And we love you too, Martin Hyde!

[kaylasdad99]

@eleanorigby

See, I don’t think MH baits us. I think he truly believes what he posts.

That is much sadder and less amenable to change. He really thinks that women lack a certain something to be able to give communion etc.

If it’s true that Martin Hyde self-identifies as a Roman Catholic, it’s probably more likely that he believes women lack a certain something to be able to call upon God to perform the miracle of transubstantiation (distribution is a different office entirely; my own mother happens to be an extraordinary minister of the Eucharist). And he will likely continue to believe that until such time as a sitting Pope declares otherwise.

[Guinastasia]

@kaylasdad99

If it’s true that Martin Hyde self-identifies as a Roman Catholic, it’s probably more likely that he believes women lack a certain something to be able to call upon God to perform the miracle of transubstantiation (distribution is a different office entirely; my own mother happens to be an extraordinary minister of the Eucharist). And he will likely continue to believe that until such time as a sitting Pope declares otherwise.

And yet, as a Roman Catholic, he should know better than to have stated that compassion and empathy aren’t virtues. Because they are some of the most important ones of all.

[eleanorigby]

I’m not Catholic, so I wasn’t sure just what females are deemed unworthy to do.
I won’t hold my breath for that sitting Pope-certainly not the one that’s sitting there now.
(ps-you could hold my shirt anytime for that tattoo)

[Starving_Artist]

@askeptic

Wow I go away for a little and this became the Starving Artist show. SA your schtick got old a long time ago. This is not about politics it is about an asshole. BTW I get a kick out of a conservative asshole like you calling himself Starving Artist. Its kind of ironical…

Yeah, well, you see, when I first joined the board here I had no idea how many schmucks like you populated this board and that I would get sucked into so many political discussions. Had I known better, I’d have picked a more apropos name…something along the line of TedNugentKicksAss, perhaps.

I keed, I keed…you know I keed.

Cheers, buttpipe.

[Miller]

@eleanorigby

Show me where the conservatives support equal rights for … gays and transgendered.

Honestly, I’d like someone to show me where liberals support equal rights for gays and transgendered. Last time I checked, the chief distinction between Democrats and Republicans on this issue seemed to be that the Democrats feel that the states are perfectly capable of discriminating against gays on their own, while Republicans think the federal government needs to step in to help the process. If you’re going to find an issue to hang your Moral Superiority Hat on, you’re going to have to look somewhere besides gay rights, because neither of the political parties in this country is on the side of the angels, here.

[Updike]

@Guinastasia

And yet, as a Roman Catholic, he should know better than to have stated that compassion and empathy aren’t virtues. Because they are some of the most important ones of all.

And yet, in a previous thread, you say that you’re not a Catholic. What puts you in a position to say what Martin Hyde or anybody else “should know better”?

[Guinastasia]

@Updike

And yet, in a previous thread, you say that you’re not a Catholic. What puts you in a position to say what Martin Hyde or anybody else “should know better”?

Uh, I was born and raised Catholic, attended nine years of Catholic school and four years at a Catholic college.

[Miller]

@Updike

And yet, in a previous thread, you say that you’re not a Catholic. What puts you in a position to say what Martin Hyde or anybody else “should know better”?

I’m not an Orthodox Jew, but if someone claims to be one while chowing down on a bacon cheeseburger, I’m still going to have my suspicions.

Nice try at a “gotcha,” though. It’s cute when you try to be clever.

[Larry_Mudd]

@Miller

…neither of the political parties in this country is on the side of the angels, here.

If you emigrated to Canada you could take your pick of leftist or centrist parties that explicitly endorse equal rights for y’all.

Of course, we just went nuts and elected the right-wing loons… but that won’t last long. :o

[Guinastasia]

@Miller

I’m not an Orthodox Jew, but if someone claims to be one while chowing down on a bacon cheeseburger, I’m still going to have my suspicions.

Nice try at a “gotcha,” though. It’s cute when you try to be clever.

Not to mention that I knew more than Updike, who seemed to think that excommunication meant one wasn’t a Catholic anymore.

[kaylasdad99]

@Updike

And yet, in a previous thread, you say that you’re not a Catholic. What puts you in a position to say what Martin Hyde or anybody else “should know better”?

One supposes it’s because she has a well-documented (around here) Roman Catholic upbringing, and presumably didn’t forget all of the facts she learned about Church doctrine simply because she decided to release herself from any ecclesiastical obligations.

[Updike]

@Guinastasia

Not to mention that I knew more than Updike, who seemed to think that excommunication meant one wasn’t a Catholic anymore.

GO AWAY OLD WOMAN. The very defintion of excommunication means that the excommunicant is not part of the Catholic Church. See also, heretic and schismatic, for example.

[GIGObuster]

What **Guinastasia ** and **Miller ** said, like **Guin ** I do not consider myself a catholic now but “Once a Catholic, always a Catholic.”

That stuff does not go away because it was seared in our minds, I would always think that the nuns would have used branding irons if allowed, but the rulers came close.

