Some Victorians were a racey bunch of hypocrites. I have no idea why they are placed on such pedestals of virtue- it must have something to do with the way they dressed and furnished their homes and tidied up their empires.At any rate, I think some of my reactions are due to the immediacy of bad news where before news was harder to come by.So, yes, I see some progress while I see more of the same. Why is that "wrong"?
On May 13, 8:25 am, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > You are wrong, in suggesting that there is no solution. It's actually > easy, when you see how others have done it, are doing it ! > > We have to be more transparent, balanced and true to oneself. But not, > as you might believe, just about sex. We do not have to reduce the > value of sex, nor is sex in commerce any deterrent to a solution. That > others have failed, as have the priests, does not mean that there is > no solution, either. > > The Victorian world no longer exists, except in our minds and > attitudes. The frogs in the well have only to come out and see it as > it is. > > On May 13, 12:34 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > It's a societal problem that exists beyond the Catholic Church. Every > > day there is a notice of abuse of some sort. What about teachers, > > scout/camp leaders, parents,aides, strangers, etc.? It is about power > > and violation of the young or weak.//The nuns want to be priests and > > they are all too human. as well.// Not sure that there is a solution > > in our highly sexed society- sex is too valuable a commodity and > > selling point for commerce. > > > On May 12, 7:57 pm, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > When it's 'cult' leaders people scream for blood. Nevermind, mixed > > > [symbols]... > > > > Anyways, I was thinking they should let the nuns be with the priests, > > > keeping things all in the church but theres the contradiction of > > > 'natural law' and sex. And again, abuse of authority. Can this be > > > salvaged? I'm not too sure, perhaps they should just enter the 21st > > > century like the one in Contact who said, 'You could call me a man of > > > the cloth. Without the cloth.' > > > > On 5/12/2010 9:55 AM, vamadevananda wrote: > > > > > Indeed ! > > > > > On May 12, 5:48 pm, Pat<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> On 11 May, 21:44, ornamentalmind<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>http://www.bishop-accountability.org/ > > > >>> All neatly documented.... > > > > >> I wonder how many of 'the accused' had actually paid for indulgences. > > > >> If they did, then 'the Vicar of Christ' has approved their actions by > > > >> turning the other cheek, i.e., turning his face away. Surely, it's > > > >> time to impeach the Pope. You'll KNOW it's true, if the New > > > >> Benedictine Authorised Version has the quote "Come onto me, ye little > > > >> children" in it. Yeah, OK, I may have churned a few stomachs with > > > >> that, but, hey, anything goes when you proclaim yourself 'Vicar of > > > >> Christ'. It's time to lose that office and face the fact that no one > > > >> can proclaim to be, via creed, 'God incarnate in stead'. It's a title > > > >> that gives FAR too much license; so the result is licentiousness. > > > >> What else would you expect?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
