X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:05:40 -0500
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Re: Myth exposed!!!

Subj:   Re: J.J. exposed!!! [more appropriate, don't you think?]

But let's continue....
Stephen Barr <15942@BRAHMS.UDEL.EDU> writes:

>    What makes intelligent conversation so difficult with
>you, J.J., is that it is hard to tell when you are being
>serious.

These exact words have been spoken by my wife, Stephen, I'm
becoming seriously suspicious now:-)

> Surely you are joking here, when you ask whether
>for Pope Gregory XVI to have denounced railways as hellish
>inventions he was "condemning" them.

Then it's true?:-)

> As you must know,
>this myth arose in a discussion of the Pope's teaching
>authority in matters of doctrine. Martin used this typical
>liberal pseudo-fact as an argument against the reliability
>of the Papal magisterium. (I don't accuse Martin of having
>invented this piece of silliness, but of having too much
>trust in things written by liberals, by which he was un-
>doubtedly deceived.)

Steve, I don't know if it's just me, but when I read your
use of the word "liberal", it always screams ANTI-CHRIST.

>    The only thing relevant, therefore, to this discussion
>is whether any Pope had "taught" that railways or gas light
>were sinful, that is, whether he "condemned" these things
>in a doctrinal sense. If the Pope had denounced brockely
>or expressed his dislike of modern art, that is not a
>"teaching". Is it really possible that you don't understand these
>things? You are an educated man. Are you affecting simplicity
>to be amusing? I am not trying to be insulting, I assure you.

Steve, I don't want to be insulting either, but, only a brain-dead
conservative would feel threatened with this "railroading" evidence
presented by Martin. I think Martin half-heartedly threw it out
there just to see if some "defender of the faith" would jump
at it, beat it to death, and claim victory for truth, justice and
the Vatican way (I do like this Martin Berry line:-)

>You obviously have passionate convictions, and suffer deeply
>because of what you regard as wrongs in the Church.

I am honored that you think so, but if I were truely suffering
deeply, I would be doing more than just debating the issues here.
Remember, a liberal is just a conservative that hasn't been
mugged yet. (Marty can relate to this:-)

> But you cloak you seriousness in so much flippancy that we
>mistake your arguments for jokes and your jokes for arguments!

To be honest, Steve, I didn't know whether your whole "Myth exposed!!!"
post was a joke or not? You obviously take what you do and say very
seriously, an admirable quality, but one I obviously lack when
discussing politics, religion or sex.

>By the way, though I like brockely, I don't know how to
>spell it. That puts me in the same catagory with V.P. Quayle,
>which I regard as "a badge of honor". Steve.

Not to mention soon-to-be former president Bush, and not to sound
cruel, but does your brother have a job lined up? I can recall reading
a rather negative editorial on him recently, about a cover-up or
something. (Obviously from a ANTI-CHRIST columnist, Chancler or
somebody:-) -J.J.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic