vatican lexicon
April 1, 2003 12:49 PM   Subscribe

The Vatican's publishing a new 900-page dictionary of "Ambiguous and Colloquial Terms about Family Life and Ethical Questions," such as "reproductive health" and "conjugal love." Some groups are looking forward to the tome...I personally would like to look up "pedophilia" in it.
posted by serafinapekkala (17 comments total)
 
Favorite bit: "Promoted as the Vatican's response to secular society's deteriorating social values..." Hello, doesn't the Mother Church have enough problems with it's *own* "deteriorating social values" these days? Maybe if they spent less time totting up everyone else's sins...ah, forget it.
posted by serafinapekkala at 12:53 PM on April 1, 2003


A section titled "Homosexuality and Homophobia" says that homosexuality stems from an "unresolved psychological conflict" and explains that those who want to give homosexuals equal legal rights "deny a psychological problem which makes homosexuality against the social fabric".

It's been an amazing century for the Catholic Church: they've gone from 500 years behind the times to just 30 years behind the times. Here's hoping that the Church can get within a decade of the rest of us by the year 2100!
posted by mr_roboto at 12:54 PM on April 1, 2003


Can I predict a religion based semi-flame-fest in 3...2...?
posted by twine42 at 12:57 PM on April 1, 2003


God doesn't exist!
posted by Pretty_Generic at 1:03 PM on April 1, 2003


Yes she does!
posted by signal at 1:10 PM on April 1, 2003


Vatican-bashing is _so_ 2002
posted by matteo at 1:11 PM on April 1, 2003


Don't wake the Pope.
posted by WolfDaddy at 1:19 PM on April 1, 2003


She exists alright, and WHAT a bitch she is!
posted by quonsar at 1:27 PM on April 1, 2003


Favorite bit: "Promoted as the Vatican's response to secular society's deteriorating social values..." Hello, doesn't the Mother Church have enough problems with it's *own* "deteriorating social values" these days? Maybe if they spent less time totting up everyone else's sins...ah, forget it.

That's good. You were just about to make the same mistake they did. : )

But your comment has a lot of merit. Evangelism and influence are best accomplished/exerted with the light of a good example.
posted by namespan at 1:33 PM on April 1, 2003


put them all in prison and make them suck each other off....I know secretly they want it
posted by bureaustyle at 1:48 PM on April 1, 2003


[O/T:

Whoa!!

From priest-bashing to homophobia in 9 steps... [/OT]

Mind you, I'm in for a little anti-clericalism
*rubs hands with glee*
posted by dash_slot- at 2:00 PM on April 1, 2003


Dang, it's a church-you'd think the least they could do is call sin "sin".

I have a friend who was molested by a (Protestant) minister when she was young. Something like that takes years to get over, if at all.

Can someone please explain to me why these priests get to stay priests after all this?
posted by konolia at 2:07 PM on April 1, 2003


why these priests get to stay priests after all this

They're anointed by God. Which means God's a boyfucker.

[/David Cross]
posted by WolfDaddy at 2:24 PM on April 1, 2003


There is a difference between secular humanist-style criticism of organized religion and religous bigotry. This discussion has turned into anti-Catholic bigotry at its worst. Shame on you.
posted by Durwood at 2:31 PM on April 1, 2003


Say, serafina, this probably won't be in the Lexicon but you may know. What's the deal with the kids at the end of the Dark Materials books? Do they get that wonderful golden glow just by, you know, holding hands and gazing at each other in rapture, or is Pullman actually recommending sex at 12 as a great way to become human? It's ambiguous, help me out here.
posted by jfuller at 2:48 PM on April 1, 2003


You've got to fear those deteriorating social values. Been deteriorating since the time of Ninevah and Babylon apparently. I'm suprised the earth hasn't yet ended, given all that horrible sin that's corrupting our children.
posted by Jimbob at 5:10 PM on April 1, 2003


jfuller -- you crack me up! when i read that part, i told all my friends about the "puberty glow"! it's surely meant to indicate some "union" between them and their "maturity" and all that...and in classical-lit terms they are not kids as today. i think he was hedging his bets and keeping it sort of ambiguous for a reason...i.e. the books were already so popular with children (which he only sort of meant them to be) that he couldn't throw in the full monty at the end. i imagine the movie version would have to be like Zeffirelli's "Romeo & Juliet," all hazy and oblique...heh. on an even more unrelated topic, i am curious as to how J.K. Rowling will tread in the teen lust area with the remaining Potter series...end transmission from off-topic-land...
posted by serafinapekkala at 3:31 PM on April 2, 2003


« Older Be the first on your block   |   Reporters sans frontieres Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments