beausox

Sounds like an advertisement for "Faith Based Initiatives"

Yes and yes. It always amazes me how much factual knowledge increases understanding. I really believe that you would find much to object to if you read his writings prior to posting.

Because it is not portrayed as fiction. Because I believe Jesus Christ to be Lord and Savior and that he would involve Himself in a clandestine plot to fool me and all is to believe Jesus is not honest. He did not explain the trinity in words and thoughts I could understand. I understand love. i understand the power of sex. i understand the attraction I have for women. I understand He too was a man and that I am a poor comparison to Him; but all I have to understand is that He understands me and that is why I believe and that is why it is important

Opus Dei is too much for me but then so are the Jesuits. Was its founder canonized for the $ contribution? or in combination to his other contribution? Is a large donation inconsistent with ones record and deeds in life? The early church adapted/adopted pagan ritual to coincide. Some would say Christmas was Saturnalis or any number of please-bring-the-sun-back sects; Easter any number of planting festival; Lent fasting as the larder diminished. Easter is determined as the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox. You have to admire any religion that can make its defining moment - Easter- a moveable feast. Look, these are the same anti-Catholics who mocked the exaltation of Mary to almost co-divine status with Jesus and now want you to see the randy side of Jesus doing it with His Mothers best friend whom they portray as a hooker. See it is not the crime. I am sure Danny boy would agree that the purportive sex Jesus and MM had was as sacred as sex can be. No forget how preposterous that thought is and what intellectual acrobatics one needs to endure to believe it. Focus on the real issue:Roman Catholicism is sexist. It is not the crime ; it is the cover-up.

Entertaining writer but for someone so precise about Art his book is full of factul points which are not incidental to his thesis. 1) the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947. 2)The "Star of David commemorates David it did not begin with him- it is only a few hundred years at most. 3)He claims there were 5 million witches burned/ executed while there were only 50,000- 50,00 too many to be sure. Not all women. not all by churches. not all by catholics. not all burned 4)Pyramid of Louvre has 673 panes not 666. 666? Now whatever could have prompted that mistake? 5)Opus Dei has no monks. Albino's are color blind and eye challenged. 6)Olympics celebrate Zeus not Aphrodite. 7)Knight's Templars had nothing to do with building Cathedral . 8) all in all sloppy preparation I could go on and on but by this time you are probably saying what is the difference ; it is a piece of fiction. If so it is a dangerous fiction because it strikes at the very root of Jesus' message.

Except that in this case the man IS divine. it is entirely understandable that someone who does not believe in the jesus story would find the subject trifiling. The problem is really important to someone who believes. If this tripe that Dan Brown peddles is true then Jesus was a dissembler, duplicitous and other other-wise libelous description. Again if you do not believe nor care it matters not.

I am that "someone". 1)Dan Brown is a very good and especially creative writer. 2)It was engrossing. 3) Dan Brown is a virulent anti-Catholic which is the only discrimination accepted in literary and social company.( as a Catholic I, at once wince and revel in the simple knowledge that it is so cavalierly degraded). 4)"single most powerful"? As a moral force it has trouble convincing its own flock on the sacrament of Penance so just how powerful? 5)"largest funded". for centuries The Church collected a tithe, more or less 1/10 to 1/13 of "income". For that it was until the French Revolution in "Catholic" Europe the Dept of Health, Education, Welfare, Hospitals, Orphanages among others. It is land rich and building rich. Would one suggest selling the Sistine Chapel or your local Cathedral? And then what? go out of business? 6) "deep secrets" Oh, I get it the Church Fathers decided to hide that Jesus loved Mary Magdelene and had children with her and has conspired all this while- 1968 years later-to only some day in the future surprise us with this esoteria because we , mere mortals , are only capable of intellectually consuming such easy to grasp dogma as Trinity, Transubstantiation, Virgin Birth and my personal favorite Transfiguration and ,why in the name of God, did He not ass whip His tormentors on the way to Golgotha which would have caused Mel Gibson to be widely popular. 7)Artwork. the disciple in attendance was St. John, the beloved disciple not Mary Magdalene who along with Mary MOG was at the Cross. It was quite common to androgynize figures in Renaissance Art, viz: Rembrandts "Return of the Prodigal Son" if you note the forgiving fathers hands do not belong to the same person one is female! Leonardos treatment of The Last Supper was unique because he choise the moment after Jesus has said that one of The Twelve will betray Him. It is not the sacramental moment and you can see that Leonardo has chosen to portray the range of human reaction from the guilt of Judas to the horror that could it be me? 8) There were corrupt Popes. Indeed too many. I find it hard to believe that corrupt leaders would sacrifice anything for the joy and interest of perpetuating a scandal which if proven would end their reign. They are consumately self-absorbed.

Loose lips sink ships

JPII's writings on Capitalism, Centesimus Annus, argues that the free market is best but warns against Materialism and Consumerism. JPII's youth was marred by the Pilsudski dictatorship which was in turn was "liberated" by Nazism which, in its turn, was "liberated" by Communism. His primer on Economic theory and practice was thorough. As priest, Bishop, Arch-Bishop, Cardinal and Pope he was a staunch supporter of the workers movement. His promise as Pope to return to Poland if the Russians invaded made manifest the fatuity of Stalin's mocking query "how many divisions has the Pope?". His request to visit Russia was rejected by any and all Russian political leaders of the past thirty years. It was wise on their own behalf. JPII was a principal reason that "liberation theology" ( a merger of the ideas of Karl Marx and Jesus Christ- especially in vogue in Latin Americain the seventies and eighties) is passe. Parenthetically, the Pope replaced stubborn adherents of lib-theo with "Opus Dei" faithful which is a reason anti-Catholic Dan Brown of "Davinci Code" fame makes Opus Dei a villain. But that is a topic for another day. JPII believes property rights to be natural law. He believes that human dignity is paramount. Profit is not to be sneared at but it is not to be sought at the expense of dignity.

and his criticism of Capitalism was?

This is a question of enormous import. On the one hand there is the issue of daylight saving and on the other saving time in daylight. This type of thing is not for the weakneed.

I hope i am not out of line in saying that I am pretty certain, perhaps close to positive he might be but not that certain that I might offend anyone who may have voyed for him or who went to the polls with the intention of voting for him... not that there is anything wrong with that or not that , I mean we need to take into account so many factors any which of which may, I repeat may change the whole dynamic... so ,in collusion I am quite ready to agree, but first let me consult the experts

In my initial post i said that some "may protest in Joycean fashion". Happy "Bloomsday"

The wisest of the Marxes, Groucho of course, once observed that he never wanted to be a member of any club that would accept him.

Just why would one choose a religion or denomination if it were not explicitly better (to them)? Should one choose an inferior one? Or one with glaring weaknesses and inconsistencies or fallacious roots or questionable legitimacy? I also believe United States to be the best nation in the world and I hope Brits/Canadians/ disagree. Finally, I hope your chosen set of beliefs is, in your mind, superior, if different than mine.

What does that mean " a politics board on a football web site "? Does one talk of football on a politics board or politics on football board? I would be happy to keep that in mind and make you glad if only I knew what you had in mind. I am ever mindful that you are a Hall of Fame poster and i am honored by your attentitive mind. Mindfully yours....

Again Cardinal is an adornment whose sole duty will be apparent after the Conclave next week. Each Cardinal has some duty' usually in an Arch-Bishopric and/or a position in Curia. There is no defending Law's actions but this is no promotion. It is like having been Governor of New York and you are summoned to Washington to become Asst. Secy of the Interior. Law was fired; not transferred nor promoted. O'Malley is Law's replacement as Arch-Bishop. Law remains Cardinal. I am trying to find out why he remains Cardinal. Just how did JPII facilitate "it"? This Pope has a zero tolerance policy toward Priestly sexual indiscretions regardless of age or gender. Most of Boston's cases are 20 years old and the cover-up was as long. The saintly late Cardinal Bernadin of Chicago was accused by an ex- semenarian who eventually confessed he had lied. The not-so-saintly former Bishop of Springfield Mass when confronted by accusations via a reporter resigned within hours. What is the point? The lesson is that the Church has zero tolerance with the guilty as priests and will defend the innocent. Cardinal Law covered up. JPII did not.

