Lutherans are okay. I don't really like doctrine of grace alone, and I don't really like Martin Luther. It's a good choice for near-Catholicism.

Edit:

If you're comfortable elaborating on what you do or don't want in a church, tshipman, I'd listen...

Things I more or less believe:
God is Love.
Confession is good.
Tripartate Divinity/Dual spirit of God.
Purgatory
Good works
The mission of man should be to help your neighbor
People are entitled to love each other
Men and women are equal

Things I want to believe:
Transubstantiation is real
God can choose to make someone infallible
There are/were Saints

Only 7 with my wife's name. If she had taken my name, there would be 21000 of her. A factor of 3000 with one name change.

Here's one of my favorite coincidences. When I first met my wife, she and I were on the same page of the DC telephone directory, which in 1988 was probably a lot bigger than it is today.

Here's one of my favorite coincidences. When I first met my wife, she and I were on the same page of the DC telephone directory, which in 1988 was probably a lot bigger than it is today.

I once quasi-dated a girl who had the same last name as my first name (though spelled differently). Had naming conventions upon marriage been reversed, and had we actually got married, that would have been interesting. I would have been like noted New York chiropractor Dr. Bobby Bobby.

I'm the only person in the U.S. with my name. I've never encountered anyone with our spelling of my last name who wasn't a relative, and even then there's only 11 of us, and we have a fairly small online footprint. There was an article online that quoted a person with my last name in Prague a few years ago, but I am guessing that was a typo.

My wife once dated a guy whose last name was Beer. If they had gotten married her middle-last name would have been Miller-Beer.

There are roughly 1,400 of me, apparently. That's in the US; I have Googled my name and found it attached to quite a few others in Britain, including a prominent business professor, Indeed I met someone last year who was intrigued that I had written about baseball, because how would a prominent British business professor get into that?

I am almost certain that La Dernière is the only person of her name in the US, and probably in the world.

I've heard this criticism a lot and, while I understand it, having a lot of disagreement with these church doctrines, I don't get it because there was NO WAY a pope would be elected who was going to say being gay is fine and women should be priests and divorce is cool and everyone should be given 5000 condoms. It just isn't going to happen.

True, but you might, just might, get a Pope who is open to Priests being allowed to marry and have consensual sex (since there is no biblical support for the Church's ban on priestly matrimony)

Plus the Church's ban on contraceptives might be open to revision because frankly it's just so irrational- most Priests don't "get" it either, and it gets questioned WITHIN the church constantly - so basically it's never going away as an issue (within the church).

Abortion/gay rights? Basically off thet table for now and the foreseeable future

How Many of Me clearly hedges its bets with strange combinations and names it can't specifically find.

"There are 1 or fewer people in the U.S. named Zoopitybop Szymborski."
"There are 1 or fewer people in the U.S. named Chili Dog."
"There are 1 or fewer people in the U.S. named Generalissimo Analprobe."
"There are 1 or fewer people in the U.S. named Francoeur Sucks."

"There are fewer than 1,577 people in the U.S. with the first name Fullonrapist."
"There are fewer than 1,577 people in the U.S. with the first name Helpmeobiwan."
"There are fewer than 1,577 people in the U.S. with the first name Pooperscooper.

"There are fewer than 117 people in the U.S. with the last name Analprobe."
"There are fewer than 117 people in the U.S. with the last name Aaaaaa."
"There are fewer than 117 people in the U.S. with the last name Howmanyofme."
"There are fewer than 117 people in the U.S. with the last name Asdfjklasdfjkl."

I did find the other Dan Szymborski though. Dumbass me had put in "Dan" without thinking.

"There are 2 people in the U.S. named Daniel Szymborski."

Upper Midwest Dan Szymborski: You have no chance to survive make your time.

I'm sorry. Did you say fullonrapist?

I'm sorry. Did you say fullonrapist?

Africans, dyslexics, children, that sort of thing.

I share a name with a Nobel Prize winner. Now its not his real name (he is Chinese and picked an "American" name), but its basically impossible to find me online via a search engine. Since I'm of Chinese descent its guaranteed to have several hundred (or thousands) of my name throughout the world since there really aren't that many unique Chinese last names.

Dan'll have the milk steak, boiled over hard, and your finest jelly beans (raw).

Back to Pope Francis:

Vatican Defends Pope’s Conduct in 1970s Crackdown

“The accusations belong to the use of a historical-social analysis of facts for many years by the anticlerical left to attack the church and must be rejected decisively.”

