The Church of England Still Won't Let Its Gay Bishops Have Sex

Jan 4, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Atlantic

On Friday the Church of England announced that it's decided that to allow gay clergy to be elevated to bishop , even if they are in a civil partnership - provided they aren't actually having sex with anyone.

Comments
21 - 40 of 41 Comments Last updated Mar 4, 2013
Fitz

Saint Clair Shores, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Jan 11, 2013
 
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
LMAO!!!.....
You are so full of yourself and your mischaracterizations that you can't understand what you read!
Your question #1: I didn't do that. You did that. You were the one who touted Jesus Christ as having been celibate - an assumption that you cannot prove. Then you used His supposed celibacy to justify the Roman Church's demand for celibacy.
If its such a great thing, why were most of the priests and bishops in the Early Church, whether male or female, married?
.....
Your question #2: I did not suggest that the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene was physically sexual. However, when she found Him outside of the tomb, what did He say? He said, "Touch me not...." So, obviously, she had touched Him at some other time. Make of it whatever you want. But, their relationship, sexual or not, was obviously physical. Furthermore, biblical scholars suggest that she was the one who had dressed His feet with the expensive oil/cream. Another physical act.
Yes. His relationship with her is quite obviously unusually exclusive, physical and more than casual; sexual or not.
.....
Your question #3: I don't expect you to understand the call to the priesthood. But, I will tell you this: It cannot be ignored. It can only be accepted or refused.
There is no need for you to feign ignorance. Celibacy is a traditional requirement in many spiritual and mystery schools. It is called a "monastic" life.
.....
Your question #4: Unstated corruptions?
Don't be ridiculous. The Roman Catholic Church has now paid out HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS over these "unstated corruptions!"
I didn't say that the practice of celibacy led to or is linked to these "unstated corruptions." YOU said that!
What I said was that the practice of the forced vow of celibacy, as a requirement and prerequisite to ordination into the all-male priesthood, is a very likely cause for institutional sexual corruption.
Their only remedy is to try to put the genie back in the bottle - and he ain't goin' back in without a fight!
As far as the many centuries of certain beliefs and traditions are concerned, that seems to be much of the problem, doesn't it?
.
Rev. Ken
As an unmarried man and devout Jew there is no reason tevery reason to assume that Jesus Christ was celibate his entire life.

I do not need to "prove" that he never had sex.. This was the expectations of an unmarried Jew at the time. Furthermore as being a-historial and counter to the overwellming consensus amoung all chistian denominations it would be incumbant upon you to demonstrate evidencethat he was either married or had fornicated in his lifetime.

Your specualtions about Mary M. are turning rather silly and you are back peddling on yuur asertions. Most celibate men have all sort of "physicall" contact & varios relationships wih womn as a matter of course. This does notimpact their vows of celibacy in any way.

You would need to prove that the practice of celibacy is related to "institutional sexual corruption"... something you wont defie except to insinuate that it is involved in someway to sexual abuse of minors while at the same time claimingthat you dont need to show any evidence that this is the case.

The Anglican Church has alway had married priests and along with Rabbinical Judaism has had the same percentage of abuse problems.

Secualar orginizations like public school teachers, boyscout troupe leaders, sports coaches, and the like all have higher incidents of sexual abuse of minors than any of the myraid of religious organizations that practice priestly celibacy.

You claim your a Reverend with a congregation...It would be interesting to now what denomination this religion of yours is..what seminary you attended and if its even Christian.

You have some rather novel idea's concerning the priesthood and sexual ethics. If you can point me to source for your beliefs I would be interested to know more about this religion you practice.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Jan 11, 2013
 
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
As an unmarried man and devout Jew there is no reason tevery reason to assume that Jesus Christ was celibate his entire life.
I do not need to "prove" that he never had sex.. This was the expectations of an unmarried Jew at the time. Furthermore as being a-historial and counter to the overwellming consensus amoung all chistian denominations it would be incumbant upon you to demonstrate evidencethat he was either married or had fornicated in his lifetime.
Your specualtions about Mary M. are turning rather silly and you are back peddling on yuur asertions. Most celibate men have all sort of "physicall" contact & varios relationships wih womn as a matter of course. This does notimpact their vows of celibacy in any way.
You would need to prove that the practice of celibacy is related to "institutional sexual corruption"... something you wont defie except to insinuate that it is involved in someway to sexual abuse of minors while at the same time claimingthat you dont need to show any evidence that this is the case.
The Anglican Church has alway had married priests and along with Rabbinical Judaism has had the same percentage of abuse problems.
Secualar orginizations like public school teachers, boyscout troupe leaders, sports coaches, and the like all have higher incidents of sexual abuse of minors than any of the myraid of religious organizations that practice priestly celibacy.
You claim your a Reverend with a congregation...It would be interesting to now what denomination this religion of yours is..what seminary you attended and if its even Christian.
You have some rather novel idea's concerning the priesthood and sexual ethics. If you can point me to source for your beliefs I would be interested to know more about this religion you practice.
Not backpedalling at all. It is YOU who is backpedalling.