Factions! yousay, I would imagine that trying to co-ordinate Liberterians would be like herding cats.

I think you mis-read it and you are excused because it was unclear in the article. First, Cardinal is an honorific. Usually all Arch-Bishops are Cardinals too. Come to think of it the Arch-Bishop of Boston is not a Cardinal probably because Law retains the honorific. I do not know but it may be once a Cardinal always a Cardinal. Still there is no question Law is no longer Arch-Bishop of Boston. I am almost certain Law was a Cardinal before the scandal broke but I have been unable to document that yet. Regardless Law was not promoted when summoned to Rome. This was a kick upstairs.

Law was already a Cardinal when the scandal broke. He was not promoted. His action and inaction during and especially before the "scandal" are indefensible. The Church is an institution in which redemption is important which leads to apparent contradictions. God will judge Law and gratuitously I advise Law to prepare well. I am sure you would like to see Law drawn and quartered- and that thought does have appeal- but it is more timely to make restitution. Let me surprise you ( and if you knew me well shock you) by saying that the Protestant Reformation was one of best things that ever happened to the RCC. I do not perceive any inherent defect in Catholic teaching that condones "diddlers". "Diddlers" seek out positions in which they come in contact with the diddleable, ergo, priesthood, boy scout leaders, coaches, teachers etc.. People of evil lust the appearance of good and then defile that goodness and relish with equal parts the admixture exquisite pain and erotic pleasure As child molesters attest it is in large measure the innocence destroyed that gives them the rush. It is hoped that as a Protestant you have gotten over the Renaissance Popes, especially in light of JPII, and take a positive approach toward your own religion. Your concern for my religion is appreciated. Now leave it alone. Your Church needs your attention. Still your interest is flattering.

So the lesson of Terri Schiavo is a memo written by a Republican staffer on how Republicans should handle the tragedy? Tacky , to be sure, but hardly the point of her tragic end but as usual the bumbling Republicans manage to provide a smoke screen about an issue so clearly in need of sober and serious discussion.

Liberterianism will always be a marginal ideology. It has theoretical appeal but honest reassessment by its adherents usually results in an equalization process; influx of accolytes offset by loss of those who see the light. It is unworkable because when its fundamental principles are extended it becomes a caricature of itself. Whether it is the right of an individual to abuse himself and prevent society the power to proscribe activity injurious to individuals. I have often believed that Liberterianism is swelled in its ranks by self-interested hedonists- behind every doobie is a Liberterian. In fact, Liberterianism had better be careful not to succeed in legalizing pot because that would be its effective undoing. Virtually 1/2 of the ranks of the anti- Vietnam war movement dissappeared the night of the lottery.

It should be the responsibility of the family first. Evidently, one family have the nations bottom line ahead of Gramma's. It is so patriotic of her to think of us. Of course we are fast going to give Gammorrah a good name. We have already legitimizeded Sodom. Is this a great country or what!

Surely there is a right of privacy. The 14th amendment guarantees right to life and liberty. The abortion debate is so emotional that it makes discussion difficult. Is it not conceivable( no pun intended) that at some point some grieving father will bring suit that his aborted child was not given due process and equal protection? Is the fetus-baby the property of the mother? If so is pregnancy a state of slavery?

Good points. It is true that the Marbury case would put scholars asleep. The effect of Marbury is enormous. No it is everything. It places the Judiciary above and beyond Executive and Legislative branch because it can cause its decision to force the Legislature to construct a law it would not otherwise pass- viz: massachusetts Top court directing Legislature to craft a same-sex marriage law! Every time same sex marriage is put before the people it fails!!!!!! and that is why Anthony Lewis wife and other Mass. jurists usurped authority. Is it not plausible to posit that Liberalism is unpopular. Simply put Liberals control the judiciary and only the judiciary and that is why the Republican Senate is going for the nuclear option. Stay tuned.