor... we've been instructed to stay away and keep away from this kinds of people.

^^^^^

-but isn't that exactly what you are doing to the charlatans you are giving your money to. A bunch of lazy men/charlatans preaching to the sheeple for money.

There is no such thing as a true christian imo when you pick and chose those you want to help. You just expose yourself for the religious bigots church and religions teach and preach to their sheeple to become.

The church has a number pick and choose who is worthy as the post shows,

"The church also takes sexual abuse of girls less seriously, so may not record it," said David G. Clohessy, director of the Chicago-based Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests.

Of course MS666 would pick today to run this story....Nearly as shameful as doctoring the Zimmerman 911 tapes...

By being selectively, astutely prejudiced (by "Hearing no evil, seeing no evil, speaking no evil - even of the likes of Hitler - as long as Hitler made sure the church's parishioner's donations got through to the Vatican (Hitler wasn't stupid) The Church found it not that hard to overlook Hitler killing 6,000,000 Jews - the official position of the church was that it was "neutral") the Catholic Church has found that it can manage to sustain itself through the ages by playing to the very prejudices any truly moral religion would denounce. All the while supporting and "validating" the narrow minded prejudices of the people who make up a majority of its membership/political constituency. Just as a Republican or Democrat would never be willing to state a policy that differed markedly from "the party line" you are not likely to hear a Cardinal speak a word that hasn't been approved by the Vatican.

Of course, ultimately, even the Church must occasionally run afoul of reality, the law and morality in a way it can't manipulate itself out of; as was the case when of late it has been shown to be not so much a place to call "The Church" as Pedophiles RUs.

The Church cares only really and truly cares about one thing, and one thing only - itself; maintaining, perpetuating and growing its power and financial kingdoms. Anyone with eyes to see, a mind to study its history and a sense of morality left in place - that hasn't been removed by the diligent mental surgeons of the Catholic Church cannot help but see it for what it is; one of history's longest ongoing and most powerful bastions of intransigence and resistance to truth as well as defender of inhumanity to man.

Long may The Church NOT last; let us hope we soon see it imploding upon its rotting from the inside infrastructure and by its "Thank God at Last" demise immediately making the world a much better place.

Hell and evil are but human words. No God would have created the first thing if even one soul would suffer eternal damnation. Just as the story about the shepard that would not give up on even one of his sheep. Yes you do have to pick and choose from what the bible says, particularly as it relates to context. If men were involved in the writing, there are lies and misrepresentations. If it doesn't fit in the concept of a loving God, it is not Christian and is either not true or taken out of context. God gave you a mind and if you look closely, He is there and His essence is love. You only need to look for yourself and forget the lies of the false prophets who would have you believe you can bear being in the presence of God when it is all a lie. Your hell will be of your own making, not God's, as you will not be able to face him until you give up the lies, hate and all the rest.

Not bad for an agnostic, eh?

I believe everything I said, but why create humans? That is what confounds me. How could a loving God be so cruel? I can die in peace though. An old Jewish saying "you can love God or hate God, just don't ignore God". I have certainly given it enough thought after a brief stint as an atheist after being brought up a Catholic. It hit me like a ton of bricks at 14 and my 'faith' has never been 'restored'. I count myself as a Christian because I find great wisdom in what Jesus had to say. I believe what I am given to see as true, guided by a place in my mind that I can't quite account for and has never led me astray. Not that I have always done what it said, I am human too. And not that I haven't tried.

The response prompted Amodeo to quit the board, said the 24-year-old gay Catholic who still teaches religious education to elementary school children as part of a New York archdiocese program. He'll be doing that on Easter in a parish near Manhattan's Union Square.

The 24-year old gay Catholic should be removed from teaching children. He has no right to spread his gospel of sexual sin towards teaching children. And yes, I have the right to judge him, because the bible gives me that right. (1 Corinthians 5: 11-13)

¹¹ I meant that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a believer^[a] yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or is a drunkard, or cheats people. Don’t even eat with such people.

¹² It isn’t my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning. ¹³ God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, “You must remove the evil person from among you.”^[b]

Unhappy - you should have been a soldier in Hitler's army; you would have been quite righteous and comfortable working in a concentration camp putting to death gays, gypsies and that most evil "scourge of Christianity" the Jews with your thoughtless attitude; backed by the power of the state of Germany gone mad empowering you to visit your hateful attitudes upon those whom you consider evil - according to the bible.

You don't realize it but your own words convict you as a person more than willing to allow dogma and words written by long dead, unable to be questioned individuals - who may or may not, but probably didn't exist - to guide your life, thinking and actions. Unfortunately, there have never been a shortage of individuals like yourself, who rather than having the courage to actually use their God given ability to think for themselves and come to their own unique conclusions as to what this world is about choose to let The Church or whatever tell them how to think..

God if were here right now would judge you to be a wonderful example of how his "human experiment" fails too often to even count.

This young man had the courage to take a stand that few have taken and has publicly stood up to a representative of one of the most capricious, duplicitous and dangerous to truth and innocent children, organizations ever to manage to fool people into believing it actually is a force for good. He should be given a medal for his courage and honesty; you on other hand? Well... there is nothing to be done when humans decide to give over their minds and lives to a collective consciousness so they themselves don't have to think for themselves - whether that collective consciousness is the fascism of a Hitler, the Communism of a Stalin or the tyrannical, narrow prejudices of a Church based on intolerance and the acquisition of money and power like the Catholic Church.