...The debate has simmered in Argentina, with journalists there publishing articles and books that appear to contradict Cardinal Bergoglio’s account of his actions. These accounts draw not only on documents from the period, but also on statements by priests and lay workers who clashed with Cardinal Bergoglio.

Sounds like the same language they used against Galilleo. Yes, it's the facts that are wrong. The Church is always right so we all must reject these facts.

Color me unimpressed with the new guy. Another closet fascist. Hide your children.

True, but you might, just might, get a Pope who is open to Priests being allowed to marry and have consensual sex (since there is no biblical support for the Church's ban on priestly matrimony)

Small correction. The Church may at some point allow more married men to be ordained (they already do in the Eastern/Oriental Catholic Churches, and in the Latin Church for Protestant ministers who convert).

They will not allow a man who is already ordained to marry. Holy Orders is an impediment to marriage. Even permanent deacons (who are almost all marry) can not marry again if their wife pre-deceases them.

use of a historical-social analysis of facts

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!

Here's one of my favorite coincidences. When I first met my wife, she and I were on the same page of the DC telephone directory, which in 1988 was probably a lot bigger than it is today.

I still have the torn-out page from the phone book where I was first listed as an adult with his own phone number. It felt like such a big deal at the time, my name in there with a whole sea of people. Plus I was the only one with my last name, so that was even better. Now 6-year-olds have their own cell phones, and none of them will grow up knowing what a phone book is.

And I think a big ol' no-prize should go to the first BTFer to name his son (or daughter) Generalissimo Analprobe Fullonrapist.

howmanyofme.com

Pretty cool. My name is way too common(most common first name, 26th most common last name) there are 9,924 of me. Actually seems low to me. But the saddest part is that none of them has been famous. :( Ok, there was one guy, who shares my first, middle and last name and is famous for being the Tylenol killer.

True, but you might, just might, get a Pope who is open to Priests being allowed to marry and have consensual sex (since there is no biblical support for the Church's ban on priestly matrimony)

Plus the Church's ban on contraceptives might be open to revision because frankly it's just so irrational- most Priests don't "get" it either, and it gets questioned WITHIN the church constantly - so basically it's never going away as an issue (within the church).

Abortion/gay rights? Basically off thet table for now and the foreseeable future

I'm not in the religion but since they have a broad influence on the world, I would hope whoever was pope would reinforce the notion that being gay is not a sin to being a target of violence, that god accepts all his children etc. I don't expect the Catholic church to allow gay marriage, but I fully expect religions to teach them to be accepting of a persons orientation, (even while saying it's a choice)

As to the other points, I agree, I would love to see the church be more progressive on their actions with their leaders, as pointed out they have in the past led in other actions, why should they be stuck being behind the times, instead of being ahead of the times when it comes to social issues.

"He has made some sharp remarks about the vanity, self-infatuation, careerism, and pursuit of promotions in the Roman Curia. As Archbishop of Buenos Aires, he apparently preferred to be called Father Jorge, and was known for his preoccupation with the city’s poorest, reportedly washing and kissing the feet of patients suffering from AIDS."

From this article in Slate, which has some nice links.

One of the considerations which isn't spoken of or written about wrt priests marrying, and presumably having families, is the cost of all that. Of course, other sects and religions support their ministers, but other religion don't have the trappings that the Catholic Church has. But there is a component to this that kind of tracks what Harry Truman said about the Democratic party becoming more like the Republican party: voters are likely to choose the genuine article rather than the imitation. The Catholic Church is distinctive among religions in some ways--becoming more like them may not be a winning strategy on the whole as compared to the present state of affairs, even giving full value to the downside of that.

I still have the torn-out page from the phone book where I was first listed as an adult with his own phone number. It felt like such a big deal at the time, my name in there with a whole sea of people. Plus I was the only one with my last name, so that was even better. Now 6-year-olds have their own cell phones, and none of them will grow up knowing what a phone book is.

I have a copy of the Manhattan Yellow Pages from the year (1950) before my parents moved from New York to DC. It's exactly 1900 pages thick, and for some reason it was known as "The Red Book", probably due to its red cover. No cellphone stores, but six pages of cellophane dealers.

One of the considerations which isn't spoken of or written about wrt priests marrying, and presumably having families, is the cost of all that. Of course, other sects and religions support their ministers, but other religion don't have the trappings that the Catholic Church has. But there is a component to this that kind of tracks what Harry Truman said about the Democratic party becoming more like the Republican party: voters are likely to choose the genuine article rather than the imitation. The Catholic Church is distinctive among religions in some ways--becoming more like them may not be a winning strategy on the whole as compared to the present state of affairs, even giving full value to the downside of that.

Its a practical matter, they need to recruit more men (and women) into the priesthood, and that's not going to happen until you remove a major barrier such as not allowing marriage. Besides, the church already allows priests who are already married to attend to the flock, if they came from another Christian sect, or they took the rites after they were married. So its not the concept of marriage they take issue with.

No, you're right. The church doesn't take issue with marriage across the board. It's the concept of marriage as it applies to its native own that it takes issue with. True, those who convert can be married, but how many is that? It's a concession to reality, especially since the CC is evangelical. It wants converts--especially as to Protestants and Jews. There's an air of the holy woo-woo about priests that doesn't apply to ministers of other sects or religions. Not in the same way and to the same extent. The bond with God, the commitment they make, is supposed to preclude worldly concerns. They are not supposed to have time for all that. The movie The Exorcist wouldn't have been the same if the exorcist would have been a fundamentalist preacher wearing a seersucker sport jacket, electric blue slacks with a wide white patent leather belt, and two-tone shoes. The "I saw Jesus and he was a-eating a ham sandwich" affront to elevated gravitas. The Catholic priest has something (is supposed to, anyway) of the air of a shaman, a witch doctor, as well doing all that other stuff. If he has a family, maybe his mystique might suffer.

I once quasi-dated a girl who had the same last name as my first name (though spelled differently). Had naming conventions upon marriage been reversed, and had we actually got married, that would have been interesting. I would have been like noted New York chiropractor Dr. Bobby Bobby.

former Eagles RB Anthony Toney.

In college I was trying to hook up a distance runner named Stella Klassen with a linebacker named Randy Stella. That would've been one of the best names.

So Rob Portman decided to support gay rights as his son comes out. Is it just me or does the GOP only decide to show liberal values when close family or friends are involved? They only like gays when they know one, support research into X when a family memeber has X and so on.

The right has long had an empathy problem. It's evident in much of the rhetoric, which is routinely some form of "I want".

In college I was trying to hook up a distance runner named Stella Klassen with a linebacker named Randy Stella. That would've been one of the best names.

She'd be Stanley Kowalsky's dream girl!

The Catholic priest has something (is supposed to, anyway) of the air of a shaman, a witch doctor, as well doing all that other stuff. If he has a family, maybe his mystique might suffer.

Yeah, well. (1) Let it f@cking suffer, and (2) the notion that it's a good thing to dazzle the ignorant masses with this shaman, witch doctor BS, is disgusting, so (3) let it f@cking suffer.

Its a weird analogy, since shamans, witch doctors, and other mystics aren't forbidden from boning like Catholic priests currently are.

Some days Twitter is gold. Other days I get a thousand dying rats shrieking about CPAC.

In college I was trying to hook up a distance runner named Stella Klassen with a linebacker named Randy Stella. That would've been one of the best names.

Is she related to long-distance speed-skater and 6-time Olympic medalist Cindy Klassen?

Yeah, well. (1) Let it f@cking suffer, and (2) the notion that it's a good thing to dazzle the ignorant masses with this shaman, witch doctor BS, is disgusting, so (3) let it f@cking suffer.

I heard a funny joke on the radio. When the billowing black smoke changed to white smoke, one observer asked another "What does the white smoke mean?". And the second observer squinted and answered "Bring more boys.".

No, Stella Klassen was from a small town in Nebraska, Randy Stella was from Omaha. Two completely different people, it would've never worked.

The Catholic priest has something (is supposed to, anyway) of the air of a shaman, a witch doctor, as well doing all that other stuff. If he has a family, maybe his mystique might suffer.

Yeah, well. (1) Let it f@cking suffer, and (2) the notion that it's a good thing to dazzle the ignorant masses with this shaman, witch doctor BS, is disgusting, so (3) let it f@cking suffer.

Noted theologian Jack Chick has repeatedly commented on the flamboyant pagan roots of Catholicism. Some commentary is better drawn than others.

I'm about as lapsed as one can possibly get, but I gotta protest a little: at least in the United States in the 21st century, Roman Catholicism is generally about as funky as the United Methodist Church or the Southern Baptist Convention or non-insane Lutherans or the higher reaches of Episcopalianism; or Orthodox Judaism. Yes, there are often funny clothes involved, and the weird proscription of clerical marriage (and women clergy, too). But seriously, it's for many people just another suburban religion, no more reactionary than most. And there's a substantial gay presence in American Catholicism: check out Dignity, for instance. It may seem a little like the Log Cabin Republicans, but it's been a way, for many decades, for gay Catholics to express their spirtuality and their sexuality.

It may seem a little like the Log Cabin Republicans, but it's been a way, for many decades, for gay Catholics to express their spirtuality and their sexuality.

I think this is a real problem though. The "expression of sexuality" has spilled over far too often into a form of clerical rape, particulary of teenage boys. I don't think this sort of thing is something to be proud of. And that's without yet getting into the pederasty angle, which is nothing short of wicked and perverse.

I still have the torn-out page from the phone book where I was first listed as an adult with his own phone number. It felt like such a big deal at the time, my name in there with a whole sea of people. Plus I was the only one with my last name, so that was even better.

This was right before the sniper starting shooting the rack of oil cans.

The "expression of sexuality" has spilled over far too often into a form of clerical rape, particulary of teenage boys

The Dignity movement I linked to couldn't be further from condoning pedophilic priests. Dignity is an organization of adult, sexually active, often happily paired gay Catholics who want to participate in the Church. Abusive priests (and other abusive Church officials) are 100% opposite: predatory, power-obsessed, in deep denial, closeted inside the closets of closets, convinced that they're Teflon-coated: like Penn State only on a universal-church level. Dignity is just a bunch of normal everyday people who have religious beliefs.

When I moved into my first apartment, my room-mate and I spent a weekend making sure our place was properly stocked. One thing we needed was a phone book. We couldn't recall if they were just delivered to you, or whether you had to buy them. So we went to a phone shop and asked if we could have a phone book. The guy behind the counter gave us one and we headed home. About five minutes later I noticed this phone book had seen some fairly heavy use, and it dawned on us that we had just stolen that store's phonebook.

I haven't used a phone book in years - despite the fact that the Internet emulates phone books miserably badly (just like restaurant information and song lyrics: one of the things that's inexplicably gotten worse in the Web era). I reckon that I just don't make as many phone calls as I used to, and if I want to buy something I check online, for either the product itself or a specialty store that has its own easy-to-find website.

I haven't used a phone book in years - despite the fact that the Internet emulates phone books miserably badly (just like restaurant information and song lyrics: one of the things that's inexplicably gotten worse in the Web era).

All of these things are inexplicable, particularly the hideously user-unfriendly song lyrics websites.

But I simply don't look up phone numbers anymore. Most of the time I'm emailing or texting anyway, and if I'm texting it's because the person already gave me their number. Cell numbers aren't listed in phone books, anyway, and people are using landlines less and less. And when people send emails for business they've got their phone numbers right below with the contact information.

And when people send emails for business they've got their phone numbers right below with the contact information.

And it's a confounding, mystifying nuisance when they don't. There's a special place for commercial folks without an email signature/contact info block.

I am the 2nd-most famous person with my very common real name (not close to 'Howie' either), but the more famous version - who was born less than 20 miles from where I was born, btw - saw his star shine ever more brightly earlier this year, so it would be difficult for me to ever catch him.

He's not universally popular, though. I just hope there's never a personal scandal relating to him.

Come to think of it, perhaps he should think the same.
:)

Just to re-hijack this thread for a moment, did anyone see this front page NYT story today? If any further proof is needed of the near-criminal insanity of the NRA, look no further than this:

Ruled a Threat to Family, but Allowed to Keep Guns

The National Rifle Association and its allies are challenging states’ efforts to take guns away from domestic violence offenders who have been served with civil protection orders.

I haven't used a phone book in years - despite the fact that the Internet emulates phone books miserably badly (just like restaurant information and song lyrics: one of the things that's inexplicably gotten worse in the Web era).



All of these things are inexplicable, particularly the hideously user-unfriendly song lyrics websites.

I don't think it's inexplicable at all --

Phone books were a "service" that the phone companies effectively had no choice but to provide in a paper world -- they certainly tried and wanted to monetize them into a commodity, but in a paper world, no one would have accepted needing to flip through hundreds of pages of ads to get to a phone number. The internet makes that commoditization of the information much easier -- they're not "bad" in the internet world, they're simply presented in a way that presents optimal opportunities to get you to click on or purchase something else.

The song lyric websites are the same way -- with digitization of music, the sites are awful because they can make bank by getting you to buy everything from ring tones to the song itself.

The National Rifle Association and its allies are challenging states’ efforts to take guns away from domestic violence offenders who have been served with civil protection orders.

If she had a gun, she could have shot the bad guy and had a good old fashioned gun fight with her kids watching and in harm's way.

Well I assume those kids would have been taught to duck and cover.

edit: double post

in a paper world, no one would have accepted needing to flip through hundreds of pages of ads to get to a phone number

Actually that describes paper Yellow Pages pretty well. The Yellow Pages were an ingenious and durable concept: a directory comprised of nothing but ads, but arranged in such a highly useful way that people came to depend on them for lots of basic consumer information.

