After 25 years of Rico and repressed memory claims and a growing body of libs the church better take a hard look at how to increase membership (not exclude) if it wants to remain a cash cow. A fair number of my stoker’s friends go to church - the band on stage - hand holding pop culture type. They aren’t sitting through the stations of the cross in an old church anymore
Mass with the Pope?
- Thread starter DANC
- Start date
No, you reported what the Daily Wire FALSELY CLAIMED that the Catholic News Channel had said. it was known to be false at the time that you posted it.
Are you really this thick?
I cannot STAND the new style of worship now. It's all about the band or the 'praise team', who love to be the center of attention.
And the congregation expected to sing without a hymnal or sheet music. All the beautiful harmonies that are non-existant anymore.
It's very depressing to me. Frankly, the evangelicals have ruined the (Protestant) worship service.
I grew up a somewhat lay Catholic. I barely got to confirmation. Church wasn't fun. My daughter sometimes goes with a friend of hers and their family (large some kind of denominational mega(ish) church). It sounds like day camp. WTF
Yeah my daughter does the same. I ask her how it was and she says super fun “they played on a rock climbing wall.”
I did 12 years of catholic school (soccer so you had to). Looking back I’ve said before it was a positive part of my childhood. Great traditions that are lost on my kid. The holidays at school were so special.
We repped the archdiocese in Miami in Rico claims. The lengths the church went to to conceal its abuse turned me off on the church. Unless it’s a funeral I never go.
CNS retracted the story. By the time the Daily Wire reported it, it was already false.
It was what the CNS had ORIGINALLY reported, though by the time you posted it, the CNS had retracted the story, had declared it very specifically to be a case where they "erroneously reported that the U.S. President would meet with the pope on June 15" and had posted a corrected version of the story.
You obviosuly did not care to go to the primary source.
Do better. Post better. Think better. At least TRY.
And, as I said, of course they retracted it - it would have embarrassed Biden and you don't piss off the writer of he checks.
If you want to think stories don't change when the truth is embarrassing, that's on you. Why would they have reported it in the first place, if it wasn't true.
LMAO! You're the last person who needs to tell anybody else to 'do better'.
It matters WHEN they retracted it, which was before you ever made the post. When that was pointed out, you went into full backtracking mode. Embarrassing...
Somebody believed a source who was lying. They had a "DANC" in their midst, a lying turd. It happens.
I don't understand.
I'm Catholic and have belonged to several parishes. In my experience, the kind of service you're describing is reserved for the "teen Masses" on Sunday nights. Stations of the Cross are still very much a thing during Lent, and traditional worship services (and I'm not talking about the Latin Mass) are very much the norm. Sure, there's the occasional rogue parish, but your wife's friends would have no difficulty finding Sunday Mass nearby that does not feature a band on the altar.
Finally, organized religion - - across the board - - is in trouble. Attendance is down, and the number of people who are members of a house of worship is lower than it's ever been in 80 years of polling.
You still don't get it. They retracted it when it was found to be too embarrassing to the Hair Sniffer-in-Chief.
When your reporter files a story that it trash, you correct it ASAP. Because if you don't correct it, people will believe the lie. Then even when you do correct it, certain DANC-like imbiciles will believe the lie even more. But you trust that many are not THAT stupid.
No they don’t like the traditional parishes. Echoing Lars they like the nondenominational mega churches with a band etc
You have no idea what you're talking about.
First, it was the CNA, not CNS. CNA (owned by EWTN) is no fan of Biden. They have no interest in protecting him.
Second, the Daily Wire jumped on this false story (and you got off on it) because it suggested Biden was being dissed by the pope which, in turn, would make Biden look bad.
As I said before, anybody else would acknowledge they made a mistake and move on. You're not capable of that and, as a result, you look dumber with every post.
You have no clue how journalism works, do you?
A reporter doesn't just print a story on his own - it has to go through an editor. It doesn't get published otherwise.
You're are truly a simpleton who has no idea what they're talking about.
As opposed to you, who has looked dumb from the start.
Again, why did CNA report it in the first place? Because it was true and they were pressured to retract it.
My wife has been in journalism for 30 years, most recently as a full time editor.
Sometimes your reporter lies to the editor and the editor has to clean up the mess for believing the reporter. My wife has fired people on a few occasions for exactly that. Think better. Post better. Be better. Be not stupid.
Follow your own advice.
Any editor who doesn't verify the story before it's published isn't in their job very long. Just because your wife missed things doesn't mean others do.
You nothing about reporting and I don't doubt you're making up yet another story about your wife being a journalist to cover up your ignorance.
But that's what you were saying. You don't want people interfering with other people's lives, but it's OK if they choose to kill a viable baby?
It's not more complicated than that and just because you're morally on the fence doesn't mean there isn't a right and a wrong.
Because they relied on an erroneous source.
Again, there were scores of news accounts from all the major news organizations (including Fox) a week ago that detailed Biden's European itinerary. Show me one that referenced a stop in Rome.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but how many people do you actually think are having abortions simply because they don't want to be pregnant? I really do think it's a lot more complicated than that in a lot of instances.
I actually don't have the stats on that, so that's a serious question. That said, I know there are instances when a 'viable' baby doesn't factor into the equation. Just because you're staunchly on one side of this topic doesn't mean there isn't gray areas.
So, you're saying the CNA wasn't reliable then. But it's reliable now.
LOL What a rube you are.
"how many people do you actually think are having abortions simply because they don't want to be pregnant?"
Are you serious? Most of them. Very very very few have them for medical reason.
That seems incredibly myopic. Especially since I'm guessing you're going on being 'pretty sure' and not backing it up.
I think a lot of factors go into a lot of decisions around having/not having an abortion. It's pretty heavy stuff and I personally doubt most people just flippantly decide that they just don't want to deal with being pregnant.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
Maybe pubs shouldn't be against insurance covering birth control. That is one big reason GOP policy leads to more abortions.
Take your meds and go play with your grandchildren, Danny. You're clearly unable to engage in intelligent discourse.
Since you're too lazy to look it up, here is a link:
U.S. Abortion Statistics
Facts and figures relating to the frequency of abortion in the United States.
www.abort73.com
Only 3.5% are for the health of the fetus or rape. 4% for 'physical health problem'.
So your guess about my being 'pretty sure' is wrong.
You're worthless as a poster. This thread proves it.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
I don't recall this explanation being used by you during the last administration lol.
If you are saying being president allows you to get embarrassing stuff retracted, then Trump must have been really bad given how much embarrassing crap found its way to the public. Based on your post, that would have just been the tip of the iceberg for Trump's embarrassing truths.
Oh wait, you are probably of that opinion only when a dem is president. got it.
I still think there is a lot of nuance there. I'm not saying I agree/disagree, but there was a large percentage of people who said they did it for financial reasons or felt they weren't able to care for a baby. That doesn't necessarily suggest that they didn't want to be pregnant. It means they didn't feel they could adequately care for a child.Since you're too lazy to look it up, here is a link:
U.S. Abortion Statistics
Facts and figures relating to the frequency of abortion in the United States.www.abort73.com
Only 3.5% are for the health of the fetus or rape. 4% for 'physical health problem'.
So your guess about my being 'pretty sure' is wrong.
I still stand by the fact that most women aren't ending their pregnancies just because they didn't feel like it that day. It's a gut wrenching decision for most.
I'm not the one who told everyone to ignore my posts because I couldn't read a link properly.
You're worthless as a human being. No further proof needed.
Facts be damned, right? You're not budging even when I proved your original statement wrong.
Similar threads
