Search results

Sometimes charity involves a little condemnation, and other times you need the deft, subtle touch.

It can probably be waived depending on how much of a stickler the priest is, but you could always give it the good college try to make sure he sees you're putting in a good-faith effort.

When the proponent of the statement lacks any cognizable background lending weight to the credibility of the statement. The second paragraph is likely indefensible; the third I just need statistics, but I always thought we gave foreign aid that did not consist chiefly of military presence.

Citation missing.

Oh, was that the point? I lost my way somewhere around when priests were likened to members of Congress w/r/t quality of life.

Skeptical.

I still think it's tu quoque.

Is there a point?

Yeah. I mean even if he was acting in an official capacity even that wouldn't guarantee that a respondeat theory would hold. That detour vs frolic distinction muddies the waters a bit.

Something tells me the Bishop didn't get drunk by having a little too much of the Sacrament at Mass. Respondeat won't apply. But it is nice having someone here versed in legal matters for situations like this.

Yeah, this was my point. I don't know what Fantine thought I said.

Maybe nobody called you out on this because it's not of huge consequence, but since you made this assertion twice, bro, her mom died. Her partner is still alive. Or maybe I'm reading stuff really, really poorly at this hour.

You don't like the translation that better tracks with the direct terminology used in the Scripture?

Oh come on. 2010?

Because people generally have no idea what's legal and illegal.

My misinterpretation. My mistake. I thought it must have been about non-OBOB debate policy since the person you were quoting made a response that is pretty par for the course in OBOB, especially in the politics section.

Wait, what? Are you suggesting a person swears an oath at his arraignment?

I wasn't aware there were non-OBOBers promoting views contrary to Catholic doctrine in this thread. Which, you know, is the point of the rule that outsiders refrain from debate. Nobody likes a tattle. But regardless, the Benghazi stuff was tired from the beginning. The State dept. messed up...

I'll echo that. The emotionalism is what drove me from Protestantism and into borderline-Agnosticism in my late teens. Liturgical Catholicism brought me back at 20.

Who here is defending the Bishop's decision to drink and drive?