As for my source, it is called being a Christian.

Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, "Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
At once, Jesus perceived in his spirit that they were discussing these questions among themselves; and he said to them, "Why do you raise such questions in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic,'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say,'Stand up and take your mat and walk'?
But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" - he said this to the paralytic - "I say to you, stand up, take your mat and go to your home."
And he stood up, and immediately took the mat and went out before all of them; ...

I am an Episcopalian. Nothing novel about it.
Fitz

Saint Clair Shores, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Not backpedalling at all. It is YOU who is backpedalling.
As for my source, it is called being a Christian.
Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, "Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
At once, Jesus perceived in his spirit that they were discussing these questions among themselves; and he said to them, "Why do you raise such questions in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic,'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say,'Stand up and take your mat and walk'?
But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" - he said this to the paralytic - "I say to you, stand up, take your mat and go to your home."
And he stood up, and immediately took the mat and went out before all of them; ...
I am an Episcopalian. Nothing novel about it.
Well it is yor religion itself that also is part of the tradition that respects celibacy amoung its non-married preists.

Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, all eastern Orthodox rights as well as all Catholic and Roman Catholic groups have such a tradition.

Christ himself as well as Paul outlined the purpose and function of that tradition.

You on the other hand seem to think it leads to some sort of sexual disfunction.

this and your inferance that Jesus ha sexual relations with Mary M. and your spoeculation that their were female bishops and priests as well as multple other novel interpretations of the Bible may explain wy your once pround andChristian denomination is falling into schism.

At present an entire diocesse in Souh Carolina has kicked the dust from its feet and left the wider communion.

Indeed the majority of the Anglican communion in Africa and Asia is openly against these novel misinterpretations of scripture.

Perhaps you need to rethink your obsession with changing the Chritian sexual ethics that have served the Church so well for thouands of years.

So that they may all be one...

The devil drives schism...

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Well it is yor religion itself that also is part of the tradition that respects celibacy amoung its non-married preists.
Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, all eastern Orthodox rights as well as all Catholic and Roman Catholic groups have such a tradition.
Christ himself as well as Paul outlined the purpose and function of that tradition.
You on the other hand seem to think it leads to some sort of sexual disfunction.
this and your inferance that Jesus ha sexual relations with Mary M. and your spoeculation that their were female bishops and priests as well as multple other novel interpretations of the Bible may explain wy your once pround andChristian denomination is falling into schism.
At present an entire diocesse in Souh Carolina has kicked the dust from its feet and left the wider communion.
Indeed the majority of the Anglican communion in Africa and Asia is openly against these novel misinterpretations of scripture.
Perhaps you need to rethink your obsession with changing the Chritian sexual ethics that have served the Church so well for thouands of years.
So that they may all be one...
The devil drives schism...
No.

You again attempt to mischaracterize what you have read of what I wrote.

Yes, we respect a personal vow of celibacy. But, we do not make it a prerequisite to ordination.

No. I do not think it leads to some kind of sexual disfunction. Celibacy is a personal choice.

A vow of celibacy, on the other hand, as a prerequisite to ordination, is a compromise extracted by force. You don't seem to understand the difference. Consider what Jesus said with regard to eunuchs. That may help you to understand.

But, your insistence that I regard celibacy as the culprit is off the mark and is an idea borne out of YOUR misconceptions. The forcing of the vow is the initiation of the institutional corruption.

It is YOU who suspects Jesus of having sexual relations with Mary Magdalene. I have not ever inferred that they engaged in physical sex. I don't deny it either. I just don't know. But also, it would not surprise me to hear that these two had mated.

It is not speculation that there were female bishops. It is a known fact. You are not very well informed about your own Church's history. Do some reading. I'll not help you find the information.

I have to laugh out loud at your assertion that the Christian sexual ethics have "served the Church so well for thousands of years." Just how many children do you think were screwed in the sacristy during all those years? You must be a pervert to make that *ass*ertion.

Well,..... ARE YOU?

What do they call a person who offers a drink to an alcoholic out of sympathy? They call that person an enabler.

