JOE JUSTICE AND THE TEXT (part one)

/ Topic > Re: One&Only True Rock / 5 June 1998 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.apologetics, talk.religion.misc, alt.blasphemy /
.
 Dear Timothy, Congratulations! You just surpassed Paragon and Padraic as my all-time favorite dialogue partner. ... By the way, has anyone seen any clues as to Paragon's current whereabouts? I'm really very worried for him. I sent him a small query a few weeks ago, and he has failed to answer. At first I thought that he might be on vacation or something ... but now I'm wondering if maybe the Evil One has not lifted him up and swallowed him whole! ... This is not at all a good sign. Anyway, let's on at once to other matters ...
.
] Timothy C. Consodine previously wrote: What the heck is the "reincarnation of him" supposed to mean?
.
>> textman answered: Is this not what is ultimately meant when the bishops say that they are the
>> 'successors' of the apostles? Do they not claim a magical link to Peter? Does not the papal supremacy
>> involve an actual appropriation of the essence and being of Peter? If they are not somehow the
>> re-presentation of Peter, then how can the so-called 'keys' that were given to him be theirs to have
>> and to hold?
.
> Timothy replied: "Magical link?" No.  "Reincarnation?" No. Apostolic Succession? Absolutely.
.
 [Timothy generously provides three selections from the Word of God to prove his point:]
.
> And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
> And they prayed and said, "Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these
> two thou hast chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned
> aside, to go to his own place." And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he
> was enrolled with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:23-26)
.
> Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands;
> (2 Timothy 1:6)
.
> You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me
> before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.  (2Tim 2:1-2)

[ textman has a brief fit of joy whenever he sees these 2 verses! ]
.
 textman say:  Did you say 'Joe Justice'? ... LOL ... Methinks our good friend-historian Lukas is making a clever little joke at the Reader's expense, dear Timothy. This is not an usual feature of historical literature from classical times. Indeed, it is the abundance and richness of these various rhetorical features and characteristics (of the ancient science of history-making) that places brother Luke right up there with the giants of historical study (eg. Herodotus, Tacitus, Thucydides, etc). In other words, it is not without good reason that the single two-part book called Luke-Acts is such a major part of the New Testament canon (and the faith of the churches). Lukas stepped into Christian history at just the right moment in time (c.115CE) with a remarkable vision of the previous 85 years of church history. Everything we find in Luke-Acts is a clear testimony to, and evidence of, all that I have just said ...
.
 Therefore, we cannot take everything in Lk-Acts as historical fact as such. This means that careful discernment is required to gingerly separate out the Lukan legends from the more concrete and reliable realities of early Christian history (and the formation of the NT canon). ... Now this Matthias episode clearly and easily falls into the realm of legendary embellishment after the grand manner. Luke is out to tell a story; and that is what he does best! Therefore, you must ask yourself: Does the Faith rest on Story? Or does it rest on historical realities? I myself opt for the latter. Thus Jesus died and rose again. This is historical fact. If you had been there with digital camera in hand, your computer monitor would latter reveal amazing things. Just think of it: irrefutable evidence of the greatest moments in all of human history! (These are the sorts of things that historians dream of while others dream of wealth and power and sex!) This, then, is the true nature of the historical process. No one can validly reduce the entire sum total of all human experience to rationalistic categories or romantic fantasies. To do so does violence to us all. In the same way, all of human reality (past, present, and future) is filled with Mystery, Darkness, & Unknowing. This should not surprise anyone; not even those of the Faith of Rationalism (eg. the self-proclaimed 'scientific' ones). What all this means to the topic at hand is that Timothy's use of Acts 1:23-26 to demonstrate the divine mind on these matters (ie. to provide solid foundation for the doctrine of Apostolic Succession) is a serious and willful misuse and abuse of the text based on a deliberate and misleading reading of the story (and its meaning, intent, and significance for all True Believers) !
.
 So if the Reader has followed me this far without too much stumbling along the way, you ought to have a better grasp of what is happening here. And what is happening here is that brother Timothy is demonstrating for us how the powers that be in the church misuse the scriptures to the benefit of the Priestly Vision of All Things! Hence the two quotes from 2Tim are also taken out and separated from its historical and canonical context; and once emptied of its full and intended meaning and significance is sharpened up into a rhetorical weapon and made to serve the illusion we call 'apostolic succession'. This is what I mean by the Magic Link that connects Peter to Pope. Its essence is magical thinking (as opposed to supernaturalism as such). Thus these two 2Tim quotes were never intended to be used by the priests to support the claims of any one man to the first place among all believers forevermore, amen, hallelujah! It was only latter on in the second century (and early third century) that the ruling classes within the church arose to safeguard orthodoxy from the enemies without and within the church, from over-zealous friends without and within the church, and from the changes in thought, belief, and practice that came with the ever greater numbers that accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord & Savior.
.
 It is an exciting and amazing story; these events that surround the text like a hidden spiritual rainbow ... What the church was is just as important and necessary to know as what the church is today. And when we look at any text in the Bible, we cannot simply forget the past and present church (as if it has no bearing on what we see), and then say that THIS verse means this, that, or the other thing. To do so is to demonstrate a fundamental disrespect for the very text that you unwittingly abuse. This is why I do not approve of those who come along with well-composed lists of biblical snippets, saying that THIS is what God meant by placing THESE VERSES in his holy book. Every true Believer who proceeds in this manner pisses on the scriptures, and so ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves ...
.
 And what about you, Dear Reader? Do you claim to respect (or disrespect) the Book of Books? How can you even say 'yea' (or 'nay') if you do not even know the full extent of the vast universe that sleeps there among the black letters and numbers? I tell you truly: there is NO ONE who knows all that hides therein! None of us can ever rightly approach the sacred text without a humble heart. If your heart is not humble, then your eyes are closed to the truth! And so how can you see what is placed before your blind-eyes? Look there at the arrogant ones ... Do they not already know all that there is to know about the Bible? Are they not wise beyond measure? When they open the Book and gaze upon a passage lying there, are they not its Lord & Master? The Reader Supreme Over the Text? ... Shame on you! Shame on ALL of you! Faithful Christians and atheist rationalists ... Are you not exactly the same?! Where is your great reason and wisdom? Where is your unsurpassed knowledge of the text to go along with your proud expertise and excellence?
.
 . . . I see it NOT!
.
>> tx: Does not the pope require that ALL Christians should acknowledge his primacy and authority?
>> When you go and have an audience with the papal prince, are you not required to 'bend the knee'
>> as a sign of respect, as a sign that you accept his superiority?
.
> TC: No. If you can show me any authentic Catholic teaching that requires "bending the knee for
> the pope" I'll leave the church tomorrow.
.
 LOL ... You and many others. You are being far too literal here, Timothy.
.
>> tx: The church already has one Lord and Master over all (ie. the Son of Man). It does not
>> require another. Bend your knee to any other, and you betray Jesus.
.
> TC: What happens when people "bend their knees to themselves" and place their own human
> wisdom above divinely revealed truth?
.
 I'll tell you: what happens is the great and glorious Wise & Compassionate Woman-Church of 21st century, post-modern Canada (interdenominational)!!!
.
] TC: <snip> That's the whole point textman -- you don't have the whole gospel. You have not heard
] the whole gospel and your personal relationship with Jesus is incomplete without the Holy Eucharist
] and full communion with His church on earth.
.
>> tx: But Timothy, it is not by my choice that I am no longer in communion with the Church.
>> They willfully and sadistically threw me out, abandoned me, and exiled me.
.
> TC: How so?
.
 This is how so:
.
>> tx: But first these wise and compassionate ones sat in judgment upon me and found me wanting.
>> They judged me unfit to be a Catholic, else why should they so violently 'dismiss' me from the Heart
>> of the Diocese?
.
> TC: What happened? You'll have to fill me in . . .
.
 What happened was that my beloved took exception to my affection, and filed a harassment complaint with her friends in power; whereupon certain authorities in the church dubbed me a threat to the females of the Heart of the Diocese, and forbade any and all contact with the Favored One. And when many threats and wrapping me up in chains failed to make me sufficiently apathetic, certain peoples connected with the place took exception to my writings (and other criticisms of various realities), and seized upon these as an excuse to convene a committee of four to look into the matter (eg. review the case history, as it were), whereupon sufficient evidence was indeed found to exist so as to warrant dismissal from the college. In other words, (and given the weighted nature of the committee), what basically happened was that my soulmate (being the coward that she is) could not bear to risk seeing my ugly face in those hallowed halls, and wanted me out of the way so as to blot The Insignificant One completely out of the world, out of her reality, out of all existence (ie. out of sight, out of mind, etc). So, of course, the powers and principalities, being eager to demonstrate the fine discernment of their acute sense of social justice didst expel me, didst dismiss me, didst spit me out, etc ...
.
 For the greater glory of God. Amen. Rest in Peace, textman.

/ Subject > Re: One&Only True Rock / 5 June 1998 / Ngz: alt.religion.apologetics, talk.religion.misc, alt.blasphemy /
.
>> tx: If my very presence is a vexation unto them, how can I pretend that I am still in communion
>> with the Church at large? They acted on behalf of the Church, and so it is the Church as a whole
>> that has despised and rejected me, and cast me out! . . .
>> This is how the gospel is practiced at the Heart of the Diocese ...
.
> TC: What Diocese?
.
 Dear Timothy, art thou utterly blind? These social / human realities that I speak of exist in every diocese in North America. It is not a question of a few scattered 'bad' ones. It is a question of what the American and Canadian churches in general are teaching in their more enlightened and progressive institutions of higher education. Please note that I am making a clear distinction here between what is officially said, and what is taught by policies, actions, attitudes, general demeanor, affections, etc.
.
> There are some pretty bad ones these days - but even in the bad ones there are still some good people.
.
 Of course there are good people in every diocese, in every Catholic seminary, in every Christian college, in every believing university. I have met and loved many of the good students, teachers, seminarians, and staff that I saw during my seven years at the Heart of the Diocese. I am not foolish enough to deny that they do good works and are faithful disciples. Alas, they cannot (or will not) even acknowledge the pervasive evil that masquerades as Christian freedom and holy liberation. Yes, it is much easier not to see. It is much easier to simply busy oneself with much more important matters, than to give a second thought to The Unacceptable One. Oh yes, it is much easier by far, to be apathetic and uncaring about the lives of strangers. And so so much harder to practice love of neighbor ...
.
> Following the same logic, how would you respond to one person (like me for example) asking for your
> forgiveness on behalf of the church for any wrongs which may have been committed by some of her
> members? (I am assuming you were once a Catholic?) If that's the case, then I ask for your forgiveness
> as my brother in Christ. I feel betrayed by fellow church members sometimes, but when I forgive them
> and try to keep my side of the street clean it makes my cross easier to carry.
.
> Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, and
> patience, forbearing one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as
> the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds every-
> thing together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you
> were called in the one body.   [Col 3:12-15]
.
 What you ask has been asked of me before; by friend and foe, by parish priest and authorized teachers of the Church. "Forgive, textman." "Get over it, textman." "Forget about her, textman." "Get a life, textman." etc etc. Well, 4Q2! ... For six years did I put on compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, patience, forbearance, and forgiveness. As my Lord commanded, so did I do. But did any one of God's Ungrateful People even stop to notice it? Certainly not! And then, when I put on love also, everything suddenly changed. When I swore off apathy and uncaring, then didst a tide of Anger & Dismay arise against me. It engulfed the entire Heart from top to bottom, and nothing could stop it from destroying me . . . Do you have any idea what it means to a scholar to rip him away from his beloved books and magazines and all manner of good scholarly resources? Can you comprehend the enormity of the loss and pain that such a thing involves? I cannot think of a more sadistic act that does not end in death! So where was their forgiveness for me when I needed it most? Nowhere to be seen at the Heart of the Diocese!
.
>> tx: Isaiah 1:12-17 <snip>
.
> TC: Who is the Prophet Isaiah speaking of?
.
 You and I and everyone else who sets eyes on those words!
.
>>> TC: 1 Cor 11:23 <snip>
.
>> tx: I do not require rituals to remind myself of the Lord. He is with me always;
>> for that is what it means to be a slave of the Lord.
.
> TC: How is Jesus present with us? He is present in spirit when two or three gather in His name;
> but He is present body, blood, soul and divinity in the Holy Eucharist: John 6:53-57 <snip>
> Luke 22:19 <snip> Matt 26:26-28 <snip>
.
 I have no objection to the Eucharist, or to any of your three proof texts ... Although I suspect a rather too literal understanding of John 6 on your part. Need I point out the danger in this? The danger is that we may be tempted to forget the fundamentally spiritual nature of the scriptures and the sacraments that are based on them (according to VC2). Need I point out again that Paul also draws our attention to the spiritual risk that all face when eating and drinking the Lord? ... But perhaps it was the church's need to respond to Paul's perceived not-unbounded faith in the Love-Feast that prompted John to write chapter six in the 'infinite style'. Say; I'll bet you dollars for dimes that you never considered that ... did you?
.
] tx: the gospel that demands more of Christians than that they should put their faith in priests
] to save them.
.
>>> TC: Who the heck believes "faith in priests" will save them?
.
>> tx: Do not the People of God suppose that hearing the Word is sufficient? Do they not suppose that
>> the thin plastic wafer makes them holy? Do not the People suppose that God asks no more of them
>> then that they sacrifice one hour a week to him? Do they not think that no more than this is required?
>> Do they not trust the priests to intercede on their behalf and make sure for them that God is pleased
>> with their half-hearted faith, and their lukewarm and oh-so-pious practice of religion? Do not the
>> priests encourage them to think all this?
.
> TC: I don't know of any priest (nor have I ever heard of any) who teach this.
> Can you provide some examples?
.
 Timothy, Timothy. You have eyes, yet do not see. You have ears, yet do not listen. I did not say that priests explicitly teach or preach or say any of these things. It is what the priests do (and don't do) that encourages them. It is what the priests don't teach and preach and say that teaches the People what is acceptable (and not) to God. The People trust their priests to know the Bible, to teach them the necessary truths of the sacred scriptures. But the priests in Canada would much rather teach Unconditional Love & Infinite Compassion, and the Evil Thing they call Mutual-Love. This is what is taught to seminarians and divinity students all across this land; and they will not tolerate any idea suggesting otherwise ... whether it comes out of the scriptures or not! Oh yes, the wise and compassionate ones at the Heart of the Diocese are very big on forgiveness ... when it suits their purposes. I forgive them their rejection and hostility and anger and hatred and sadism. They do not and cannot forgive my love for She of the Warm Blue Voice!
.
> Some just "suit up" and "show up" but some really want to serve the Lord and live the gospel. But isn't
> this what Jesus promised? "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net which was thrown into the sea
> and gathered fish of every kind; when it was full, men drew it ashore and sat down and sorted the good
> into vessels but threw away the bad. So it will be at the close of the age. The angels will come out and
> separate the evil from the righteous, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and
> gnash their teeth" (Matt 13:47-50). There's an old irish saying that goes: 'Many Catholics went to church
> and never missed a Sunday; Many Catholics went to hell for what they did on Monday'. You can find
> people in any religion - Catholic, Protestant, Jew or Muslim - who practice the outward appearances of
> religion but have no faith. That's just man's fallen nature showing.
.
 What you have just given us is fully in keeping with the joy-joy philosophy that I just hinted at above. What you have just given us is an apology for iniquity! The Lord of Compassion & Judgment can and does forgive sins; but that same Lord also hates iniquity, and the lies and deceptions that cover it over. The Abomination Unto Desolation (that they have erected at the Heart of the Diocese) is a stench unto the Lord! Moreover, if it is up to the Lord to separate the goats from the sheep at the end of the age, by what authority did the powers at the Heart assume the Lord's duty and separate me out before the end of the age? Perhaps they just couldn't wait that long?
.
>>> TC: <snip> What happens to obstinate people "in your boat?"
.
>> tx: Huh? My boat? ...  I am not rich enough to own any boats.
.
> TC: That's not what I meant. I was implying that those who follow their own interpretation of the Bible
> end up with something other than what has been revealed by God: John 5:39 You search the scriptures,
> because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; 40 yet you
> refuse to come to me that you may have life.
.
 My interpretations of scripture follow what is revealed in the text. This is because the first principle of my approach is to let the text speak for itself as much as possible (ie. without the distortions of foreign interpretive grids; such as the priestly vision of all things). This approach also involves considerable humility on the Reader's part; and more than a little respect for the text; and more than a little knowledge of early church history; and as little as possible of Constipation of the Imagination; and an unshakable faith that the One Teacher speaks to us directly from out of the pages of his sacred text; and that with a little grace from our Heavenly Father we can rightly understand what the Word speaks according to the Spirit of Truth which was promised.
.
> Why not come back home?
.
 Because I cannot. Because my forgiveness is not enough. Because it is necessary for them to forgive me, to accept me, to apologize to me ... for lying to me, for deceiving me, for hating me, for wanting nothing to do with me, for sadistically casting me out, etc etc, ad nauseum. Else how can reconciliation occur? And how can I return without full reconciliation? Unless they are willing to admit their errors - and you cannot do this for them, on their behalf, as it were - there can be no reconciliation! But they do not want reconciliation. They are perfectly happy the way things are now. They cater to the whims of the Evil One; and they will never, ever, under any circumstances, speak the truth about these matters.  ... No indeed. Far much better to be rid of the inconvenient and bothersome prophet of the Lord. The church has no use whatsoever for such a monstrous creature as that!
.
[ WHEW!!! ... textman needs a looong time-out! ]

/ Re: One&Only True Rock / 29 May 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
] P42: Under her teaching office, the Catholic Church preserves the Word of God.
.
>> textman replied: Hey! Is this a reference to the Sacred Scriptures? The only reason I ask is because
>> whenever this phrase is used by Catholic apologists you can never be sure exactly what it is that is
>> being indicated. This is because the RC definition of 'Word of God' is very - shall we say? - expansive.
>> It CAN mean the Bible; but it can also mean the Tradition, the teachings of the bishops, and even things
>> like the Heart of the Diocese. All this is not so much 'preservation' as 'DISTORTION & DISSOLUTION'!
.
> Padraic42 responds: Poor text, no doubt the 'word of God' means the Scriptures in the Catholic Church
> as well as any other Christian denomination. Again, only those unfamiliar with, or ignorant of, Catholic
> teaching would add tradition, teachings of bishops or something as absurd as the 'Heart of the Diocese'
> (whatever that is). Sacred Tradition, the teachings of the Apostles handed down from them, as well as
> the teachings of the Pope and magesterium cannot oppose the Scriptures, and have not. The
> 'DISTORTION & DISSOLUTION'!, as text wants to claim, seems to come from his post, not Catholic
> teaching. Try again text.
.
 Dear P42, OK then; if you don't believe me, perhaps you will pay heed to the bishops: "9. Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal. Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. And Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching. Thus it comes about that the Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Hence, both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence.
.
 "10. Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church. By adhering to it the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers (cf. Acts 2:42 Greek). So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful. But the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone ..." (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, VC2, 1965).
.
 Now then, unless you are willing to claim that this document does not represent the Catholic understanding of these matters, it ought to be clear to all that in the Catholic view the term 'Word of God' in no way refers only to Scripture. Indeed, it is clear that Scripture is only a small and insignificant part of the Word of God, since the Tradition (being almost 2000 years huge) dwarfs the meager and measly Holy Book. Moreover, in the Catholic vision of things there is no such thing as a Christian sitting alone and reading the Bible directly (ie. Bible -> Christian), but rather, there must always be a third element in the equation (ie. Bible -> Priest -> Christian); otherwise how will the Reader know that he/she is understanding correctly unless the priests tell them so. In other words, because the priestly interpretation of Scripture is the ONLY valid one for all believers, there is really no point in reading the Bible at all, since you have to be a priest to be fit even to understand it!
.
 In the same way, you claim that Tradition, etc "cannot oppose the Scriptures, and have not". Well then, let us see if this is so. When I was at the Heart of the Diocese (ie. seminary & theological college) one bishop taught us: "If it's sad, or mad, and not glad, then it's bad". In other words, it is only those ideas, emotions, dispositions, affections, etc, that are in harmony with the prevailing joy-joy philosophy that are fit to be termed 'Catholic'. Anger, despair, depression, etc are NOT Catholic in any way, shape, or form. But if you look in the Psalms, you will find that the majority of them are classified as 'laments'. In other words, they are chock full of anti-Catholic things like rage and despair. 'Cannot oppose the scriptures' my ass! The teachings of the Woman Catholic Church of Canada are nothing but one long and constant opposition to scripture!
.
 Again, you say "only those unfamiliar with, or ignorant of, Catholic teaching would add tradition, teachings  of bishops or something as absurd 'Heart of the Diocese' (whatever that is)". Really? Well, check this out: ".. the Word of God includes the sacraments, the lives and writings of the saints, liturgy, preaching, art, poetry, music, Catholic schools, the passing on of faith from parents to children, and the teaching of church councils, popes and bishops. All of these provide the context for viewing the Word of God found in scripture ..." ("Jesus gave more than a book - Collins", Western Catholic Reporter, March 30/98, p.9). And who said this, you ask? Only the Most Reverend Thomas Collins, Bishop of St Paul, Alberta. Say now; you don't suppose he's ignorant of Catholic doctrine too, do you Padraic? I mean, this particular bishop is also a scripture scholar; so he ought to know which way is up ... No?
.
 So maybe now you're thinking that you look pretty silly with egg all over your face; but actually, it looks pretty darn good from where I'm sitting. LOL. In any case, you'd better get used to it if you plan to continue 'leaping before looking'. Hey, that might work on others, but if you intend to cut me off at the knees, you had better make damn sure that your blades are razor sharp! Or as my loud-mouthed friend says: 'If you mess with the bull, you're gonna get the horn!' ... When are you people gonna realize that the prophet of the Lord does, in fact, know what he is talking about?

/ Subject: Re: On Distortion / 1 June 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
>> textman wrote: Dear P42, OK then; if you don't believe me, perhaps you will pay heed to the bishops:
>> "9. Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one
>> with the other.
.
> Padraic42 responds: You see a problem with that? I guess you'd call St.Paul a heretic or some such thing then.
> "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth
> or by letter." (2 Thess. 2:15). Sacred Scripture is NOT the sole source of truth, nor is it the single 'infallible'
> source of truth. Scripture IS  "... profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in
> righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (2 Tim. 3:16)
> {Note the word 'profitable' not 'only'). But it is the "... church of the living God, (which is) the pillar and bulwark
> of the truth." (1 Tim. 3:15) So, I guess you oppose St. Paul AND Sacred Scripture by making IT the 'pillar and
> bulwark of truth' and rejecting the Sacred 'TRaditions' given us by the Apostles. ... Poor text.
.
 Dear Padraic, I'd call St Paul an apostle and a prophet and one of the most important Christian leaders that the church had AND still has. I have no objection to Tradition as such, only to the idea that the words of bishops are equal to, or greater than, the truths of scripture. By the way, Paul did not write 1&2Timothy, and the fact that you obviously think he did clearly demonstrates that your ignorance of the Bible is extreme in the extreme! In the same way, I do not consider scripture to be the SOLE source of truth; nor do I think it infallible. But I do think it is MORE than merely 'profitable'. I think it absolutely necessary to the Faith because I have seen what happens when Christians reject the Bible. They replace biblical truth with the illusions of their own minds, or they equate their own opinions with the Word of God. When the words of bishops take precedence over the very Voice of our Lord then ANYTHING they say becomes the Word of God whether it is in conflict with the scriptures or not.
.
 And what about the rest of my post? Your method of argument is such that you take the first statement that comes along, 'rebut' that, and then think your job complete. Did you even read anything beyond those first few sentences? My guess is that you didn't even bother to read the whole article before snapping off an answer, and off you go on to other things. If you think yourself an able defender of the Faith, you are seriously mistaken! Why can't you just admit that you were wrong? At least that way you would earn my respect for being honest. But instead of doing that you continue to try and make me look foolish by putting your warped words into my mouth and rebutting that! Your dishonest methods of dialogue do little to impress me with your learning. And when all else fails, you simply resort to insult in order to make points with the Reader. At least I have enough respect for my Readers to try and put together some cogent and intelligible arguments. Why don't you try thinking BEFORE posting. I'm sure all of us would be grateful for that!

/ Subject >  Re: More Distortions / 3 June 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
> Padraic42 wrote: I guess text would have great respect for Augustine if he said 'textman' was
> his 'authority' for Scripture.
.
tx: You got that right!  LOL
.
> It would seem that textman is just another neo-Montanist, feeling he has the 'spirit' to interpret
> Scripture all on his own authoritatively.
.
 Dear Paddy, I would not call myself a neo-Montanist, as there are considerable differences between their thinking and mine ... Yet I won't get into all that (in order to spare our Readers a great deal of unnecessary grief). But you are right to say that I believe that I have a spirit to interpret the scriptures all by my lonesome ... with a little help from my friends (ie. other bible scholars). This is because such gifts are (according to scripture) promised to certain individuals among the People of God. But the priests interpret all things to their own benefit such that they do not serve the Word of God, but rather make the Word of God to serve them and their outrageous claims. In this way they make our Lord into a Liar, and make themselves tyrants over the People.
.
 Thus Jesus says 'Follow me' because he is (according to scripture) the One Teacher who is sufficient unto salvation. So the priests scramble to set themselves up as 'representatives of Christ', or Messiah clones, who say 'Don't follow him! Rather follow us!' And so the People of God have indeed followed them. Here in Canada they follow the clergy on the road leading to madness and perversion; for it pleases the priests that women should hate men (as they do) and lust after each other (in the name of freedom, liberation, and 'social justice'), for it is much better that good Catholic girls be lesbians than that they should allow themselves to be defiled by the hands of men.
.
 Thus the 'progressive and enlightened' ones in the church, being of like mind with the clergy, honor the scriptures with their lips, but take from it only those things that 'empower' them in their satanic 'mutual-love', and simply reject the rest as just so much misogynistic rubbish. Oh yes, the priestly interpretation of the Bible is most certainly the only valid one for the Faithful ... especially for those who can't be bothered to stick their noses into the Book (which is the very Voice of our Lord)!

/ Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Date > 4 June 1998 /
.
>> textman previously wrote: ... Now then, unless you are willing to claim that this document does not
>> represent the Catholic understanding of these matters, it ought to be clear to all that in the Catholic
>> view the term 'Word of God' in no way refers only to Scripture.
.
> Brian P. Gillespie answers: That is correct. 'Word of God' is not solely the Scriptures.
> And the Scriptures teach as much.
.
 textman responds: I quite agree. The scriptures proclaim Jesus as the Word of God (cf. Prologue to John's Gospel). It is because of this fact that we can say that the Lord speaks to us from out of his Holy Book (cf. Epistle of James). Thus the Torah, the Prophets, Wisdom, the apostolic epistles, and the gospels are all the Word of God too. But nowhere in Scripture does it suggest that the teachings of men (eg. popes and bishops) are also the Word of God in THIS way (ie. in the sense of being a direct incarnation and manifestation of the Lord in a concrete material and spiritual manner) -> In all the World the Christian Scriptures are unique! Therefore we have to make a clear distinction between inspired Truth (ie. revelation), and the falsely 'inspired' fantasies of vain and egotistical men who suppose that their theologies and philosophies are just as much the Word of God as the Scriptures ... and EVEN MORE SO! Thus if a bishop teaches that "If it's mad or sad, and not glad, then it's bad", then it hardly matters that scripture violently disagrees with such a ludicrous joy-joy philosophy since 'the episcopal word' ALWAYS takes precedence over scripture! Such is the marvelous 'respect' that Catholicism (and Christianity in general these days) has for the sacred scriptures.
.
>> tx: Indeed, it is clear that Scripture is only a small and insignificant part of the Word of God,
>> since the Tradition (being almost 2000 years huge) dwarfs the meager and measly Holy Book.
.
> BG: Then you didn't even bother to read your own citations. What you quoted said quite plainly:
> "Hence, both  Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of
> devotion and reverence." And also: "Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture make up a single
> sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church." Therefore, your entire
> 'small and insignificant' rant falls flat.
.
 Not only have I read these citations, but I have read the entire document about a dozen times so far. And although Dei Verbum urges "equal feelings of devotion and reverence", I see very little devotion or reverence on the part of Canadian Catholics toward the Bible. What is said in this dogmatic constitution is one thing. What is actually practiced on a daily basis by the vast majority of American/Canadian Christians is quite something other. For the many enlightened and progressive ones in the church, the Bible is mostly just irrelevant to the post-modern world; being, as it were, patriarchal, anachronistic, and misogynistic. What the Canadian Woman-Church requires is a new Bible. One that clearly emphasizes the necessity and superiority of priests. One that clearly advocates 'mutual-love' as 'God's deepest desire'. One that does NOT claim that many are called, but few are chosen. One that does NOT suggest that it is harder for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. And if we must needs 'edit out' half the biblical text in order to bring it in line with our joy-joy philosophy, and our 'wise and compassionate' enlightened-wisdom and so-called 'social justice', well then, so much the better! But since they can't do THAT, they have to make do with the new and improved inclusive-language version of the scriptures (ie. The New Revised Standard Version), and simply ignore all those passages that are offensive to their delicate sensibilities.
.
>> tx: Moreover, in the Catholic vision of things there is no such thing as a Christian sitting alone and
>> reading the Bible directly (ie. Bible -> Christian), but rather, there must always be a third element in
>> the equation (ie. Bible -> Priest -> Christian); otherwise how will the Reader know that he/she is
>> understanding correctly unless the priests tell them so.
.
> BG: You mean like the Bible teaches: "How will I know what it means unless someone teaches me"????
.
 Given the enormous ignorance of, and disrespect for, the scriptures that exists on the part of most Christians (especially those who compose lists of Bible snippets to prove a point), it ought to be apparent that someone needs to teach them what it means. But the church seems to think that ordination is all that is required to make a man an expert on the scriptures. Yet the plain truth is that most priests are utterly unfit to teach on the Bible. Nowhere is this made more apparent than in the Sunday sermon, which has degenerated into little more than entertaining story-telling and amusing folk-tales. Thus the priests do not teach scriptural truth; they preach only a watered-down gospel that washes away all truth so as to make the Gospel suitable for public consumption!
.
>> tx: In other words, because the priestly interpretation of Scripture is the ONLY valid one for all
>> believers, there is really no point in reading the Bible at all, since you have to be a priest to be
>> fit even to understand it!
.
> BG: Wrong. All of the faithful have an obligation to read and study the Scriptures. And you don't have
> to be a priest to understand it, but you do need the guidance of the Church. Just as Protestants turn
> to their pastors to explain difficult passages. And those pastors often look to the teachings of the
> reformers for explanations.
.
 In other words, there is no one who is capable of thinking for themselves. No one who is capable of meditating on the scriptures in an original and constructive, and yet critical, manner. No wonder the Bible is in such disarray. We are all rushing about seeking "guidance", looking for experts to explain "difficult passages". All I have to say about that is:  BLOODY GOOD GRIEF!
.
>> tx: In the same way, you claim that Tradition, etc "cannot oppose the Scriptures, and have not".
>> Well then, let us see if this is so. When I was at the Heart of the Diocese (ie. seminary & theological
>> college) one bishop taught us: "If it's sad, or mad, and not glad, then it's bad". In other words, it is
>> only those ideas, emotions, dispositions, affections, etc, that are in harmony with the prevailing joy-
>> joy philosophy that are fit to be termed 'Catholic'. Anger, despair, depression, etc are NOT Catholic
>> in any way, shape, or form. But if you look in the Psalms, you will find that the majority of them are
>> classified as 'laments'. In other words, they are chock full of anti-Catholic things like rage and despair.
>> 'Cannot oppose the scriptures' my furry ass!
.
> BG: I have no clue what you are babbling about here.
.
 No kidding? I am profoundly shocked and dismayed that you do not understand what I am trying to say here. Perhaps I can clarify things for you? Are you aware that in the Tanak there is a collection of ancient songs called the Psalms of David? Have you ever read them? Most of them are not at all oozing with joyful, happy-happy, kiss-kiss type feelings. No indeed. Quite the contrary, in fact. Are you also aware that the People of God never get to hear these outrageously 'negative' songs in the course of the three year liturgical cycle, but are only offered a carefully selected portion of David's book? ... So as not to unduly upset them? Hey! Are you hearing me OK now? Do you understand what I am driving at now? No? Then I strongly urge you to read the Psalms directly. And a good commentary or three on them ...  I highly recommend W.Brueggemann.
.
>> tx: The teachings of the Woman Catholic Church of Canada are nothing but
>> one long and constant opposition to scripture!!!
.
> BG: But such an organization is not part of the Catholic Church so I'm not sure why you are
> even bothering to mention it.
.
 Well sir, the reason I mention it is that the great and wonderful Woman-Church is not an organization or a denomination as such. Rather it is a descriptive term indicating the main features of many denominations that are geared toward the promotion of women in the churches. Thus the fact that the vast majority of today's divinity students are women is a clear and obvious sign that the Catholic Church is very much concerned with women's issues, and women's concerns within the church. Thus in the church of Canada, feminism and feminist theology are extremely popular, and courses on women's studies abound throughout America (just ask Janet). Thus the major characteristics of the Roman Catholic Church in Canada can be defined in terms of how pro-female they are, and how pro-feminine biases determine the main features and qualities of the Church in the concrete everyday world. In other words, the Church of Canada (interdenominational) is a church by and for women. Even the priests are women in all but biology; ie. many can be likened unto vaginally deprived women. Needless to say, one of the main consequences of this violently female-biased ecclesial mentality is that men are neither wanted nor needed in the church. And once you understand that this anti-male attitude is a logical necessity of this ubiquitous radical feminism, it is not at all difficult to see how the leaders and teachers of the Canadian Catholic Church can teach that religious lesbianism is "God's deepest desire". I myself was excommunicated from the church for this very reason; ie. for daring to criticize the wonderful and magnificent 'wisdom and compassion' of this debased and perverse Woman-Church that the Roman Catholic Church of Canada has transformed herself into (ie. Unholy Lesbian-Mother Church).
.
 ... Wut? You don't believe me? Hey, just go and take a course in feminist theology at your nearest Christian college, and make it clear to all that you are very critical of religious feminism, and you'll see for yourself just how hateful and hostile, how unsympathetic and even downright sadistic good Catholics can be!!!
.
>> tx: Again, you say "only those unfamiliar with, or ignorant of, Catholic teaching would add tradition,
>> teachings of bishops or something as absurd as the 'Heart of the Diocese' (whatever that is)". Really?
>> Well, check this out: ".. the Word of God includes the sacraments, the lives and writings of the saints,
>> liturgy, preaching, art, poetry, music, Catholic schools, the passing on of faith from parents to children,
>> and the teaching of church councils, popes and bishops. All of these provide the context for viewing the
>> Word of God found in scripture ..." ("Jesus gave more than a book - Collins", Western Catholic Reporter,
>> March 30/98, p.9). And who said this, you ask? Only the Most Reverend Thomas Collins, Bishop of St
>> Paul, Alberta. Say now; you don't suppose he's ignorant of Catholic doctrine too, do you Padraic? I
>> mean, this particular bishop also happens to be a scripture scholar; so he ought to know which way
>> is up ...  No?
.
> BG: Yep. And what he says is that those things give us a context in which to view the Scriptures.
> He didn't say that those things WERE the Word of God.
.
 Actually, that's exactly what he did say! Read the opening part of the quote carefully: "... the Word of God includes ...". That means that all those things on his list are ALSO the Word of God. It is precisely because they are also the Word of God that they provide the proper context for putting the Bible in its place; ie. for watering down the truth of scripture such that anything that the Bible teaches which is deemed unfortunate or unnecessary or unneeded by the Post-Modern Church can be simply and easily rejected because there is always something in the Tradition ready, willing, and able to jump right in and take over and replace the 'old truth' with the 'new truth'.
.
>> tx: So maybe now you're thinking that you look pretty silly with egg all over your face;
.
> BG: I don't think that we're the ones who look silly right now.
.
 I beg to differ. I think you BOTH look pretty silly now ...
.
>> but actually, it looks pretty darn good from where I'm sitting.
.
> Then you haven't been paying attention.
.
 Paying attention is what prophets do best!!!
.
>> tx: LOL ... In any case, you'd better get used to it if you plan to continue 'leaping before looking'.
>> Hey, that might work on others, but if you intend to cut me off at the knees, you had better make
>> damn sure that your blades are razor sharp!
.
> BG: Razor sharpness is not required to cut through paper tigers.
.
 LOL  ... This paper tiger has a roar that will wake the (spiritually) dead!
.
>> tx: Or as my loud-mouthed friend says: 'If you mess with the bull, you're gonna get the horn!'
>> ... When are you people gonna realize that the prophet of the Lord does, in fact, know what
>> he is talking about?
.
> BG: When he starts sounding like he knows what he's talking about?
.
 Then maybe the problem is not in my talking, but in the Reader's listening ... ???
.
 "I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth" -- (3John4)

P.S. Can't get enough of textman's rantings? Believe me when I say that I know this problem. I recently lost 5MB of textman's various writings to this stupid computer (and its stupider zip-drive), and you'd better believe that I am STILL supremely pissed about that!!! You and I both have no idea what we're missing ... what is forever lost in cyber-space ... AARRRGH! ... [Timeout while textman gathers the few remaining pieces of his puny brain, and glues them together] ... Ahem ... Now then; where were we? ... Oh yes. There are usually some more textman postings available on  alt.christnet.bible.thumpers.convert.convert.convert ... My #1 ng! And you could also check out the primitive and ill-designed website called The Prophet's Page at  http://www.connect.ab.ca/~textman/index.htm  ...  hmmm  ... On second thought: don't bother. textman humbly and abjectly apologizes for any inconvenience, and grovels before thee begging for mercy and pardon ...

/ Re: More Distortions / Date > 4 June 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
>> textman wrote: Here in Canada they follow the clergy on the road leading to madness and perversion;
>> for it pleases the priests that women should hate men (as they do) and lust after each other (in the
>> name of freedom, liberation, and 'social justice'), for it is much better that good Catholic girls be lesbians
>> than that they should allow themselves to be defiled by the hands of men!!!
.
> Stephanie Rendino answers: Text ... I live and go to church in Canada (okay, in Quebec) but I lived in
> Ontario for many years, and I have to ask you. ... WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I want
> one example of Catholic girls being taught to be lesbians, if that were possible. One citation from one
> newspaper. Anything.
.
 textman responds: Dear Stephanie, I'm very sorry, but I'm unable to provide you with the sort of 'proof' you requested. Do you recieve a regular supply of your local diocesan weekly newspaper? Sometimes they have some related articles; such the flak in B.C. between Christian parents and educators over teaching grade school children the basics of 'the homosexual lifestyle'. Is that the sort of thing you're looking for? ... But you will not find documentation in books or newspapers as to the private policies and activities of the liberal intellectual elite. For 'proof' you will have to go to Catholic post-secondary institutions and see for yourself just how many of the clever ladies are of the lesbian persuasion. I have seen lesbian wives and mothers, as well as the footloose and fancy-free single girls. They look no different from hetero Catholic ladies, and pretend to be such, so it will require some careful observation on your part. I suggest you take a course or two in feminist theology to get a feel for the sort of thinking that is typical of the lesbian heroines in the Church. Phrases such as 'mutual-love' and 'chemistry' are also good clues by which to orient yourself. Place yourself in the midst of the 'enlightened and progressive' ones and watch and listen carefully to all that is said and done. If you pretend to approve of mutual-love you might be allowed to observe some interesting sights that will convince you of just how widespread this movement of religious lesbianism is here in Canada. You could also check out the bishops response to the supreme court ruling on the Vriend case to see the 'official' stance of the church on the homosexual question. In general, the church urges all to respect the 'rights' of homosexual persons. In practice the teachers and leaders of the church support and approve of Catholic lesbianism in many and various ways (eg. rank favortism). And many priests make it their business to 'protect' these 'fragile flowers', these 'marginalized and oppressed' ones (as they like to call themselves), and encourage them in their madness. The evidence of my claims are everywhere in the Church. Only open your eyes.

/ Re: More Distortions / 4 June 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
] Padraic42 wrote: I guess text would have great respect for Augustine if he said 'textman'
] was his 'authority' for Scripture.
.
>> textman answers: You got that right!  LOL
.
] It would seem that textman is just another neo-Montanist, feeling he has the 'spirit' to
] interpret Scripture all on his own authoritatively.
.
>> Dear Paddy, I would not call myself a neo-Montanist, as there are considerable differences
>> between their thinking and mine ...
.
> P42 replys: Hardly. "The substance of their doctrine was that the Holy Spirit was now supplementing
> the revelation of Christ, with consequent displacement of the bishops and even the Pope." (Modern
> Catholic Dictionary) You're in the 'neo' since you change the basic premise a bit, but the essence
> is the same. We have no need of bishops and the Pope since 'we' have the Holy Spirit to guide us
> personally. Like Tertullian, if the Church teaches something you don't like, you declare you're above
> the Church.
.
 textman responds: I have never declared myself to be above the Church. I am excommunicated from the Catholic Church of Canada (ie. they forced me out), but I still consider myself a part of the larger (that is, universal) interdenominational Church made up of all True Believers and faithful disciples of our Lord & Master. Nor have I said that the Church has no need of bishops and popes. What I am saying is that the bishops and priests are no longer able to fulfill their prophetic obligations, and are therefore unfit to lead the People of God. Not all priests and bishops fall into this category, but most surely do!
.
 Every generation needs to hear the prophetic voice of the Holy Spirit, and if the Church spurns Her good graces then we should not be surprised that She seeks her vessels elsewhere. Has it not always been so? Did not the Holy Spirit choose William Tyndale do Her good work when all the Church was busy trying to hunt him down and kill him like a rabid dog? And did not the Holy Spirit come upon George Fox when the Church of England was bloated with corruption? And did not the Holy Spirit make a prophet for the Catholic Church out of a convert from that same Church of England (ie. John Henry Newman). The Holy Spirit is active in every generation, in every nation. It is only the priests who, in their collective madness, suppose that they have a monopoly on the Holy Spirit, having chained her down with the sacraments, and bound Her up with canon law and many priestly regulations and requirements! Rare indeed it is when the Holy Spirit can speak the truth despite such restraints and constraints. Rare indeed it is when the People of God and the tyrants who lord it over them recognize the voice of the Spirit when it speaks to them. Usually such recognition comes only long after the prophet in question has died a lonely and miserable death. In his lifetime the prophet can look forward to nothing but derision, scorn, rejection, hatred, abuse, etc, etc. Oh yes, it's great fun being a prophet in a generation that believes in NOTHING!!!
.
 As to your Montanism definition: it strikes me as a little thin and one-sided. Perhaps our Readers might find this little article from The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church to be a little more helpful: "A 2nd-cent. apocalyptic movement; its adherents expected a speedy outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Church, and saw the first manifestations of this in their own leaders. Montanus began preaching in Phrygia in 156/7 or in 172. Associated with him were two women, Prisca and Maximilla. The ascetic traits which developed were esp. prominent in an offshoot of the movement in Roman Africa, which won the allegiance of Tertullian. It disallowed second marriages, condemned the existing regulations on fasting as too lax, and forbade flight in persecution." ... I hope the Reader will not think me arrogant to suggest that a lot has changed since those days and that sort of thinking. Therefore, I say again that I am NOT a Montanist; neo or otherwise!!!

/ Re: More Distortions / 5 June 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
] Stephanie Rendino wrote: Text ...I live and go to church in Canada (okay, in Quebec) but I lived in
] Ontario for many years, and I have to ask you. ... WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I want
] one example of Catholic girls being taught to be lesbians, if that were possible. One citation from
] one newspaper. Anything.
.
>> textman responded: Dear Stephanie, I'm very sorry, but I'm unable to provide you with the sort
>> of 'proof' you requested. Do you receive a regular supply of your local diocesan weekly newspaper?
>> Sometimes they have some related articles;
.
> Stephanie answers: The French church doesn't have one; we're too poor. The English church does.
.
 textman say: Dear Stephanie, does this mean that you do subscribe to the English weekly? If not: Why not? No Cat should be without their episcopal newspaper. I find it a good resource for what is happening in the Catholic world; although most of the articles and things are very lame. Even so, some interesting things do sneak through the 'fog of orthodoxy' (eg. especially good are the letters to the Editor). By the way, the reason that the French church is so poor is that Quebec leads the nation in turning its back on the church. This may also account for your "my fellow students are quite conservative" remark. That is: the few Cats that do remain would naturally tend to be 'more conservative'.
.
>> such as the flak in B.C. between Christian parents and educators over teaching grade school children the
>> basics of 'the homosexual life-style'. Is that the sort of thing you're looking for? ... But you will not find
>> documentation in books or newspapers as to the private policies and activities of the liberal intellectual
>> elite. For 'proof' you will have to go to Catholic post-secondary institutions
.
> SR: Ooh, you mean like the one at which I'm a grad student now?
.
 Are you a divinity student? What are you studying? Do you have regular and easy contact with the seminarians? If you're not in the same classes and programs that the seminarians and divinity students are enrolled in, then you're not swinging in the same circles as those whom I speak of.
.
>> tx: and see for yourself just how many of the clever ladies are of the lesbian persuasion.
.
> SR: None, far as I can tell, and my "gaydar" is quite well tuned, thank you very much.  I took all my
> triangles off my backpack once I started at U De M; most of my fellow students are quite conservative.
.
 Stephanie darling! I perceive a contradiction in these statements. You claim that your 'gaydar is quite well tuned', and in the very next breath deny it by saying that 'I took all my triangles off'! [For those of you who are mystified by this statement: it is a reference to the Nazis who separated out the various undesirables by sowing patches on their clothes. Thus homosexuals were forced to wear pink triangles ...] By the way, isn’t the University of Montreal a secular institution? If there is not a seminary on-campus, then it does not qualify as a Heart of the Diocese. In that case, none of your observations and criticisms can be taken as disproving or refuting my claims and charges against the Church of Canada. In any case, I do not believe that the U de M is a lesbian-free zone. That would be well beyond the realm of possibility. Just because you can't see them, doesn't mean that they're not there! Can I ask you a favor? Check out the harassment policies, and (if possible) post them in your reply to this article (in English, of course). I would be very interested to see the exact wording used in this policy. My guess is that it is very much weighted in favor of lesbians (although that particular word will almost certainly NOT be used).
.
>> tx: I have seen lesbian wives and mothers, as well as the footloose and fancy-free single girls.
.
> SR: You know what?  I think you're fantasizing.
.
 You know what? I think that there are MANY who will agree with you. For all practical purposes, the lesbian Force is invisible to the naked eye. Only a very small fraction can be known 'on-sight', as it were. For most people, 'out of sight, out of mind' is the main policy for dealing with this matter. Thus American Cats cannot tolerate an open and honest vision of the Faith, and so 'Nothing Sacred' was given the axe (despite the fact that it was one of the best shows TV-land ever had)! In the same way, the amazing popularity of 'Ellen' prevented Americans from pretending that lesbians don't exist. Her show was also far too honest for the liking of the powers that be. Thus it too was given the axe. The point of all this is that the last seven years of my life were NOT a dream ... Although I must say that they did bear a remarkable resemblance to a most terrifying nightmare.
.
>> tx: They look no different from hetero Catholic ladies, and pretend to be such, so it will require some
>> careful observation on your part. I suggest you take a course or two in feminist theology to get a feel
>> for the sort of thinking that is typical of the lesbian heroines in the Church. Phrases such as 'mutual-
>> love' and 'chemistry' are also good clues by which to orient yourself. Place yourself in the midst of the
>> 'enlightened and progressive' ones and watch and listen carefully to all that is said and done. If you
>> pretend to approve of mutual-love you might be allowed to observe some interesting sights that will
>> convince you of just how widespread this movement of religious lesbianism is here in Canada.
.
> SR: I work with two of the most prominent Catholic feminists in Canada. They are both straight girls.
> I had one lesbian prof at McGill, but she was Anglican and celibate.
.
 LOL ... Every Lesbian-christian in the world (with very few exceptions) claims to be celibate. It is MOST convenient for them, and in their eyes is even true; since they don't have sex with men, they can rightly say 'I'm celibate'. Mutual-love, you see, is not a violation of chastity or purity. It is an expression of Christian freedom and liberation. In the same way, since Lesbian-christians do not use contraception, they are exceedingly faithful to Church teachings that prohibit the use of various contraceptive methods. Thus lies and deceptions are the 'virtues' most prevalent among our oriented sisters. As for your hetero-feminists, I would guess that it's almost a certainty that they do approve and support their homo-sisters in the Faith. Because of this, they are (to my mind) just as guilty as those seminarians and priests who think it a fine thing indeed that 'good Catholic girls' should lust after each other, and find their thrill on Lesbian-Hill!
.
>> tx: You could also check out the bishops response to the supreme court ruling on the Vriend
>> case to see the 'official' stance of the church on the homosexual question. In general, the
>> church urges all to respect the 'rights' of homosexual persons.
.
> SR: Yes. Even the CCC says that rights must be respected. It says that practice is bad,
> but that rights must be respected.
.
 Yes. And usually it is assumed that it is gay men that we are talking about; (thx once more to the popular 'lesbians don't exist' mentality). Thus the church is against the discrimination of gays in all those areas where orientation is deemed irrelevant. So Vriend was a chemistry teacher at a protestant college, and therefore discrimination against him is unlawful in the eyes of the church. But if Vriend made application to join the priesthood, then his orientation would be very relevant, and so discrimination here would be lawful in the church's eyes. Thus we see again how the priestly vision of all things warps & distorts all things to the benefit of the clergy. While others may not notice that a man is gay, the clergy certainly can!
.
>> tx: In practice the teachers and leaders of the church support and approve of Catholic lesbianism in many
>> and various ways (eg. rank favoritism). And many priests make it their business to 'protect' these 'fragile
>> flowers', these 'marginalized and oppressed' ones (as they like to call themselves), and encourage them in
>> their madness. The evidence of my claims are everywhere in the Church. Only open your eyes.
.
> SR: I think that fantasies of being surrounded by Catholics lesbians turns you on.
.
 The only fantasy involving Catholic lesbians that turns me on is the one where my Dove renounces her 'chemistry', apologizes for the pain and degradation that she has heaped upon me, and humbly and submissively begs me to marry her! Other than that, I may well be the only person in Canada who thinks that there ought to be some major differences between pagan women and those who claim to be Christian. As things now stand, there is no essential distinction to be made between pagan-lesbians and Lesbian-christians! For most of these latter, religion is just something to play at. Certainly, love of the Lord will never ever take the first place in their cold, black, and hardened-hearts. No indeed. It is ONLY mutual-love that fills up those hearts!
.
> You openly say that there's no proof,
.
 I said that there is no proof of the sort you demand. Nevertheless, the evidence is everywhere ... as I just said.
.
> that these lesbians appear to be straight women but really aren't.
.
 This is a simple sociological fact. ... And a testimony to the fullness and excellence of their anti-christian double-mindedness!
.
> In other words, they exist in your own head and nowhere else. You're a sick man, Textie.
.
 Yes, I am a soul-sick man, Stephanie. This is because the Lesbian-christians boast about 'the Force' that is laying waste to the church (transforming her into Satan's most loyal slave), and at the same time loyal and orthodox Cats blind themselves to these realities, and so allow them to continue unopposed. ... When will you people wake up to the simple fact that Lesbian-christians do, in fact, exist?!

/ Re: More Distortions / 7 June 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
>> Padraic42 wrote: Poor text. No doubt there are those who say they are in the Church who advocate
>> a homosexual lifestyle as being compatible with Christian moral teachings. But again, text mistakes
>> the actions of a few who 'appear' Catholic and actual Catholics.
.
> Keith Ng replies: How about a discussion of the basics. Just why is a homosexual lifestyle
> incompatible with the Christian lifestyle??
.
 textman say: Because lesbian-christians hate hetero-males (they compensate through friendship with the Emasculated Ones), despise the Truth, reject the Scriptures, and transform Jesus Christ into a kind of Smurf-Messiah who teaches that mutual-love is 'God's deepest desire'! Moreover, the anti-christian virtues that they practice (eg. lies, deception, hypocrisy, etc) show them to be Lucifer's Favorite Daughters, and Satan's Most Loyal Whores. Moreover, their rank exclusivism clearly demonstrates that they have no conception whatsoever as to what 'love of neighbor' means. For them, the neighbor must always be female; for each and every unemasculated hetero-male is - by definition - the enemy! This is how the Faith is lived and practiced among the legions of lesbian-christians ... Outstanding Christians that they are ... The Heart of the Diocese publicly recognizes and honors their marvelous and abundant contributions to the Canadian Church!

/ Subject > Re: More Distortions / 8 June 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
>> textman wrote: I have never declared myself to be above the Church.
.
> Padraic42 wrote: NO????? Then you humbly submit to the teachings of the Church? NO???? You can
> determine God's truth on your own without the Church? Then you are declaring yourself above the Church.
.
 Dear Padraic42, I humbly submit to the teachings of the Church ... insofar as they are in accordance with the Revelation of Jesus Christ and his Holy Word. Does not the Church also claim that the Tradition is always in accord with Scripture? Truth is One! Therefore, if there are any doctrines, ideas, movements, practices, fashions, etc that are NOT in accordance with the truth as given and entrusted to the Church, then EVERY CHRISTIAN has a solemn obligation to speak out against it! If the Church of Canada is not following the Way, then we must all put a stop to it.
.
 Moreover, I do not determine anything without the Church. I am NOT an authority unto myself above and beyond the Church, as you so gleefully suggest. I am declaring myself a part of the People of God. My ministry - so odious to many - is by the people, of the people, for the people. I speak not for myself, but for the Lord ... who has no other voice in Canada. Show me that the Church of Canada can speak the truth, and I will gladly 'humbly submit'. But as long as they lie and deceive the People of God, I will never stop speaking the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God!

/ Subject > Re: More Distortions / 9 June 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
> Padraic42 wrote: "... tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered"
> [CDF, Persona Humana 8]. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the
> gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no
> circumstances can they be approved." (CCC #2357)
.
 Dear Padraic, I couldn't agree more. ... Say, maybe someone ought to inform the bishops and priests of Canada that this is what the Church teaches, because they seem to have very different ideas as what the true church-teaching on these matters is. They seem to think that mutual-love is what the enlightened and progressive post-modern church must teach. At the Heart of the Diocese they not only approve of christian lesbianism, but they actively protect, nourish, encourage and promote it in many and various ways ... I guess what the fancy documents say is one thing, and what is actually practiced in America is quite something else again!

/ Subject > Re: More Distortions / 15 June 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
>> textman previously wrote: Dear Stephanie, does this mean that you do subscribe to the
>> English weekly? If not: Why not? No Cat should be without their episcopal newspaper.
.
 Ooops; sorry, Janet. That meow somehow slipped by the editor :(
If it's any consolation, I think I got all the others, though :)
.
>> I find it a good resource for what is happening in the Catholic world; although most of the articles and
>> things are very lame. Even so, some interesting things do sneak through the 'fog of orthodoxy' (eg.
>> especially good are the letters to the Editor). By the way, the reason that the French church is so poor
>> is that Quebec leads the nation in turning its back on the church. This may also account for your "my
>> fellow students are quite conservative" remark. That is: the few Catholics that do remain would
>> naturally tend to be 'more conservative'.
.
> Stephanie Rendino answers: No; the French Quebeckers have less money than the English
> Quebeckers. We do have a radio station and they don't, though.    Nyah.
.
 textman say: Huh? I'm afraid I don't quite follow you. Are you suggesting that the French church can't afford to be interested in the Catholic publishing industry in Canada? ... I still don't see why you can't just subscribe to some weekly newspaper in the area that will deliver right to your door (all free of charge yet).
.
>> tx: Are you a divinity student? What are you studying? Do you have regular and easy contact with the
>> seminarians? If you're not in the same classes and programs that the seminarians and divinity students
>> are enrolled in, then you're not swinging in the same circles as those whom I speak of.
.
> SR: The seminary here is the Grand Seminaire. Students from there go to U de M to take courses.
> I had two seminarians and three priests in my classes last semester.
.
 Wut's zat U say? More priests are taking classes than seminarians? Huh? ... Don't you consider this detail just a littlest bit odd? ... btw, why didn't you' tell us what you're studying?
.
] SR: <snip> None, far as I can tell, and my "gaydar" is quite well tuned, thank you very much. I took all my
] triangles off my backpack once I started at U De M; most of my fellow students are quite conservative.
.
>> tx: Stephanie darling! I perceive a contradiction in these statements. You claim that your 'gaydar is
>> quite well tuned', and in the very next breath deny it by saying that 'I took all my triangles off'!
.
> SR: I wore the triangles at McGill for the benefit of being public.
> I did not think that they would be appropriate at U de M.
.
 Excuse me? [textman reels in confusion and bumps his silly head on the tower] ... Wut? ... I have no idea what you're talking about. ... Please clarify: What triangles did you wear and not wear?
.
>> tx: By the way, isn't the university of montreal a secular institution?
.
> SR: No. The theology department is operated by Dominican Fathers.
.
 Cool. I have a certain liking for the Dominican traditions. ... Did you know that Thomas Aquinas was a Dominican? He's quite a sharp fellow, that 'dumb ox', wouldn't you say?
.
>> tx: In any case, I don't believe that the UdeM is a lesbian-free zone.
.
> SR: Of course not. It has a lesbigay student alliance like any other school.
.
 Good Grief!
.
>> tx: That would be well beyond the realm of possibility. Just because you can't see them, doesn't
>> mean that they're not there!
.
> SR: Yes, but I would know!  Although the lesbigay student alliance at U de M is pretty small.
> McGill had a bigger one.
.
 More Good Grief!
.
>> tx: Can I ask you a favor? Check out the harassment policies, and (if possible) post them in your reply to
>> this article (in English, of course). I would be very interested to see the exact wording used in this policy.
>> My guess is that it is very much weighted in favor of lesbians (although that particular word will almost
>> certainly NOT be used).
.
> SR: I've never seen lesbians even mentioned in anti-harrassment policies,
.
 That's what I just said ...
.
> but here goes: "Each student has the right to equal treatment from the University. This right must not
> be restrained by discrimination based on race colour, ethnic origin or nationality, civil state (?), religion,
> political conviction, language, sex, sexual orientation, pregnancy, age, social situation including family
> responsabilities, sickness, handicap, or means of alleviating handicap."
.
 This is routine stuff in Canada. Neither is it what I asked for.
.
> The anti-harrassment policy just says, "The University of Montreal is devoted to a policy against sexual
> harrassment on campus. This policy has two parts: prevention of sexual harrassment and treatment of
> situations brought to the attention of the Bureau. A male or female student who is the object of sexual
> harrassment..." Do I have to go on?
.
 Yes you do. Why did you stop? How can I comment until I see the whole statement?
.
> If you want a general harrassment policy, that's over at McGill and was more interested in protecting
> foreign students. I dated the person who wrote it.
.
 I'm interested to know how the U de M handles concrete and particular cases of women charging men with harassment. Numbers per year. How they were resolved. How this 'prevention' program operates. Things like that ... yes? Perhaps your local lesbigay student alliance could help with this?
.
>>>> tx: <snip> I have seen lesbian wives and mothers, as well as the footloose and fancy-free single girls.
.
] SR: You know what?  I think you're fantasizing.
.
>> tx: You know what? I think that there are MANY who will agree with you. For all practical
>> purposes, the lesbian Force is invisible to the naked eye.
.
> SR: ????  I think it gives you a boner to look at a woman and think "She's probably a lesbian."
.
 When I looked upon my Beloved, and thought 'She's a lesbian', ... Well, it did often upset me, confuse me, anger me, discombobulate me, and/or break my heart, and so on and so forth, etc ... Ah yes, it did all that, but I don't recall that it ever gave me 'a boner', as you so elegantly put it. Not all men are interested in women only to the extent that they can sure get a lot of boners out of them. ... I wish you would take this matter more seriously, Stephanie. It's not just me and her, you know. This little disaster is being played out everyday, in one way or another, and in varying degrees, and with more or less passion (depending on the nature of the people involved), on campuses all over America. Maybe even your nice little UdeM has its own version of 'lesbians and losers'?
.
>> tx: Only a very small fraction can be known 'on-sight', as it were. For most people, 'out of sight, out
>> of mind' is the main policy for dealing with this matter. Thus American Catholics cannot tolerate an
>> open and honest vision of the Faith, and so 'Nothing Sacred' was given the ax (despite the fact that
>> it was one of the best shows TV-land ever had)! In the same way, the amazing popularity of 'Ellen'
>> prevented Americans from pretending that lesbians don't exist. Her show was also far too honest
>> for the liking of the powers that be.
.
> SR: Her show committed a grave sin. IT WASN'T FUNNY.
.
 It wasn't always funny because it also tried to say something. I don't know about you, but I learned some interesting things about lesbianism from that show. In that regard (ie. as a source of information), it was outstanding. Good and reliable data on this matter is very hard to come by, believe me. Just try to write an essay on 'Lesbianism in Post-Modern America', and see just how far you get. ... So yes, it may not have been as funny as 'The Simpsons' (textman's favorite TV show), but it was STILL far better than 90% of the crap on TV. They don't call it the 'idiot box' for nothing, you know.
.
>> Thus it too was given the ax. The point of all this is that the last seven years of my life were NOT a
>> dream ... although I must say that they did bear a remarkable resemblance to a most terrifying nightmare.
.
> Take your anti-psychotics. You'll feel better.
.
 You mean the so-called 'happy pills'? textman can't afford such luxuries, but will gladly accept them if you send him some of your supply ... LOL
.
] SR: I work with two of the most prominent Catholic feminists in Canada. They are both straight girls.
] I had one lesbian prof at McGill, but she was Anglican and celibate.
.
>> tx: LOL ... Every Lesbian-christian in the world (with very few exceptions) claims to be celibate.
.
> SR: No, this one was. Anglican, remember. Out of frame of discussion.
.
 No, it isn't. What other Christians are doing with their priestesses is very much relevant to our discussions! At least it is if you wish to maintain some minimal contact with reality. ... btw, You have an amazing talent for diverting everything and parking it in limbo. Talking to you is very like talking with THE VOID. The Void speaks and has a surly attitude, and even seems to be having a perpetual bad hair day ...  LOL
.
> I don't know any lesbians who are still practicing Catholics. Most of them don't want to be reminded of it.
.
 I don't blame them one bit!
.
> There must be a few in the bigger Courage and Dignity groups, but I've never, ever met one.
.
 "never, ever"? Maybe you have ... unless they all carry signs proclaiming their orientation. btw, I admire lesbians who are honest enough with themselves to turn their back on a hypocritical church. But those who stay do so because the hypocrisy and deception that are required to 'get along' in the church suits them. They like it in the cool dark closet ... so warm and fuzzy and cozy and nice and safe ... Ah yes, a very fine place for 'bonding and integrating'! 'Long Live Unholy Lesbian-Mother Church' ... "Good Grief," saith the Lord!
.
>> <snip> Yes. And usually it is assumed that it is gay men that we are talking about; (thx once more
>> to the ever-popular 'lesbians don't exist' mentality).
.
> Which I do deplore.
.
 Oh yeah? Perhaps you should re-read your previous posts then.
.
> Gay men do get the lion's share of assistance and attention, but there's an obvious reason for that.
> They're men. Everybody pays more attention to men.
.
 Everybody but textman. btw, I don't see the women's liberz rushing forth to complain about unfair discrimination in THIS regard. ... Now why do you suppose that is? ...  hmmmm?
.
] SR: I think that fantasies of being surrounded by Catholic lesbians turns you on.
.
>> tx: The only fantasy involving Catholic lesbians that turns me on is the one where my Dove renounces
>> her 'chemistry', apologizes for the pain and degradation that she has heaped upon me, and humbly
>> and submissively begs me to marry her!
.
> SR: AH_HAH! We get to the root of the matter!
.
 So soon? Oh surely not!
.
> You were interested in some chick,
.
 I was, am, and always shall be deeply in love with her. 
.
> who probably wasn't interested in you,
.
 She was, is, and always shall be 'interested' in me. Would you believe me if I told you that she is an avid fan of textman's various feeble scribblings? ... But you probably can't imagine that people can be more complex than the convenient psycho babble labels that you so easily toss about with such wild abandon ... ?
.
> and either told you she was a lesbian or genuinely was one.
.
 Yes, she did tell me, as a matter of historical fact; but I was far too dense at the time to know it for what it was. It took me years just to figure out what 'chemistry' means! In the meantime, I gave her the benefit of the doubt; not wanting to jump to the wrong conclusions. But there came a point when I could no longer avoid the meaning of the things that were happening at the Heart of the Diocese. ... Did I tell you that others are also affected by these things we speak of? ...
.
> You can't cope,
.
 Where is your evidence for this outrageous accusation, please?
.
> so you blame some vast lesbo-conspiracy for stealing away this honey.
.
 No. Actually, while I do believe that the Church of Canada is the Antichrist that the Prophet John spoke of, I do not "blame some vast lesbo-conspiracy". Rather, I blame the Evil One for stealing her away from me long, long before we ever met. The 'force of luving liturgical lesbianism' that is even now laying waste to the Faith also serves this same Evil One ... as does my Beloved; while thinking herself to be 'God's Good Gift to Women'! ... Are you beginning to grasp the sheer magnitude of the problems involved in all this? ...  Or would you much rather just simplify everything with your 'fool-proof' psychology approach?
.
> Now you want her to "submissively" beg her to marry you?
.
 Let me put it another way: I want her to ask. Begging and submissiveness are not actually a requirement.
.
> You're a loser. A big, big, loser.
.
 Yes? ... Loser=Leper ... And what is the Christian response to lepers again? ... Geez; you know, if I don't write these things down somewhere, I'm sure as hell bound to forget them.
.
> She doesn't like you pal. Deal with it.
.
 I am dealing with it.  ...  Can't you hear me screaming?
.
> "Beg you to marry her"? Why?
.
 Because I love her maybe?
.
] SR: You openly say that there's no proof, that these lesbians appear to be straight women but really aren't.
.
>> tx: I said that there is no proof of the sort you demand. Nevertheless, the evidence is everywhere
>> ... as I just said.
.
> SR: No...you're falling into the loser-straight-boy world of "women don't like me so they must be lesbian".
.
 Actually I don't think 'women don't like me'. I met several nice Christian ladies at the Heart that liked me. And I liked them back. Moreover, if I need excuses for my general unattractiveness, I'm sure that I could come up with many better reasons than that. Brief 4X list follows: I'm ugly, I'm old, I'm fat, I'm poor, I'm not good with people in large social settings, I'm rude and obnoxious, I'm stupid and lazy, I'm --- oh enough already!!!
.
> Here's a hint. Shower every day. Floss and brush. Expect women to be people, not "doves".
.
 My Dove is a person who is a women. She also happens to be a very charming, intelligent, and beautiful woman. She also happens to be the only woman who makes my heart go pitter-pat.
.
> I'm dating a guy who's short and fat, but who has a wicked sense of humour and the same priorities as me.
> That's what it takes. -- SR
.
 I see; You want me to forget all about love and passion and romance and soulmates, and just settle for 'whatever it takes' ... hmmmm? ... The church also thinks that I should 'keep my place' (ie. in the toilet is the best place for lay-males in Woman-Church) and not even dream about THIS untouchable racehorse! No indeed, for she is reserved exclusively for bigger and better things ... ie. serving the many needy and affection starved 'marginalized and oppressed' ones. ... Isn't the Woman-Church just soooo Wise & Compassionate? ... textman is blinded by Her brilliance!

/ Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / Topic > Re: On Losers & Such / Date > 16 June 1998 /
.
>> textman wrote: <snip> btw, why didn't you' tell us what you're studying?
.
> Stephanie Rendino answered: Janet answered that. I'm going for my master's in theology.
> It's not a secret.
.
 textman say: Janet gave me the impression that you are studying medieval history or something. I didn't know that you're in the M.Th program. ... Hey! Guess what? That's the same program I was in when they gave me the ol'heave-ho. Funny thing about that: in doing so, they chopped their M.Th student body in half! HA ... Anyway, I had been sort of working on my thesis (on the four Thessalonian letters), but now I don't know what to do with the remains. ...  btw: What's the subject of your thesis?
.
] textman previously wrote: <snip> I perceive a contradiction in these statements. You claim that your
] 'gaydar is quite well tuned', and in the very next breath deny it by saying that 'I took all my triangles off'!
.
>>> SR: I wore the triangles at McGill for the benefit of being public.
>>> I did not think that they would be appropriate at U de M.
.
>> Excuse me? [textman reels in confusion and bumps his silly head on the tower] ... Wut? ... I have
>> no idea what you're talking about. ... Please clarify: What triangles did you wear and not wear?
.
> SR: Don't know a thing about gays and lesbians, do you?
.
 Not from the inside out; if that's what you mean ... ? 
.
> I wore a black triangle, a bisexual symbol, and a rainbow flag or two.
.
 I still don't get you. Are a black triangle and a rainbow flag (whatever that is) the same thing more or less? That is, they identify the wearer as a 'bisexual and damn proud of it'? ... You easterners sure are a weird bunch, I'll give you that. We don't have shit like that out here. ... 'A Black Triangle', you say? Why black? And why take it off just because you moved to another college? Are you not the same person you were there? Or is it so that you can 'fit in' more easily? So that your little rainbow flags won't make waves among your more conservative fellow students? Who may not be as enlightened and progressive as you are about these matters? Just what is the purpose of these symbols anyway? Is it to identify other like-minded individuals, so as to fascilitate cheap and easy casual sex? And why a rainbow? Is this supposed to have something to do with Noah's Ark or something? ... Sheesh! with a capital 'S' yet!
.
>> Cool. I have a certain liking for the Dominican traditions.
>> Did you know that Thomas Aquinas was a Dominican?
.
> SR: Duh!
.
>> tx: He's quite a sharp fellow, that 'dumb ox', wouldn't you say?
.
> SR: Hardest worker in the Church, that's for sure.
.
 Never heard him called that before ... LOL ... I do know that he was a manic for writing everything down. ... Darn good habit too; but not everything written is necessarily post-worthy! ... {Pay attention to THIS youse lousy slammers U!}
.
>>> SR: The anti-harrassment policy just says, "The University of Montreal is devoted to a policy against
>>> sexual harrassment on campus. This policy has two parts: prevention of sexual harrassment and
>>> treatment of situations brought to the attention of the Bureau. A male or female student who is the
>>> object of sexual harrassment..." Do I have to go on?
.
>> tx: Yes you do. Why did you stop? How can I comment until I see the whole statement?
.
> SR: Because it's boring, and you're paranoid. Nonetheless, to keep the black helicopters from your door
> I'll finish the statement: "... on the part of a member of the university community can address this at the
> Office of intervention in material of sexual harrassment. All demands for information and any consultations
> will be treated confidentially."    ... Please note MALE and female students.
.
 Oh yes, how very inclusive of ol'UdeM. And how many complaints from men are made as compared to those from women? hmmm? Maybe one for every hundred or thereabouts? ... Truly, Stephanie, I'm not much impressed by the ambiguity and secrecy of this policy. My guess is that some lady complains about some guy (who did some 'horrible thing'), he gets the axe (but good), and no one's the wiser about it. Great system you got there. Very popular here in Canada. And very Christian I'm sure!
.
>> tx: I'm interested to know how the U de M handles concrete and particular cases of women charging men
>> with harassment. Numbers per year. How they were resolved. How this 'prevention' program operates.
>> Things like that ... yes? Perhaps your local lesbigay student alliance could help with this?
.
> SR: I don't have statistics. Why would I? I'm not part of the sexual harrassment office.
> The lesbigay alliance is closed for the summer.
.
 Too bad. ... And I'm sure the Office won't give you any info at all if you just asked for it?
... hmmm. There was something else about time off ... oh, never mind.
.
>> <snip> When I looked upon my Beloved, and thought 'She's a lesbian', ... Well, it did often upset me,
>> confuse me, anger me, discombobulate me, and/or break my heart, and so on and so forth, etc ...
>> Ah yes, it did all that, but I don't recall that it ever gave me 'a boner', as you so elegantly put it. Not
>> all men are interested in women only to the extent that they can sure get a lot of boners out of them.
>> ... I wish you would take this matter more seriously, Stephanie.
.
> SR: I can't take this seriously. You meet a woman who is patently NOT interested in you and you're
> mooning and juneing and calling her a "dove" and crap like that. This is a turn-off for straight girls
> and to a lesbian it's just plain annoying.
.
 Yes, I can see how love can be annoying to pagan lesbians; but how, pray tell, can love ever be 'annoying' for Christians (of whatever variety); who are Christians first, last, and always; who are Christians above and beyond all the other things that they may or may not be? ... Or are we now making exceptions and allowances for nominal Christians such that they can easily remove the Lord from the first place in their hearts, and reserve that exaulted spot for something else far more to their liking? ... btw: Sounds to me like there's no shortage of crap in your neighborhood either! Actually, I didn't go around calling her 'dove' or anything else other than her name. Indeed, this 'dove' busness I confine to paper and monitors. It comes directly out of scripture. Have you ever read the Song of Songs, Stephanie?
.
>> tx: It's not just me and her, you know. This little disaster is being played out everyday, in one way or
>> another, and in varying degrees, and with more or less passion (depending on the nature of the people
>> involved), on campuses all over America. Maybe even your nice little UdeM has its own version of
>> 'lesbians and losers'?
.
> SR: Guys who insist on chasing lesbians are usually afraid of straight girls because they're
> afraid, deep down, of being accepted.
.
 I would give anything to be accepted by the woman I love. Unlike you, I don't consider lesbianism to be a thing like eye color. It is, rather, an acquired habit (ie. learned behavior), or a self-generating program that lesbians indulge themselves in because it pleases them to do so. If my Dove [Would you prefer I constantly use 'She of the Warm Blue Voice' instead?] has the strength of will to quit smoking, then she can surely do likewise with her 'orientation' (or 'chemistry', as she puts it). ... All that she's lacking for is the motivation to think about what she's doing. And I thank the Church of Canada for removing all trace of that motivation from the practice of their enlightened and progressive Catholicism!
.
> There are guys who just like hanging out with lesbians,
.
 Yeah, I know this. I saw them by the dozen at the Heart of the Diocese. They are called priests and seminarians! Indeed, the most popular girl at the school once was a certain cute little filly of Irish extraction. ... At one time I thought that she was one of the best friends I had there. Appearances can be so deceiving sometimes; don't you think so too, Stephanie?
.
> SR: just as there are women who like hanging out with gays. There's only trouble when the straights try
> to get the queers to "convert". This is a statement of fact, I'm not delving into the Biblical morality of it.
.
 Obviously! Seems to me that maybe your profound disinterest in Scripture is plain for all to see ... ?
.
> Straight chicks who fixate on gay guys are losers, too!
.
 A wonderously Christian sentiment there! ... Say; what about Lesbian-christians who fixate on self-emasculated (ie. and therefore 'safe') assholes? ... According to your logic, the church is riddled with losers from top to bottom!
.
>> <snip> It wasn't always funny because it also tried to say something. I don't know about
>> you, but I learned some interesting things about lesbianism from that show.
.
> SR: Like what? Her show wasn't funny even before she came out. I found it lame and mean-spirited.
.
 Perhaps you just weren't paying attention. I recall one episode where Page meets Lez-Page at a party. They get on like lifetime twins, and soon get to talking about Lez-Page's so-called 'moment of truth'. 'I had just come from the showers', she says, 'and I looked across the girls locker-room, and saw the most beautiful girl in the world ... It was me! In the mirror!' ... LOL ... Page responds by admitting that she had the same experience; only instead of becoming lesbian, she just went out and bought more mirrors! ... HA ... btw: Maybe you should reconsider calling others 'mean-spirited'? I mean, Ellen at least does it with wit and charm ... No? ... btw again: Did you know that your diction is somewhat interesting?
.
>> tx: In that regard (ie. as a source of information), it was outstanding.
.
> SR: Sort of a lesbian "Wild Kingdom"?
.
 LOL ... Hey, when there's a whole lot of 'nothing about it' on the table, you take whatever crumbs you can get!
.
>>> SR: <snip> Take your anti-psychotics. You'll feel better.
.
>> tx: You mean the so-called 'happy pills'? textman can't afford such luxuries, but will gladly accept
>> them if you send him some of your supply ... LOL
.
> They're mood stabilizers, to keep me from killing people. Do you feel lucky?
.
 I believe the correct phrase is: 'Do you feel lucky, punk?' (with Eastwood style intensity, etc) ... LOL
.
>> tx: <snip> ... btw, You have an amazing talent for diverting everything and parking it in limbo. Talking
>> to you is very like talking with THE VOID. The Void speaks and has a surly attitude, and even seems
>> to be having a perpetual bad hair day ...  LOL
.
> No...I'm just a Bitch Goddess.  My hair is always....perfect.
.
 Ahhh ... That explains it then ...   :)
.
>> <snip> "never, ever"? Maybe you have ... unless they all carry signs proclaiming their orientation.
.
> SR: If you see a woman in a Dignity group, why would she need a sign?
.
 Not all lesbians spend all their time in a Dignity group. In fact, I rather suspect that most don't even bother with such things.
.
>> btw, I admire lesbians who are honest enough with themselves to turn their back on
>> a hypocritical church.
.
> ????!!!!
.
 So Stephanie; did I tell you that I'm a prophet, NOT a mind reader? ... Are you here asking for clarification about something in particular? ... No? I thought so. Let me put it another way: I like honesty ... period!
.
>> tx: But those who stay do so because the hypocrisy and deception that are required to 'get along' in the
>> church suits them. They like it in the cool dark closet ... so warm and fuzzy and cozy and nice and safe ...
>> Ah yes, a very fine place for 'bonding and integrating'! 'Long Live Unholy Lesbian-Mother Church' ...
>> "Good Grief," saith the Lord!
.
> SR: Uh...they're in the closet, which makes it a Lesbian Mother Church? I got news for you pal...there's
> nothing warm and fuzzy about the closet, which you describe as being "cool and dark". So warm is cold
> for you, and down is up and straight women are lesbians. You need help.
.
 No; I think it's your screwball logic that needs help. ...  LOL
.
>> <snip> Oh yeah? Perhaps you should re-read your previous posts then.
.
> SR: Hey, you want I put my rainbows on again?
.
 No. I want you to send me one so I can see what the hell we're talking about here!
.
>> tx: <snip> btw, I don't see the women's liberz rushing forth to complain about unfair discrimination
>> in THIS regard. ... Now why do you suppose that is? ...  hmmmm?
.
> SR: As Janet pointed out, depends on the movement.
.
 Wut bowel movement?
.
> U de M and McGill defend male victims of sexual harrassment, for example.
.
 LOL ... I can't tell you how relieved I am to hear that ... NOT!
.
>>> SR:  <snip>  You were interested in some chick,
.
>> tx: I was, am, and always shall be deeply in love with her. 
.
>>> who probably wasn't interested in you,
.
>> She was, is, and always shall be 'interested' in me.
.
> SR: Not if she's a lesbian she's not! If she's a bisexual you have a chance. Or are you one
> of these guys who just doesn't get that lesbian = no men?
.
 My Dear Stephanie! You're the one who doesn't get it. I put 'interested' in quotes in order to indicate that this interest is not sexual. But you seem to think that no lesbian could ever develop any interest in any man for any reason! ... Where does that leave Jesus for our faithful legions of liturgical lesbians? ... In the toilet, I expect.
.
> SR: (Hey, what do you get when you have 50 dykes and 50 Canadian postal workers in a room?
> 100 people who don't do dick!)
.
 I thought that the whole point of being a dyke is that she IS the dick.
.
>> tx: Would you believe me if I told you that she is an avid fan of textman's various feeble scribblings?
>> ... But you probably can't imagine that people can be more complex than the convenient psycho-
>> babble labels that you so easily toss about with such wild abandon?
.
> SR: Like...loser?
.
 Exactly. And many others that are popular on this channel.
.
>> tx: <snip> Yes, she did tell me, as a matter of historical fact; but I was far too dense at the time to
>> know it for what it was. It took me years just to figure out what 'chemistry' means! In the meantime,
>> I gave her the benefit of the doubt; not wanting to jump to the wrong conclusions. But there came
>> a point when I could no longer avoid the meaning of the things that were happening at the Heart
>> of the Diocese. ... Did I tell you that others are also affected by these things we speak of? ...
.
> SR: Of course, you say that there's no proof and you need special x-ray glasses to see
> "what's going on". Elvis is behind it, right?
.
 No; actually, all that's needed is sufficient skill at the art of observation, and a determination to pay attention to people even if you ARE bored out of your skull. I'm constantly amazed at how inattentive people are in general. Half the time, most people might as well be sleeping in bed as sleeping through life!
.
>> <snip> No. Actually, while I do believe that the Church of Canada is the Antichrist that the Prophet John
>> spoke of, I do not "blame some vast lesbo-conspiracy". Rather, I blame the Evil One for stealing her away
>> from me long, long before we ever met. The 'force of luving liturgical lesbianism' that is even now laying
>> waste to the Faith also serves this same Evil One ... as does my Beloved; while thinking herself to be
>> 'God's Good Gift to Women'! ... Are you beginning to grasp the sheer magnitude of the problems involved
>> in all this?
.
> SR: Dude, you make NO SENSE. You can't cite ONE example of what you're talking about,
> you can't tell ONE anecdote about anything you've seen.
.
 Maybe you're just not asking the right questions? ... btw: I think maybe you're also very wrong about that last bit there. If you keep a close eye on my various postings, you'll note that I am regularly referring to previous personal experiences. There is a good reason for this procedure. It is an essential aspect of the contextual approach to theology.
.
> SR: If you rant like this in church, no wonder you were kicked out.
.
 I didn't rant in church, of course. My favorite ministry at the college was that of lector. It was when I also wanted to write intentions and intercessions that the real trouble started. 4X: My intentions were rejected as unacceptable. One of them was a prayer for those people who had recently chopped the head off of some unfortunate Jesuit way over yonder. So the Liturgy Committee dubbed it 'brutal'. So I had to wonder how telling people about these realities was more brutal than actually chopping heads off, and what purpose was served by protecting people from such 'brutality'. Needless to say, the Liturgy Committee did not take kindly to my aggressive attitude. You see, I wanted to change the intercessions - the so-called 'prayer of the faithful' - from the fuzzy nothingness that is traditional at the Heart of the Diocese, into something vaguely resembling meaningful prayer. Good Lord! Better throw the bastard out before that happens!
.
> (Excommunication is at the Papal level, by the way.)
.
 Oh yeah? You mean I'm not an eX-Catholic after all?! You mean that I'm a layman in good standing as I always was? You mean that the sadistic actions of the Heart of the Diocese do NOT mean that I'm unfit to be a Catholic? Does my 'dismissal' mean nothing to everybody? ... Really! Well isn't this is a nice little apathetic church we have built for ourselves here in Canada. Do you see all this, O Churches of the World? This obscene love of the female combined with this equally obscene hatred of the male ... this is the future of YOUR church!
.
>> tx: <snip> Let me put it another way: I want her to ask.
>> Begging and submissiveness are not actually a requirement.
.
> SR: Why should she?
.
 "Why should she?", you ask? ... Well, I can think of several good reasons why she SHOULD ... 4X: it would clearly demonstrate to me and all the world that she is an honorable Christian Lady after all! ...  Tell you what; if you want more, why don't you give me three answers to this question, and we'll see if I can come up with three more to match them ... ?
.
>> <snip> Yes? ... Loser=Leper ... And what is the Christian response to lepers again? ... Geez; you know, if
>> I don't write these things down somewhere, I'm sure as hell bound to forget them.
.
> SR: No. Losers can heal themselves if they want to.
.
 Really? hmmm ... Seems to me that losers come in all shapes and sizes and forms and types; depending on who is judging whom, and on what basis. ... btw: How is it that you are such an authoritative expert on losers? ... In any case, I'm quite sure that there are some losers who can't heal themselves. Some losers who need a helping hand. Some losers who can only be healed through the love of others. Even through the love of ONE other!!!
.
>> <snip> Actually I don't think 'women don't like me'. I met several nice Christian ladies at the Heart that
>> liked me. And I liked them back. Moreover, if I need excuses for my general unattractiveness, I'm sure
>> that I could come up with many better reasons than that. Brief 4X list follows: I'm ugly, I'm old, I'm fat,
>> I'm poor, I'm not good with people in large social settings, I'm rude and obnoxious, I'm stupid and lazy,
>> I'm ... - oh enough already!!!
.
> SR: Yeah, and like I said, I'm with a guy who's short and fat and wears glasses. And again, he makes me
> laugh and we love being together. That's what makes things tick, pal. The love and passion come next,
> and a lot stronger than when they start with "romance". I was robbed in Toronto. When Steve and I coped
> with it together, we realized that this was going to work. Belching contests work too. Yeah, belching.
.
 LOL ... Stephanie, Stephanie! Half the time I don't know whether you're serious about the things you say, or just yanking my chain. What a fine theologian you'll make! HA. If it's the latter case here, please disregard the remainder of this article. / So assuming your serious: LOL ... (excuse me) ... I just mean that I'm not at all confident that you're the best person to be giving advice on romance. Indeed, considering that you aspire to be a theologian, I would have to say that you are perhaps the last person anyone should talk romance with! That is: theology and romance go together like ... well, like popes and fundies ...

P.S. "We 'ope dat yew vill 'av a penis all ov yer life. [ ... urrr; sorry- message garbled. I mean that ]
We hope that you will have happiness, all of your life."  {from: There's a Girl in my Soup}