Unhappy:

If all gays were removed from Catholic clergy, the church would have been left with too few. And those remaining would be pedophiles instead.

What really gets me are the "disclaimers" some of you "Christians" (or should I call you Pharisees) use. You know, like, "I love the sinner, not the sin, that's why I don't pass judgment". No, you all are still passing judgment. If this was just about the "sin" you simply wouldn't engage in homosexual acts and leave the homosexuals alone. You wouldn't actively work against their equal protection under the law and inclusion in our society.

This fear based dogma, be it from any religion, is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to keep people dependant on their chosen religions. They keep feeding you this line of BS that you're somehow better or superior to others, that you somehow know what God wants or thinks, and it's like crack to cowards. For all intents and purposes, your fear based religions are your pimps.

You don't know what God wants. You'll never know. And you'll never be superior to anyone.

Deal with it.

What can you expect from a delusional and hypocritical piece of crap like Dolan?? Religious zealots make me sick-- they judge everyone, tell everyone how to live their lives while they act like @!$%#s, and they NEVER live up to what they preach!!! HYPOCRITES!!!

RainLady2, can you please provide the "scientific" evidence that proves that homosexuality is anything other than intelligent choice.

Don't you and ErinNJ and the rest bother replying because I know, you know, and they know it does not exist.....if it did it would have been splashed all over every newspaper, medical journal, science mag, biology text book and Gay Rights Blogger Page in the world....but it hasn't, know why....because it doesn't exist. Sorry to blow your theory out of the womb but there is no irrefutable, rock solid scientific or medical evidence to confirm without a doubt that homosexuality is anything but "intelligent choice" there may be reasons for that choice but they are not biological.

And when there is proof you will know because every gay person will be walking around in a t-shirt that says "I'M GAY AND I WAS BORN THIS WAY".

Having said that who cares the poor and disadvantaged should be helped no matter what their sexual preference and especially by the Catholic Church who could feed the world just by selling some the land, gold, artwork etc etc etc which they possess all in the name of God.

You don't know what God wants. You'll never know. And you'll never be superior to anyone.

can you please provide the "scientific" evidence that proves that homosexuality is anything other than intelligent choice.

"... the preponderance of researchers say attraction is dictated by biology, with no demonstrated contribution from social factors such as parenting or other factors after birth ..." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa

Now it is your turn to put up or shut up: Please provide scientific evidence that proves that homosexuality is only a choice. (Hint: You cannot, because there is scientific evidence that that is not necessarily the case.)

Don't you and ErinNJ and the rest bother replying because I know, you know, and they know it does not exist.....

How embarassing for you.

WaltUU....can you please highlight the section where is states that there is irrefutable scientifically and/or medically proven evidence that homosexuality is a result of ___________. What a preponderance of scientists, researchers, or garbage collectors think or believe does not prove a theory.

That article (copied in full below for all to read) is a mishmash of opinions, theories, conjecture and plain BS...."growing consensus", "likely to be" "common biological traits" "highly anticipated study" "some scientists" "A CNN Poll" on what Americans believe, "a host of studies.....genes not the entire cause" "the pendulum has swung" what Mr. Brocklandt believes and what he can prove are two different things and sexual attraction and sexual orientation are also different things also one must be very careful when comparing other animals to humans there is a vast difference. Garbage .... where did you get that Woman's Day or the TV Guide?

You need to learn the difference between the conclusions of scientific research and a bit of BS Yellow Journalism from some clown who had nothing better to do on the day.

You go ask any high school science teacher, doctor, biologist, whatever "is there clear scientific proof that homosexuality (I would say in humans but that would be anthropomorphic as animals can not be homosexual that is a human trait alone) is a direct result of anything biological and you will surely get a negative answer and if you don't ask for them to show you the study and the write up, summary and conclusions in the Scientific and Medical Journals.

Me embarrassed not on your life..... you think you can pull up some flunky article and pass that off as evidence.....I have a bridge I would like to sell if you are prepared to take that as evidence. Go look up the words evidence and conjecture.....there is a pretty wide gap between the two.

And don't bother replying....I have won this argument too many times already and the whole discussion is just a distraction.....no further comment ..... unless of course you can come up with proof of the "gay gene" in some recognized published Scientific / Medical Journal....but I doubt it.

And it is not up to me to prove that it is anything other than choice as that is the universally accepted science until proven otherwise.

Compared to straight men, gay men are more likely to be left-handed, to be the younger siblings of older brothers, and to have hair that whorls in a counterclockwise direction.

US researchers are finding common biological traits among gay men, feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born.

Such findings - including a highly anticipated study this winter - would further inform the debate over whether homosexuality is innate or a choice, an undercurrent of California's recent Proposition 8 campaign in which television commercials warned that "schools would begin teaching second-graders that boys could marry boys", suggesting homosexuality would then spread.

Some scientists say the political and moral debate over same-sex marriage frequently strayed from established scientific evidence, including comments by Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin that homosexuality is "a choice" and "a decision".

Until 2007, CNN polls had found that a majority of Americans believed gay people could change their sexual orientation if they chose to; it was only last year that a majority for the first time said homosexuality was an inborn trait.

Christian groups such as Exodus International argue "that homosexuals who desire to change can do so". One prominent psychiatrist, Dr Robert Spitzer of Columbia University, found controversial evidence that therapy can cause some gay people to change to a heterosexual orientation, although the study concluded that a "complete change" was uncommon.

While sexual behaviour may be chosen, the preponderance of researchers say attraction is dictated by biology, with no demonstrated contribution from social factors such as parenting or other factors after birth.

A host of studies since the mid-1990s have found common biological traits between gay men, including left-handedness and the direction of hair whorls. The likelihood that if one identical twin is gay, the other will be also be gay is much higher than the "concordance" of homosexuality between fraternal twins, indicating that genes play a role in sexual orientation, but are not the entire cause.

"In the past decade, I think the pendulum has swung more toward biological theory and biological causes," said Richard Lippa, a psychology professor at California State University-Fullerton, who has studied hair patterns and other biological traits in gay men.

Sven Bocklandt, a geneticist at the David Geffen school of medicine at UCLA, is bewildered by the argument that people choose their sexual attraction. He said that virtually every animal species that has been studied - from sheep to fruit flies - has a small minority of individuals who demonstrate homosexual activity.

"I really believe the reason most humans are straight is the same reason that most crocodiles are straight, and the same reason most whales are straight," Bocklandt said. "Nature would not leave something so important for reproduction, for the survival of the species, to coincidence."

Less understood is the degree to which sexual orientation is determined by genes or environmental factors, such as hormones or immunological factors that may act on a foetus. What scientists call "the fraternal birth order effect", the fact that each successive boy born to the same mother has a greater chance of being gay, may be due to an increasing immunological response by a mother's body to each male foetus in her womb.

Long discredited are theories that parenting - one mid-20th century theory held that boys raised by a domineering mother with a distant father were more likely to be gay - has anything to do with sexual orientation.

Evidence of that, said Michael Bailey, a professor of psychology at Northwestern University in Illinois, comes from studies of genetically male infants born with malformed or ambiguous genitals. In many such cases, surgeons would construct a vagina, and instruct parents to raise the child as a girl, with no knowledge of his medical history.

As adults, those prenatally male/postnatally female people were virtually all attracted to women, Bailey said.

"If you can't make a male attracted to other males by cutting off his penis, castrating him and rearing him as a girl, then how likely is any social explanation of male homosexuality?" he said.

Researchers are eagerly awaiting a DNA study of male siblings with at least one gay brother by Bailey and other scientists at Northwestern University due in early 2009, because it may shed light on the role genetics plays in sexual attraction.

By researching 800 sets of brothers, by far the largest study of its type, the Northwestern study is searching for the specific genes that influence some brothers to be gay and others to be heterosexual.

Women may have more fluidity of sexual expression than men, but that doesn't mean they don't have a specific sexual orientation, said Lisa Diamond, a professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah who studies female sexual orientation.

One explanation is that women's sexual behaviour is driven more by relationships.

For some women, "your sexual orientation does not provide the last word on the sorts of behaviours and identities you might experience in your lifetime," Diamond said.

"Some lesbian women are predominantly attracted to women, but some of them have found themselves becoming incredibly close to their best male friends, sometimes having sex with them. It does not make them straight. It's not, since you had a one-night stand with your male friend, that you can choose to become straight."

WaltUU....can you please highlight the section where is states that there is irrefutable scientifically and/or medically proven evidence that homosexuality is a result of

I provided the proof you asked for, proof that "homosexuality is anything other than intelligent choice". Stop trying to evade the ramifications of that truth by feigning ignorance of science.

What a preponderance of scientists, researchers, or garbage collectors think or believe does not prove a theory.

But your personal opinion does? How ridiculous! The experts are wrong and you are correct? How convenient!

You need to learn the difference between the conclusions of scientific research and a bit of BS Yellow Journalism from some clown who had nothing better to do on the day.

Take your own advice... Your refusal to acknowledge truth is your own problem.

Me embarrassed not on your life.....

Because you won't allow your vacuous world view to be undercut by truth. Understood. Continue your denial of reality unimpeded then.

And don't bother replying....

Because you would hate to have your baseless insults against people put in their proper place again, eh?

Please highlight the section where it says there is irrefutable proof of anything in that article. I provided no opinions of my own and your insults unfortunately are proof of nothing except your ignorance of science. Discussion over until you have the science to back up your feelings.

Dodge, weave, avoid the truth, because you cannot stand its ramifications, how it nullifies homophobia.

Please highlight the section where it says there is irrefutable proof of anything in that article. I provided no opinions of my own and your insults unfortunately are proof of nothing except your ignorance of science. Discussion over until you have the science to back up your feelings.

You just don't get it - you're supposed to do your own research not lazily deny reality because of your preference to ignore the truth in this case.

Here's a bunch of proof akin to that which that article is based on:

Camperio-Ciani, A., et al. (2004). Evidence for maternally-inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity. Proceedoings of the Royal Society of London, B 271, 2217-2224.

Camperio Ciani, A. (2009). Genetic factors increase fecundity in female maternal relatives of Bisexual men as in homosexuals. Sexual Medicine, 6, 449-455.

LeVay, S. & Hamer, D. (1991). A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men. Science, 253, 1034-1037.

Qazi Rahman, Ph.D. et. al., (2003) Behavioral Neuroscience (Vol. 117, No. 5, pp. 1096-1102).

Ivanka Savic-Berglund, M.D., Ph.D. et al., (2005) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences “Brain Response To Putative Pheromones In Homosexual Men,” (Vol. 102, No. 19).

Dean H. Hamer, Ph.D., et. al, (1993) Science (Vol. 261, No. 5119, pp. 291-292).

and so on and so on

Ignorance of the decades of research underlying an article such as the one I provided you a link to is no excuse for your refusal to acknowledge the scientific underpinning of the assertion made in the article, given that it was from a credible news source that actually did the research that you neglected to do yourself.

Walt my boy....weather you like it or not, despite all the suppositions, theories, researches, studies, polls, testings etc there is not a shred of positive scientific proof that there is a link between homosexuality and human biology. Don't take my word for it read those reports (I have) and once you have read them you come back with the section that says the research and testing has proven a positive link A + B in more than 90% of cases produces homosexuality.....gene 327Y is a 100% positive link if you got it you will be homosexual. Mate it does not exist and you can ask any real scientist and they will tell you that there is no confirmed, research tested and proven absolute link between homosexuality and human biology.

Now I couldn't give shyte one way or the other but until there is proof that it is anything other than intelligent choice mixed with numerous environmental, psychological, and physiological matters then that's the way it is and no amount of hope, name calling, insults, denial, you can throw all the toys out of the crib if you want but that don't change the facts....and we can leave it at that.

Your denial of reality doesn't add credibility to your offensive bigotry, it only discredits your comments further.

Yes Walt the facts are a hard nut to have to deal with, I suppose you can just stay there in fantasyland and live the dream....good luck to you and I hope you find a way to be happy with your choice over time.

"Fantasyland" is actually a pretty apt description of Catholic dogma.

Thanks for making very clear that you choose mythology over truth.

So when all else fails you and you have no basis in fact or science with which to fall back on you go to........ it's all the Catholics fault and religious dogma.

You are as bad as them when all reason, fact and science fail to justify your own personal fantasy you fall back on religion and blame them for your personal choices and because their fantasy doesn't line up with your fantasy it's all their fault.

Hopefully some day you get over it and learn to live with yourself and your choices in life.

That the literalist Christianity is the Pauline mythology is "basis in fact".

I'm not blaming - I'm explaining what you either failed to understand or are doggedly resisting understanding of, stooping now to patronizing attitudes obviously intended solely to incite and distract attention from the indefensible things you posted earlier.

There comes a point in a thread where you've made it clear that you're not going to acknowledge logic and reason, so all that is left for me to do is ensure that your erroneous assertions aren't posted with impunity.

And there comes a point in a thread where one is not going to acknowledge facts and science.....cling to whatever gets you through the night, I wish you all the best.

And there comes a point in a thread where one is not going to acknowledge facts and science..

Yup and you go there in #2.33 when you denied "facts and science".

But thanks for trying to be open to the truth. That puts you ahead of many folks who refuse to even make the effort to seem like they're trying.

The Human Race will fade away.....before the Church

Uh, Hoosier 7? Unless the church is now converting mammals other than human beings, if the human race fades away, the church goes with it. Duh!

Religion will certainly be around as long as man. It sure looks like it will be our undoing.

I don't know where you go to church, but the churches in the Northeast are GROWING at an alarming rate. It seems that the more atheists interact with the people, the more people see atheists for what they really are. Fake people with huge problems.

The number of people who say they are unaffiliated with any particular faith today (16.1%) is more than double the number who say they were not affiliated with any particular religion as children. Among Americans ages 18-29, one-in-four say they are not currently affiliated with any particular religion.

Catholicism has experienced the greatest net losses as a result of affiliation changes. While nearly one-in-three Americans (31%) were raised in the Catholic faith, today fewer than one-in-four (24%) describe themselves as Catholic. These losses would have been even more pronounced were it not for the offsetting impact of immigration.

Among those who are currently unaffiliated with any particular religion, nearly half (44%) were raised as Protestant and more than one-in-four (27%) were raised as Catholic.

[Source: Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.]

One of the most significant trends documented during this period is the substantial increase in the percentage of American adults who don't identify with any specific religion. In 1948, only 2% of Americans did not identify with a religion. That percentage began to rise in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Eleven years ago, in 1998, 6% of Americans did not identify with a religion, a number that rose to 10% by 2002. This year's average of 13% of Americans who claim no religious identity is the highest in Gallup records.

The percentage of Americans who identify as Catholic, Protestant, or some other non-Catholic Christian faith has been concomitantly decreasing over the years. This suggests that one of the major patterns of religious transition in America in recent decades has been the shift from identification as Christian to the status of having no specific religious identification.

In 1948, 91% of Americans identified with a Christian faith. Twenty years ago, in 1989, 82% of Americans identified as Christian. Ten years ago, it was 84%. This year, as noted, 78% of all American adults identify with a Christian faith.

There has also been a slight increase in the percentage of Americans who identify with a religion that is not specifically classified as Christian. Sixty years ago, for example, 4% of Americans identified with a non-Christian religion. By 1989, 9% of Americans were in this non-Christian religion category, the same percentage as today.

As would be expected, given the drop in the percentage of Americans who have a religious identity, there has been a similar drop in the percentage of Americans who say they are a member of a church or synagogue.

[Source: Gallup.]

There is no evidence that churches in the Northeast are growing at all. Certain churches may have. My own church has increase in membership about 50% over the last ten years, but we're not a Christian church, and most of our new members (close to 70%) came to us from other churches - not from the block of unaffiliated. Furthermore, it is ludicrous to ignore the impact of the clergy sex abuse scandal on the number of Catholics leaving the church or rejecting its leadership and therefore no longer attending church, here in the Boston area.

I type the truth, and I write it in a compelling manner, and the "like's" seem to follow me around.

David I listen because God speaks to my heart. And everyday I say Lord your will not mine be done and that gives me peace. I hope you can find a way to live based on your own worth not on bashing someone elses. It is a very freeing experience. Jesus Loves You whether you want Him to or not.

"I type the truth"? That's a bold, even arrogant, statement. Still, I gotta admit that I agree with your postings that I've read so far.

Sorry WaltUU, your answer doesn't ring with the truth in any way. Either you have the father and the holy ghost voting as you write, or you know some cheat trick to up your 'thumbs up'. Something along the lines of other accounts or somethiing like that. I was writing at the same time you were and saw your post appear with two thumbs up before anyone could have read it. Your 'likes' certainly seem to follow you around but they don't ring true. I watched your comment come in with two likes attached. I'm calling you a liar!

Lonereb. What does god speaking to your heart have to do with these power hungry, out of touch political MEN who are exploiting your connection with god?

I am obviously a non believer but if I did believe, it wouldn't have anything to do with these men who are so full of hatred that they hate people in god's name. Jesus doesn't love me becuause he died over two thousand years ago and doesn't know that you or I exist. I don't know how old you are, but since you are posting here, aren't you a little old for imaginary friends?

"I type the truth"? That's a bold, even arrogant, statement.

Bold, yes. Arrogant, no. The word was meant to be read literally. In the messages being referred to, I didn't pander to mythology, and that appeals to the innate sense of reason in all of us.

Either you have the father and the holy ghost voting as you write, or you know some cheat trick to up your 'thumbs up'.

David: You have only one Newsvine friend. I have dozens. I cannot speak for them, but I know that the way I find threads of interest is by using the "New comments from articles your friends have commented on" icon. Consequently, I'm brought directly to threads where they have just posted, and therefore as likely as not follow-up behind them with a "like" for their comment, perhaps within minutes. I even got an email overnight from someone thanking me for my comments in this thread. (By the way, thanks for your kind words, friend.) It's the "social networking" part of Newsvine that you perhaps are missing. So if you are so petty as to care about getting more "likes" for your posts (as if that matters) that's the "trick": Post clearly and compellingly, and make connections with others instead of operating as a veritable pariah would.

I'm calling you a liar!

I'm calling you a derailer. Another way of getting "likes" for your comments is to stick to the topic and don't go off on tangents discussing the discussion.

WaltUU,

You are right, I don't engage in the 'clubbiness' of newsvine, nor do I have any Facebook friends who I have never met face to face. What does that have to do with your fraudulently increasing your 'thumbs up' score?

Did you really write that I am a 'derailer' with a straight face after you did everything else BUT answer my accusation?

All I know is that I watched your comment come in at 5:34 AM on Easter Sunday with two 'thumbs up' already on it. You have done everything you can to NOT simply state that you are not doing anything to stack the deck, choosing instead to write multiple paragraphs, where a simple three or four word denial would have done the job.

Did you really think I wrote an obvious atheistic comment in a story about a Cardinal with the intention of entering, let alone winning, a popularity contest? It is you who are obsessed with your imaginary friends here, not me. i simply observed your fraud and commented on it. You are the one who has talked about everything but how you garner two 'thumbs up' in under thirty seconds at 5 in the morning.

Since your response to me is your only post not to have multiple 'thumbs up', I assume the light of day has ended this practise on your part. That or your imaginary friends have abandoned you.

What does that have to do with your fraudulently increasing your 'thumbs up' score?

Stop lying about me.

Did you really write that I am a 'derailer' with a straight face after you did everything else BUT answer my accusation?

Another lie. I directly addressed your derail, and then labeled it as a derail.

You have done everything you can to NOT simply state that you are not doing anything to stack the deck

Bull. I said that exact thing, by explaining how what you saw happens. I have one and only one account. Next time you say otherwise I'll take your personal attack to Tyler.

Go for it! See what Tyler says.

I did not attack you. I attacked what you are doing. While we have fundamental disagreements, you strike me as fair minded, if misguided. I saw what you wrote about having all your imaginary friends. I, to this moment, have yet to see you flatly say you did not do anything to stack the deck. All it takes is a simple "I didn't do that." For some reason, (perhaps your belief in a vengeful god) you are unwilling or unable to do this.

Again, I have read your roundabout explanation of how this could have happened and you have read my skepticism of how this happened in the wee hours of Easter morning. If you take my observation that you refuse to just simply state you did nothing wrong as a personal attack, I can't help you.

I'm happy to see what Tyler thinks, go for it! (Wouldn't it be easier to just deny the accusation in simple words?)

I attacked what you are doing.

No, you lied about what I am doing. Big difference. However, you're probably right - you can probably lie and lie and lie with impunity without violating the CoH.