You see things backwards. But, you've got to come to that realization on your own.

Thanks for the discussion.

Rev. Ken
Fitz

Saint Clair Shores, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
You again attempt to mischaracterize what you have read of what I wrote.
Yes, we respect a personal vow of celibacy. But, we do not make it a prerequisite to ordination.
No. I do not think it leads to some kind of sexual disfunction. Celibacy is a personal choice.
A vow of celibacy, on the other hand, as a prerequisite to ordination, is a compromise extracted by force. You don't seem to understand the difference. Consider what Jesus said with regard to eunuchs. That may help you to understand.
But, your insistence that I regard celibacy as the culprit is off the mark and is an idea borne out of YOUR misconceptions. The forcing of the vow is the initiation of the institutional corruption.
It is YOU who suspects Jesus of having sexual relations with Mary Magdalene. I have not ever inferred that they engaged in physical sex. I don't deny it either. I just don't know. But also, it would not surprise me to hear that these two had mated.
It is not speculation that there were female bishops. It is a known fact. You are not very well informed about your own Church's history. Do some reading. I'll not help you find the information.
I have to laugh out loud at your assertion that the Christian sexual ethics have "served the Church so well for thousands of years." What do they call a person who offers a drink to an alcoholic out of sympathy? They call that person an enabler.
You see things backwards. But, you've got to come to that realization on your own.
Thanks for the discussion.
Rev. Ken
Christians are well aware of their own history and rationals for their practices.

You write - "A vow of celibacy, on the other hand, as a prerequisite to ordination, is a compromise extracted by force. You don't seem to understand the difference. Consider what Jesus said with regard to eunuchs. That may help you to understand."

In no way, shape or form is the practice of a celibate preisthood capable of being charachterized as a "compromise extracted by force"

This is your demonization of a age old practice endorsed by Christ himself, alborated on by St. Paul & continuesly practiced in both the west the eastern Church's since the inception of Christianity.

You have linked it to the sex abuse crisis while at the same time claiming it is only the "forced" (a disproven and fancifull notion) aspect of it that leads to "initiation of the institutional corruption." (an idea and concept you wont elaborate on and provide no evidence for)

Then you write - "It is YOU who suspects Jesus of having sexual relations with Mary Magdalene. I have not ever inferred that they engaged in physical sex." - But it was you who brought up the relation to Mary Magdeline when I properly pointed out that Jesus Christ was celibate his entire life and the model for a celibate preisthood.

Then you state (as if to prove my point) "I don't deny it either. I just don't know. But also, it would not surprise me to hear that these two had mated."

Well it would surprise me, given that he was a devout Jew and that Christianity as well as Judaism has a strict prohibition against fornication.

It is also a matter of Dogma within Anglicanism and Christianity that Jesus never sinned. Your willingness to speculate with zero evidence that Jesus Christ himself commited fornication with one of his disciples says all that needs to be said about the scope of your "Christianity"..

Its clear to this Christian that you are what has destroyed the Anglican communion and the Episcoplian Church. You simply want to cast doubt upon the entire Christian sexual ethic to the point were you will even slander Christ himself.

FYI - Their never has been female priests, decons, or Bishops in the early Church or the Western or Eastern Church's. You have been feed propaganda and regurgitate it for others.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Christians are well aware of their own history and rationals for their practices.
You write - "A vow of celibacy, on the other hand, as a prerequisite to ordination, is a compromise extracted by force. You don't seem to understand the difference. Consider what Jesus said with regard to eunuchs. That may help you to understand."
In no way, shape or form is the practice of a celibate preisthood capable of being charachterized as a "compromise extracted by force"
This is your demonization of a age old practice endorsed by Christ himself, alborated on by St. Paul & continuesly practiced in both the west the eastern Church's since the inception of Christianity.
You have linked it to the sex abuse crisis while at the same time claiming it is only the "forced" (a disproven and fancifull notion) aspect of it that leads to "initiation of the institutional corruption." (an idea and concept you wont elaborate on and provide no evidence for)
Then you write - "It is YOU who suspects Jesus of having sexual relations with Mary Magdalene. I have not ever inferred that they engaged in physical sex." - But it was you who brought up the relation to Mary Magdeline when I properly pointed out that Jesus Christ was celibate his entire life and the model for a celibate preisthood.
Then you state (as if to prove my point) "I don't deny it either. I just don't know. But also, it would not surprise me to hear that these two had mated."
Well it would surprise me, given that he was a devout Jew and that Christianity as well as Judaism has a strict prohibition against fornication.
It is also a matter of Dogma within Anglicanism and Christianity that Jesus never sinned. Your willingness to speculate with zero evidence that Jesus Christ himself commited fornication with one of his disciples says all that needs to be said about the scope of your "Christianity"..
Its clear to this Christian that you are what has destroyed the Anglican communion and the Episcoplian Church. You simply want to cast doubt upon the entire Christian sexual ethic to the point were you will even slander Christ himself.
FYI - Their never has been female priests, decons, or Bishops in the early Church or the Western or Eastern Church's. You have been feed propaganda and regurgitate it for others.
Sorry, Fitz.

You are misinformed.

http://www.futurechurch.org/amillionvoices/co...

http://www.arcwp.org/art_always.html

http://www.abebooks.com/9780801879326/Ordaine...

.....

Acquire and read. Learn. Improve your understanding and dispel your mistaken beliefs.

But, do this for yourself.

... Or, remain in your present state of ignorance and denial.

Rev. Ken
Rhys

Pekin, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Jan 13, 2013
 
TheVeryUnRevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Fitz.
You are misinformed.
http://www.futurechurch.org/amillionvoices/co...
http://www.arcwp.org/art_always.html
http://www.abebooks.com/9780801879326/Ordaine...
.....
Acquire and read. Learn. Improve your understanding and dispel your mistaken beliefs.
But, do this for yourself.
... Or, remain in your present state of ignorance and denial.
TheVeryUnRev. Ken, Servant of Satan
As a non-Christian, you really don't get a vote.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Jan 13, 2013
 
Rhys wrote:
<quoted text>As a non-Christian, you really don't get a vote.
LOL!!!....

From the "Manito-Pekinpoop Manurehead" Caleb-David-Bill-Larry-Rhys-Je dric-BoyNamedSue-et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, I really am not expecting a vote.

But, thanks for your negative vote, anyway.

It adds to my credibility.

Rev. Ken
A priest and disciple of Christ Jesus.
Fitz

Saint Clair Shores, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Jan 19, 2013
 
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Fitz.
You are misinformed.
http://www.futurechurch.org/amillionvoices/co...
http://www.arcwp.org/art_always.html
http://www.abebooks.com/9780801879326/Ordaine...
.....
Acquire and read. Learn. Improve your understanding and dispel your mistaken beliefs.
But, do this for yourself.
... Or, remain in your present state of ignorance and denial.
Rev. Ken
There is certainly "ignorance and denial" present on someones part in this discussion.

You point to three documents presented by notorisley left wing advocates of practices never before seriously considered.

I on the other hand have the consitant historical truth of the faith as lived and practiced for 2000 years amoung Christians of all denominations..

You have (on the other hand) 40 years of revolutionary revisionist history that is driven not by belief in God or Christ but transparently being led by self procalimed atheists in the larger secular establishment who have an open and natorious agenda of "radical gender equality" and sexual revolution.

That is what is so disconcerting about the "Christianity: you claim to believe in. That this movment to change the truths of the Faith "just happens" to go hand in glove with a larger movment for exactly the same ideology, except that version openly denies Gods existance and derides religious belief and believers consistantly.

What sort of delusion dose it take a person to pretend that the "tail is wagging the dog" on these issue's and theirs is the "real truth of the faith" that "just happens" to coincide with your secular betters in universities and the media.

Your being lead by someone and it is clearly not Christ.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Jan 29, 2013
 
You lost me at the church of England has gay bishops

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Jan 30, 2013
 
01Justsayin wrote:
You lost me at the church of England has gay bishops
I lost you?

LOL!!!....

Apparently the Church of England has lost you, too!

If you think I meant that ALL Bishops in the Church of England are Gay,.... No, I certainly did not write or imply that.

The headline of the thread above is about Anglican Bishops who are Gay.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Jan 30, 2013
 
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>I lost you?

LOL!!!....

Apparently the Church of England has lost you, too!

If you think I meant that ALL Bishops in the Church of England are Gay,.... No, I certainly did not write or imply that.

The headline of the thread above is about Anglican Bishops who are Gay.
Ha I am not affiliated in any way with the church of England. That doesn't make me lost.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Jan 31, 2013
 
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha I am not affiliated in any way with the church of England. That doesn't make me lost.
Didn't say or imply that you were.

You were the one who wrote that someone or something lost you.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Jan 31, 2013
 
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>Didn't say or imply that you were.

You were the one who wrote that someone or something lost you.
Lol I'm not used to a religious group having openly gay clergymen. Especially with all the gay marriage hoopla going on right now. I'm not offended by it. I'm bisexual myself. It was just...shocking.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41
Jan 31, 2013
 
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol I'm not used to a religious group having openly gay clergymen. Especially with all the gay marriage hoopla going on right now. I'm not offended by it. I'm bisexual myself. It was just...shocking.
Well, then, you have very little knowledge of the history of the Roman Catholic Church priesthood. They have had gay clergymen for nearly two thousand years.

If there is anything that is actually "shocking" about any of this, it is that so many have denied the facts of the matter for so long and have not been held accountable for their deceptions.

Even so, certain Roman Church popes and cardinals and priests were known to have been gay. Most, of course, have been no problem.

Pedophile priests are entirely another matter.

Rev. Ken
Arthur

Townsville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
You quote statistics as if they are individual facts - which they are NOT!
Your sin is a much more grave sin, according to the bible, than is any sexual encounter between two consenting adults.
In fact, it is an open and willful trespass by false witness knowingly made onto others and against someone you don't even know.
Your sin is actually one of the Ten Big Ones, while the behavior of those you accuse is not even mentioned!
You lie and you testify, consciously and purposefully incorrectly, at the expense of another and others!
Then you wrap it all up nicely like a spider with a moth and bite it with the venom of your hand-picked scriptures, while ignoring the consequences.
And,... there are consequences.
Rev. Ken
And you talk nonsense, Rev Ken.

“Plays well with others.”

Since: Jun 07

LIVING WELL*THE BEST REVENGE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#43
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

pederasty and pedophilia is the crime...same sex relationships are NOT!

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Arthur wrote:
<quoted text>
And you talk nonsense, Rev Ken.
Arthur,

I remember what I wrote about, that you now call "nonsense."

It was my response to a post written by James Aist in which he provided a number of undocumented statistics in support of his views on homosexuality.

In that post, Mr. Aist gave statistics citing their factual condemnation of homosexuality in general. The statistics were bogus in the first place. The conclusions that he drew from the bogus statistics condemned the behaviors and motivations of people that he did not and does not know.

But, since Mr. Aist regards the Ten Commandments given to the Hebrews through Moses to be incontrovertible Holy Scripture, it seeemed reasonably sensible to make proper reference to these Commandments. The Commandments relate to the assertions and conclusions that Mr. Aist has made with his statistics; specifically Commandments #3 and #8.

From Biblegateway.com :

Commandment #3:

“You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name."

Mr. Aist has attributed conclusions about homosexuality to the Lord God which were NEVER made in any text of either the Hebrew Bible or the Christian Bible. He has, therefore, clearly misused the name of the Lord God to attempt to establish his own false conclusions.

Commandment #8:

“You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor."

Mr. Aist has attempted to condemn people he has never met and does not know by citing false statistical evidence against them. It is, without any doubt whatsoever, "false testimony against his neightbor."

No. It is even worse than that.

It is false testimony against his fellow human beings and he gives them no recourse to testify before a common judge in the presence of their accuser, as is specifically required in Mosaic Law, in order to prevent the very hegemony that Mr. Aist makes against his fellow mankind.

There is no excuse for the post that Mr. Aist made.

Now. If this explanation is still nonsense to you, then you are either illiterate or you are trying to defend the behavior of Mr. Aist, which behavior is completely indefensible and reproachful according to the Commandments given to Moses by the Lord God.

Furthermore, if Mr. Aist wants to object to my assertions and testimony against him, I invite him to stand with me before ANY Hebrew judge and answer to my assertions. This can be accomplished on-line, over the internet, with a Jewish Rabbi chosen to make the determination before the Lord.

Have at it, Arthur. Try making sense out of your own nonsense.

Rev. Ken

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45
Mar 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>Well, then, you have very little knowledge of the history of the Roman Catholic Church priesthood. They have had gay clergymen for nearly two thousand years.

If there is anything that is actually "shocking" about any of this, it is that so many have denied the facts of the matter for so long and have not been held accountable for their deceptions.

Even so, certain Roman Church popes and cardinals and priests were known to have been gay. Most, of course, have been no problem.

Pedophile priests are entirely another matter.

Rev. Ken
Ha Not having much knowledge of the Catholic Church is to be expected when one is not, in fact, Catholic. I am a proud Protestant.

“Plays well with others.”

Since: Jun 07

LIVING WELL*THE BEST REVENGE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46
Mar 4, 2013
 
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha Not having much knowledge of the Catholic Church is to be expected when one is not, in fact, Catholic. I am a proud Protestant.
yeah all of them are straight....right Ted?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••