So, the Vatican has absolved the Beatles

Cafe Society
21

Done and done!

22

But Yoko is still going to hell I hope?

23

Maybe they were informed of Mother Mary coming to Paul when he wakes up?

24

Say what? Count again… :smiley:

25

nam daed no em nruT

26

I’ll bet you’re remembering the same National Lampoon headline I do:

“John Paul elected Pope; George Ringo miffed.”

27

“Ew, you like The Beatles?! Even the Pope likes them!”

28

And the reference to the Fabs being “possibly Satanic”?? Just shows how utterly clueless and out of touch the Vatican is. Next they’re going to refer to the Pope as “The Holy Daddy-O.”

29

Yeah, I wouldn’t call the statements in the OP’s article by the Vatican spokesman to be a ringing endorsement so much as a capitulation. The fact that the connection to Satan was still on the table is just ridiculous.

30

April 28, 2682

“The Vatican announced today that homosexuality is no longer considered a sin and cause for eternal damnation. Priests celebrated at Gay bars around the world.”
I remember when my die-hard Roman Catholic grandmother was appalled to hear the Vatican announce you could eat meat on Fridays. She remembered her beloved brother being thrown out of the house as a teenager because he did that - as her family considered this a mortal sin.

31

Yep, complete with photo of Ringo in his Lisztomania role as a pope.

32

In a related story, seems Catholics are not amused by this German cartoon.

33

We are fortunate to live in more enlightened times than your grandmother did. Perhaps one day we’ll be enlightened enough that nobody will give a crap what the Vatican says anymore.

34

Hey, I am (technically) Catholic and I am amused! :smiley:

35

Amazingly fast by Vatican standards, I mean two Beatles are still alive. Don’t these sorts of things usually take the Vatican 200 or 300 years to get around to?

36

True but I don’t think the Beatles ever called the Pope Mr. Stupid. (I guess he was really upset when his college drinking buddy called him that.)

37

But the vatican said they sent satanic messages. To now say they were a “precious jewel” means one of two things:

  1. The vatican is OK with satanic things;
  2. The vatican was wrong when it said they were satanic.

So which is it? And, if it’s #2, why should I believe anything they say? (Not that I was going to anyway.)

38
  1. Don’t Call Me Shirley didn’t read any details at all about this issue.
  2. Don’t Call Me Shirley did read in depth, but doesn’t know the difference between “the Vatican,” and “a newspaper called L’Osservatore Romano.”

I’m stuck between choosing (3) or (4). Little help?

39

I’m a practicing Catholic and I’m not amused, but I’m also not offended. I think it’s a fine commentary on the current state of the church. I just have trouble laughing at things that call to mind sexual abuse.

As far as the Beatles thing, can I apologize on behalf of my church for being completely random? I’m sorry. We have some issues. Some of us are trying to work them out. Hopefully it will catch on soon.

40

I always thought Father MacKenzie was supposed to be Anglican.

[QUOTE=foolsguinea]
Oh, yeah, sure, wait until three of them are dead!
[/QUOTE]

ereht did ouy tahw ees I
Cranberry sauce