Is that another self congratulatory thumbs up? I thought you were both more intelligent and honorable to start name calling while you still can't bring yourself to just say, "I didn't do that." It's real easy if you aren't a liar, just say it and I will take your word and even apologize. But that's nort going to happen is it? Becuase you can't deny it. You have so little faith in the words you say that you need a cheering section. If yoou want me to stop 'lying' you have only to give me reason to stop shich is by telling me in not uncertain terms that I am mistaken. Not what could have happened, not what you could imagine happened, but what actually happened. Are you really so shallow that you think subtrafuge is really less of a sin? Oh how hollow your faith! If I am wrong, why have you never even attempted to deny my charge? Is it because I'm right? You know I am and all you imaginary friends looking at your comment profile will see it too. Too bad you can't just simply deny it.

Why would you believe that the Catholic Church's position on this is any different from the position that Catholics made clear a hundred times a day for as long as anyone can remember? The letter and the context of this incident are merely small pebbles in a massive avalanche of worthy condemnation of the Catholic Church's actions, the church's offenses against compassion, against love, and against humanity. When there is so much corroboration, it is foolish to question the nature of one pebble in the torrent.

It is oh-so-convenient to defend the church that treats people who are just like you oh-so-well, and ignore the degradation, marginalization, and outright offense it affords people who you have been trained to disparage or simply not care about.

I think it might have been taken out of context. I believe there are many nuns that have been caring for AIDS patients for years, so I find it hard to believe the church would turn its back on the truly homeless.

The good works of some Catholics indeed are tarnished by the moral corruption of the church's leadership.

One of the hallmarks of superlatively moral leadership is parity between men and women in positions of leadership. Our own nation is deficient in that regard, but the Catholic Church is offensively antithetic toward the concept.

WaltUU What this Catholic has been taught for 64 years is hate the sin not the sinner. I can and do accept homosexuals I just do not accept the homosexual act that to me is a sin. So is premarital sex but I can love my brother and sister and pray they see the error of their ways. I can't accept either abortion or contraception but I can accept the person who has fallen that way and pray for their salvation. You really should ask Catholics about our faith not everyone else. I don't want to be a priest and many women are deacons and believe me if you went to Catholic school those nuns had all the authority anybody could want. I still fondly remember them.

What this Catholic has been taught for 64 years is hate the sin not the sinner.

So we should hate Dolan's bigotry and callous disregard for others; not the man himself. That seems consistent with my perspective on Dolan. I'm compassionate toward him because I realize that he is, as he claims, simply a reflection of his church's promulgation of fabricated dogma.

I can and do accept homosexuals I just do not accept the homosexual act that to me is a sin.

Neither do I. My wife and I are heterosexuals. Your comment, here, therefore is meaningless in the context of what you're replying to. No one is asking you to engage in a same-sex relationship.

So is premarital sex but I can love my brother and sister and pray they see the error of their ways.

Thanks for bringing up yet another bit of hypocrisy many Christian denominations engage in: These churches and their members encourage those who engage in premarital sex to get married but refuse to acknowledge the right of homosexuals to do so. These folks, in doing so, act in an utterly self-serving, and petulantly disrespectful manner to other human beings.

I can't accept either abortion or contraception but I can accept the person who has fallen that way and pray for their salvation.

Another great opportunity to underscore hypocrisy practiced by those who support the same issues you do: 98% of sexually-active Catholics have used contraception, and many of these Christians I've referred to will support shelters that will serve homeless women who have had abortions, sometimes going out of their way to reach out to such women (though perhaps for political purposes, another bit of hypocrisy on many churches' part).

You really should ask Catholics about our faith not everyone else.

Most of my fellow church members are former Catholics. I know all about what Catholics won't admit about their church.

What's interesting is how readily so many self-professed Christians make pronouncements about those of us who Stand on the Side of Love without spending even an ounce of effort to try to understand and appreciate our religion the way you have asserted that others should appreciate yours.

How many people here are on the board of a charity? How many forms do you fill out everytime you transfer money? Do you make a yearly budget? Do you think that after the budget has been made and the approved cients have been given their money there is enough for the Cardinal to call you up and say hey this twenty something wants money right now take care of him?

Sorry all but Cardinal Dolan does not control the pursestrings of Catholic Charities and it doesn't only function in NYC. The money given to Catholic Charities is spread all over the world. The best Cardinal Dolan could do for him was put in a good word. That might get him on next years list of starving people in the world.

Well, well, well the 21st Century is finally catching up with these neaderthals - love your neighbor? Give to the poor? Not these well fed obese creatures

Shame on them and anyone who supports these bigots

Time to open up the Vatican and share the wealth that they have been hoarding all these centuries

Ever been to the Vatican? I have - it's like a pay as you go - best thing about it is the corner pub - right to the left where you can have a brew and get the stink off of you!

All men - kind of reminds you of the Republicans - except they wear red robes

Very nicely said granny. Thank you. We must not lose sight of Eternal life in exchange for temporal judgements and actions.