[Zoe]

Starving Artist: Zoe, again, my comments really aren’t directed toward MH’s behavior and whether or not he was acting wrongfully in what he said; rather, they were aimed at the over-the-top, almost gleeful orgy of intentionally trying to wound him as much as possible, and in a deeply personal way, that was going on at the time I came into this thread.

Stavin’ Dahlin’, I think that the purpose of pitting someone is to address his behavior and whether or not he acted wrongfully in what he has said at the SDMB. The word gleeful is often used to describe the behavior of Democrats, most often my third rate right wing columnists for second tier newspapers. (She said gleefully…) Yes, in pitting we sometimes intentionally try to wound. In some cases, it may have been in a deeply personal way.

But I can assure you that in no way has it be “as much as possible.”

Knowing the verbal skills of many in this group, I would say that most of them have shown considerable restraint.

And we were on topic.

[Starving_Artist]

@Zoe

Stavin’ Dahlin’…

Aw shucks, ma’am, you make me blush! (And here I forgot to bold your name in my own humble little post.)

@Zoe

And we were on topic.

[Guinastasia]

@Updike

GO AWAY OLD WOMAN. The very defintion of excommunication means that the excommunicant is not part of the Catholic Church. See also, heretic and schismatic, for example.

No, it means one is a Catholic who was condemned to Hell. I pointed that out to you in the other thread.

Strictly speaking, excommunication does not render you a non-Catholic. It merely means you’re a Catholic who’s been damned to hell. What’s more, it isn’t intended to permanently separate you from the church; rather, it’s a “medicinal” procedure, meant to make you see the error of your ways. If in fact you do become reconciled later, you won’t be rebaptized, just forgiven. In the eyes of the church, once a Catholic, always a Catholic. Irritating, I know, but as I say, this wasn’t set up to accommodate you.

It seems you have the memory of a goldfish.

[Updike]

@Guinastasia

No, it means one is a Catholic who was condemned to Hell. I pointed that out to you in the other thread.

Have fun there then.

[GIGObuster]

@Updike

GO AWAY OLD WOMAN. The very defintion of excommunication means that the excommunicant is not part of the Catholic Church. See also, heretic and schismatic, for example.

**Guin ** an old woman? shows how ignorant you are on that too. Time to go medieval on your ass:

The reality is that there are different kinds of excommunication, and you may have been right in the dark ages, but nowadays you really have to be a pest to remain excommunicated:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

Excommunication (Lat. ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion – exclusion from the communion), the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness. It necessarily, therefore, contemplates the future, either to prevent the recurrence of certain culpable acts that have grievous external consequences, or, more especially, to induce the delinquent to satisfy the obligations incurred by his offence. Its object and its effect are loss of communion, i.e. of the spiritual benefits shared by all the members of Christian society; hence, it can affect only those who by baptism have been admitted to that society. Undoubtedly there can and do exist other penal measures which entail the loss of certain fixed rights; among them are other censures, e.g. suspension for clerics, interdict for clerics and laymen, irregularity ex delicto, etc. Excommunication, however, is clearly distinguished from these penalties in that it is the privation of all rights resulting from the social status of the Christian as such. The excommunicated person, it is true, does not cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never be effaced; he can, however, be considered as an exile from Christian society and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical authority. But such exile can have an end (and the Church desires it), as soon as the offender has given suitable satisfaction. Meanwhile, his status before the Church is that of a stranger. He may not participate in public worship nor receive the Body of Christ or any of the sacraments. Moreover, if he be a cleric, he is forbidden to administer a sacred rite or to exercise an act of spiritual authority.

…

Excommunication, it must be remembered, is a medicinal penalty intended, above all, for the correction of the culprit; therefore his first duty is to solicit pardon by showing an inclination to obey the orders given him, just as it is the duty of ecclesiastical authority to receive back the sinner as soon as he repents and declares himself disposed to give the required satisfaction. This satisfaction is often indicated in the law itself; for instance, usurpers of ecclesiastical property are excommunicated until such time as they make restitution (Council of Trent, Sess. XXII, c. xi); and again, it is determined by the judge who grants absolution or the indult for absolving. Besides expiatory practices habitually known as “penance”, such satisfaction exacts opportune measures for the reparation of the past, as well as guarantees for the future. It is not always necessary that these measures be executed prior to absolution, which is frequently granted on the solemn promise of the excommunicated party either to accomplish a specified act, such as coming to an agreement with the Church for the property usurped, or simply to abide by the orders of ecclesiastical authority (standi mandatis ecclesi ). In such cases absolution is not unusually given under pain of “reincidence” (ad reincidentiam), i.e., if within a definite period the person censured has not accomplished a certain specified act, he reincurs the same excommunication; his status is just as if he had never been absolved.

Of course, if one is not a part of the church anymore that would be impossible, in reality denying access to sacraments is the big component to excommunication nowadays, only in medieval times one could find the standards of excommunication that **Updike ** thinks are still there.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@Guinastasia

It seems you have the memory of a goldfish.

Damn, that’s harsh.
To the goldfish.

[Guinastasia]

@GIGObuster

**Guin ** an old woman?

I dunno, constantly dealing with idiots like Updike are certainly going to age me prematurely.