You're certainly right about the economics of "internet yellow pages" and why they're a conspicuous failure. Old-fashioned Yellow Pages were a creature of the old-fashioned phone monopoly, making it vital for a business to buy Yellow Pages space. In the dying years of print phone directories there were tons of competing yellow pages, creating a major paper-recycling problem but also collapsing of its own competition: as people used them less, more and more companies produced them, and fewer businesses thought it worthwhile to take out ads in every one. Still less when every mope with a server can start a Yellow Pages service, and every business can easily set up its own webpage. I imagine the model will continue to evolve. Google emulates yellow pages in interesting ways; say, if you want to stay in a motel near Sioux Falls, and with a couple of clicks you get a map with the equivalent of the old Sioux Falls yellow pages for Motels. (Plus reviews: I got bedbugs! The sheets were stained! Nice if you like a fleabag full of hookers and meth addicts!)

The Internet really does white pages badly: there's no profit in them, and as noted upthread, most people now use cellphones, and don't want to be listed. (Which is part of another fascinating transformation: from phone calls costing only the caller, but scaled to how far one was calling, to them costing both parties, but at flat rates on a national scale. That's changed people's behavior, or rather has allowed behaviors that people really did always demand to flourish.)

I'm about as lapsed as one can possibly get, but I gotta protest a little: at least in the United States in the 21st century, Roman Catholicism is generally about as funky as the United Methodist Church or the Southern Baptist Convention or non-insane Lutherans or the higher reaches of Episcopalianism; or Orthodox Judaism. Yes, there are often funny clothes involved, and the weird proscription of clerical marriage (and women clergy, too). But seriously, it's for many people just another suburban religion, no more reactionary than most. And there's a substantial gay presence in American Catholicism: check out Dignity, for instance. It may seem a little like the Log Cabin Republicans, but it's been a way, for many decades, for gay Catholics to express their spirtuality and their sexuality.

You are right but there are different things at work here in the category of funky.

If funky means reactionary, American Catholicism is totally mainstream, far less conservative than the SBC not to mention the smaller Church of Christ and some (not all) of the non-sectarian evangelical churches. The church is no more conservative than those churches on social issues and is far less conservative on economic issues. And Catholics, as opposed to the church, are far more moderate than members of those churches.

If funky means a seemingly anachronistic vision of women's roles, again, the church fits within others. Many evangelical denominations (not all) forbid female pastors (though not always evangelists) and obvious Orthodox Judaism takes the segregation of women to a different level.

If you mean rituals and garb and the like, the comparisons change a lot, as the Southern Baptists and most evangelicals are strongly anti-ritual, but the Catholics are much more like churches that in other ways are far, far more liberal not just than the Catholic Church but than America like Episcopalians and ELCA Lutherans.

Celibacy of priests is almost a sui generis category among large-scale religions in the US.

Catholicism is not unusual in its components--other than celibacy you can find like practices in many other churches as you say-- but the aggregate is unusual in the US as it shares many (not all) political positions with evangelicals but rituals and theology with very liberal mainstream churches.

Ruled a Threat to Family, but Allowed to Keep Guns

The National Rifle Association and its allies are challenging states’ efforts to take guns away from domestic violence offenders who have been served with civil protection orders.

Andy, it sounds sensational, but the problem is that restraining orders are relatively easy to obtain - as they should be. But the right to bear arms is a constitutional right. And constitutional rights should be difficult to take away.

I am ok with trying to find a reasonable solution, but if you can't recognize this structural issue, your opinion on the matter isn't objective enough to be taken seriously.

And the article makes the classic mistake of assuming that a guy who has no trouble shoving a gun in a woman's face will somehow find it morally wrong to obtain a gun illegally. Or that he will find it difficult to obtain a gun illegally -- he's a guy who has a stockpile of weapons, right? Will he have no clue how to obtain a gun illegally? No desire? Among other errors.

In typical liberal media bias fashion, the article is written to assume the validity of all the anti-gun and womens' groups arguments, while presenting the opposite arguments as inherently unreasonable. It also presents single data points as representative, which it re-tells as vignettes. But where are the vignettes where the judge didn't take away the guy's weapons while granting a restraining order - and the guy didn't return to attack the woman with the gun? Where are the vignettes where he returned without a gun and tried to strangle her, or hit her, or use a knife, or ram her with his car a la Larry Bird's son, etc.?

This is an issue that needs attention and the NRA's arguments shouldn't be blindly followed -- but neither should the opposing arguments, and that's why the article is a mess.