Peter: I second your post. That granny is level headed. Look for all her postings.

i remember quite clearly the teaching by the nuns of the ''corporal works of mercy''. these works included feed the hungry / cloth the naked/ administer to the sick etc. reciting of these commands made to us by god usually preceded the passing of the donation basket to comply with these commands. the cardinal is remiss in not following the church dictate---i don't think there was any fine print allowing for exceptions--if so i would have liked to have known that these men (cardinals) could decide to pick and chose according to their phobias. false advertising red robed dude--i want my money back! the picture looks like a gathering of the clan with red robes instead of white ones. wonder if the church has done any investigating of their own ranks to root out ''homosexuals''. they are content to have pedophiles and homosexuals in their midst if it helps to man the pulpits. money is always the bottom line. --

fabulous post grannienannie...

drawing parallels from your years of wisdom

thanks for connecting the dots so well....especially at Easter...right after Jesus told thief he'd be with him in heaven...minus any reference to being LGBT or not...

Barbara you can be all you want to be I'll just be Catholic. You want the wealth of the Vatican? Have it as far as I'm concerned it doesn't mean anything. Have the hospitals and the universities too while you are at it. Good advertising job by all those renaisance artists do a statue for the church and all the rich patrons see it and hire you. Remember none of those statues were bought at auction at Christies. Think of them as something you could get painted by a street artist now. My faith will survive if you take everything. My faith doesn't come from things but from my Creator.

Granny: Do you actually know the bible? Your interpretation of God and what he wants are completely different from your own. 2 Peter 2:4-11

⁴ For God did not spare even the angels who sinned. He threw them into hell,^[a] in gloomy pits of darkness,^[b] where they are being held until the day of judgment. ⁵ And God did not spare the ancient world—except for Noah and the seven others in his family. Noah warned the world of God’s righteous judgment. So God protected Noah when he destroyed the world of ungodly people with a vast flood. ⁶ Later, God condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and turned them into heaps of ashes. He made them an example of what will happen to ungodly people. ⁷ But God also rescued Lot out of Sodom because he was a righteous man who was sick of the shameful immorality of the wicked people around him. ⁸ Yes, Lot was a righteous man who was tormented in his soul by the wickedness he saw and heard day after day. ⁹ So you see, the Lord knows how to rescue godly people from their trials, even while keeping the wicked under punishment until the day of final judgment. ¹⁰ He is especially hard on those who follow their own twisted sexual desire, and who despise authority.

These people are proud and arrogant, daring even to scoff at supernatural beings^[c] without so much as trembling. ¹¹ But the angels, who are far greater in power and strength, do not dare to bring from the Lord^[d] a charge of blasphemy against those supernatural beings.

"Unhappy" - I can understand why you're unhappy. I prefer this quote, which I find much more true than the fiction you quote:

"Civilization will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

-- Emil Zola

There's a special place in Hell for those such as ol' redneck Tim Dolan who wrap themselves in their finery but who fail to understand Christ's true meaning (not to mention genetics).

– Emil Zola

I'm a Catholic the civil marriage is just a contract not a sacrement. You can have it I don't care. I would have problem with sacremental marriage but get married by a judge it's your life.

Jesus sat with people of all types, with various sins. He accepted people, why do we get so caught up on acceptance and love?

Yes, he did. But he never condoned their sin even whilst he sat with them. He listened to them and then said finally to leave their sin behind and "become fishers of men". You were never meant to stay in that sin otherwise his death otherwise his death on the cross would be meaningless. His lessons do not change with time. Don't make Christ into what you want him to be. He is our creator. You are supposed to emulate him, not the other way around. Mathew 19:4-6

⁴ “Haven’t you read the Scriptures?” Jesus replied. “They record that from the beginning ‘God made them male and female. ⁵ And he said, “‘This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one. ⁶ Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together.”

I like your post Unhappy. It's the truth but for some reason, people want to "pick and choose' which part the want to believe/live by.

So since you don't "pick and choose" you're also against Red Lobster, right?

Geez, you people are presumptuous. Did God send you a text, letting you know which Bible and which interpretation you should be following?

Get over yourselves. Keep it in your hearts and churches. You can sit around and talk about what "God thinks, feels, and wants" and pass your judgment all you want in your private lives.

jimb - sorry your big paragraph does not condone the Church's doctrines of bigotry and homophobia - plus their mysogynist's attitudes toward women

But nice try - been there done it and seen it

Many champions of "inclusiveness" and other moral relativists seem to think that we must "celebrate" and "advocate" everything, even if it is against our beliefs. In conclusion, perhaps it is just easier for critics to attack Catholics, because we don't strike back.

This demonstrates a terrible lack of understanding of the nature of the criticisms of the Catholic church and others who seek to inflict their dogma on others. This is never about getting Catholics to "celebrate" or "advocate" anything - it is about getting Catholics to (1) honor their professed commitments (which is the problem in this case); and (2) practice their religion within the same sphere that all religion is to be practiced within a secular society, i.e., with the bodies, families, homes and churches of that religion - not seek to abuse the power of society to inflict onto non-Catholics the requirement to live in accordance with Catholic teachings. Everyone has freedom of religion in this country, not just Catholics, and not just Christians. No religion, not even Christianity, is righteous in seeking to have society force others to comply with religious precepts, except those religious precepts that folks voluntarily choose to comply with.

Thanks for the paragraph you took your time to write for the benefit of all to understand the church. I gave up trying to understand the church a long time ago because the vatican is inconsistent between teaching and doing. Instead, understanding Christ seems more relevant as He teaches to love the sinner, tolerance, and casting the first stone. His teachings, like glaciers, are not inconsistent.

OK. 730 am and the family is starting to show signs of waking up. Time for a big breakfast and enjoying the family.

Barbara we aren't trying to condone as you call it even convince you of anything we are telling you a fact of the church we have learned by growing up in it. It does not change its direction based on What is fashionable today. It took until Vatican II to get the mass said in english. You can rail against the church and I don't care. You can call us every name in the book it has been done before. You can even jail or kill us and the church will still be here as immoveable as before. The Catholic church is not a democracy. We do not vote on matters of faith and morals. And WE like it that way.

lonereb--just be Catholic? What is fashionable today? We do not vote on matters of faith and morals? WE like it that way? Pobricito! Galileo was excommunicated because he said the earth revolves around the sun. WAS EXCOMMUNICATED! Does the earth revolved around the sun now? Did it in the Old Testament? Galileo was forgiven at the Second Vatican Council! Do you like it that way. The earth must follow science. Science used to accept that the earth was flat. But when it was proven to be round the Church never accepted that. So it could excommunicate people who said it was???? At one time the college of psychiatrists said that homosexuality was abnormal, a sickness, it could be cured. Now after MUCH study it has reversed it's thinking. It is part of nature, nothing to cure as it not a sickness, it could be from birth. Then from Psalm 139 I pray: I thank you for the wonders of my being, for the wonders of all creation. Your eyes saw all my actions when I was being fashioned in secret, moulded in the depths of the earth. Every one of my days was decreed before one of them came into being." I was born gay, it is not changeable and I thank God for the wonders of my being! The Church MUST listen! It must follow science, then I won't be excommunicated as was Galileo and won't have to be reinstated later.

Democracy (congregational polity) is such an important ethic that our religion recognizes it as part of its fundamental principles. The operation of any enterprise through a system that institutionalizes disenfranchisement is anathema based on our faith's values. The other forms of religious governance (episcopal polity and presbyterian polity) risk immorality when those in power exercise their power contrary to the best interests of the whole, and (as we've seen many times in recent years) that happens with alarming frequency. Especially in the case of the Roman Catholic Church, the offenses against God and humanity have been remarkable and shockingly damaging.

Carla, the word "Suffer" here is an Old English synonym of the world "Allow or Let" Let the little children come to me. But I do agree with your statement.

On another theme--the church wants to go back to old english--even condones bad translations from the latin, e.g., et ne nos induces in tentatione--and lead us not into temptation. Does God lead you into temptation? Yet it won't change the language of the Lord's Prayer.

Pacificark, the meaning of my words was based on modern usage, and I think that meaning speaks directly to todays' church. But thank you for your informative comment.

The actual betrayal of Jesus' legacy is the advocacy of bigotry (such as calling homosexuals "queers" as a disparagement) rather than the advocacy of love (such as refusal to extend a pastoral arm to those in need solely on the basis of the orientation).

Mr. Michal Henderson, I'm so sorry for you. Oh, today is Easter, isn't it. Go get the body and blood and put a smug, self righteous look on your face as you walk back to your pew with your hands folded as if in prayer, all the time focused on how pious you look to others. The adoration you get from some of your congregation will be your only reward. The next life won't hold much for you. "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

"working out for ya". Henderson, any one who paraphrases Sarah Palin truly has nothing to offer to any conversation.

Georgie I have read the history of Europe which is what most of your rant is truely about. But what you don't seem to understand is that history is not religion and religion is not faith. I believe my faith but my religion is still made up of people. People hoping to find the way to salvation. There are few true saints in positions of power anywhere. We all just do the best we can at trying to live according to God's will. Jesus loves you Georgie and so do I.

Actually I think you are talking about the NEA there Terry

you could be right Terry...sad as it is to say...

time to raise awareness...no moe sweeping pedophelia under the proverbial carpet

God's out golfing today.

Georgie the church doesn't try to hold on to its power over its people. It would be more expedient to go with the flow and keep everybody happy. The church has as its function to lead its people to heaven not to the arcade. The church is a moral guide according to its beliefs and doctrine and that never makes you popular in a world based on accommodation and instant gratification. I'm not a pawn I bellieve in the churches doctrine. It would be much easier a life for me if I didn't. Yes God is the final judge and I am betting my immortal soul that I have chosen right. Jesus loves you and so do I

????????

It seems the voltage they used on your last electroshock treatment may have been a bit high.

Umm...I'm failing to see a political purpose here. I thought it was a religious argument.

I think someone has some anger issues to deal with here, needs to stop yelling and needs to eat some chocolate bunnies or Peeps. Or, chocolate wine.

However, if you're taking any medications - which you either just did or didn't give it enough time to work, I'd forego the wine and hey, maybe watch the 50th anniversary of "To Kill A Mockingbird"!

Let me understand this NBC doctored tapes to hype the Trayvon Martin story for ratings probably in a morning show war and you believe anything they say now. Who is the pawn? And who is the one duped? Have fun I'm tired of this. Rant about me behind my back I give you permission.

Demonize?!?!?!? Really!!! Umm, you talk as if the Catholic church is freaking squeaky clean or something. And if you read the whole article, then you would quickly realize that the young man had already had a talk with the priest and that the priest went back on his word. All the guy was trying to do was a little good in a world of bad. I guess to you that is somehow un-Christian like to do.