Jump to content

Recommended Posts

ManoftheCloth, your parents were and are entitled to do exactly as they wish, and you are fortunate to have had such a wonderful life.


What is completely unacceptable is that streak in you, an essentially nasty (daye I say it evil) streak, that makes you want to impose it upon other people who do not agree with you.


Not only do you want to impose it upon people, to control them, to enslave them to your opinions, but you do this with threats and menaces, by undermining their confidence and attempting to disenfranchise them from society. Your persistent use of the term 'sin' is a reflection of your own desire to perpetuate this abuse.


The weapons that the church uses to control innocent people are far worse than any dreamed up by engineers, in that they represent a lifetime's psychological bullying and torture.


The pathetic pricks who wrote the article for Business Insider are ridiculous in their claim that contraception has created a moral decline in society that has made women objects for men.


The 'moral 1950s' that they hark back to was a period where JFK could rape a 19 year old intern in the White House without redress, a crime orchestrated by his colleagues. Where women knew their place and it was subordinate to men.


These views still find their place in the catholic church, an institution that believes the rape and buggery of small children is only a minor transgression worthy of turning a blind eye.


Your views are abhorrent.

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Catholics don?t really practice any of the stuff

> the church says anyway. Particularly the no birth

> control thing. We just don?t mention it when the

> priest is around. Just like you don?t tell your

> granny when you?ve been smoking crack. It?s a bit

> like all that believing in god business.


I was brought up a Catholic and know from what my mum said that our local priest told women their choice of contraception was between them and their conscience, he definitely didn't impose the official view on them. I was schooled in Catholic institutions in the 70s/80s and I'm not convinced the average family size was any bigger than the "2.4" stereotype.


In any case, sticking to the "no artificial contraception/vatican roulette/avoiding sex during your fertile period" method doesn't have to mean tons of kids if you do it properly. My mum claims to have stuck to it, and I have just one sister. It does require a particularly co-operative husband of course, I certainly wouldn't do it - but then it's been 20 plus years since I told mum I wouldn't be going to church anymore.


She did tell me the devil was going to come and get me, but he's certainly taking his time over it.

ManOfTheCloth, are you for real, or just another hoax poster?


How can anybody seriously preach to people that by protecting themselves and their families, they are committing a "sin", and that they are "damaging" themselves? And the evidence for this - an imaginative interpretation of ancient mythology. It would be laughable if it wasn't so utterly disgusting.


Why is modern society tolerant of this nonsense?

He's just true to his dogma.

Catholic orthodoxy has it that sin damages our souls our society and the very fabric of reality.

catechism 1849[/url]]It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity


They always play the long game, today it's contraception in the US healthcare system, tomorrow we're all back in monastaries praying for souls and flagellating our sins away.


It's completely bonkers frankly. And that tone


"98% of Catholic women would be wrong then; they would be committing grave sin. Sorry but that is the long and short of it. Your sins will be forgiven though of course but why continue to damage ourselves and others in this way anymore?"


So utterly repellent and smacking of fanatcism as holders of 'the truth' always do. No better than a muslim demagogue predicting divine retribution on the infidels for their ungodly ways.

Medievalism at its worst.


Man of Cut from the Same Cloth I reckon!

In fact I do find the whole thing confusing, even inconsistent (imagine that!!).


We cannot receive the grace of god without admitting our sins, which presumably means we have to commit sin else there's nothing to admit to.


"God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us."To receive his mercy, we must admit our faults. "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness."


"God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all"


So it's a rigged game, there is no choice but to damage our fabric, and God (and his representatives of course!!) are the only path to salvation.


Jeez, does this thread end in a discount sale of indulgences by any chance?


Oh and in case anyone is in any doubt how bad use of a condom is, it's one of the mortal ones!

Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.


It's like the enlightenment never happened, forgive me (pardon the pun) if I think that 'casting a living light' is achieved by battling the spread of ignorance and superstition based upon medieval values, through the use of reason; not granted by a venal, paedophilic, abusive and power hungry organisation that has poisoned society for far too long.


But as we can see they just can't stop themselves can they.

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> tomorrow we're all back in monastaries praying for

> souls and flagellating our sins away.


Can?t see it myself. In our liberal society and free market the church no longer monopolises the market for places to indulge in flagellation in an all male environment.


Although you should really save that sort of thing for Friday.

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We cannot receive the grace of god without

> admitting our sins, which presumably means we have

> to commit sin else there's nothing to admit to.


Fear not, God has thought of everything - you're still covered by Original Sin. Hallelujah!

and it's this "but why continue to damage ourselves and others in this way anymore" that really sticks in the craw.

Some african countries have 25% of children or more orphaned with AIDS death rates are so high, and they claim contraception injures man?

Staggering hypocrisy!!!!!

woot


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/health/policy/growth-of-catholic-hospitals-may-limit-access-to-reproductive-care.html?src=me&ref=general


the sinister peadolphilic proto fascist tentacles of the catholic church seek new victims to assuage their own guilt and mysogony.


vile fuckers

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In fact I do find the whole thing confusing, even

> inconsistent (imagine that!!).

>

> We cannot receive the grace of god without

> admitting our sins, which presumably means we have

> to commit sin else there's nothing to admit to.

>

> "God created us without us: but he did not will

> to save us without us."To receive his mercy, we

> must admit our faults. "If we say we have no sin,

> we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

> If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just,

> and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all

> unrighteousness."

>

> "God has consigned all men to disobedience, that

> he may have mercy upon all"

>

> So it's a rigged game, there is no choice but to

> damage our fabric, and God (and his

> representatives of course!!) are the only path to

> salvation.

>

> Jeez, does this thread end in a discount sale of

> indulgences by any chance?

>

> Oh and in case anyone is in any doubt how bad use

> of a condom is, it's one of the mortal ones!

> Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human

> freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss

> of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace,

> that is, of the state of grace. If it is not

> redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it

> causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the

> eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the

> power to make choices for ever, with no turning

> back. However, although we can judge that an act

> is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust

> judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of

> God.

>

> It's like the enlightenment never happened,

> forgive me (pardon the pun) if I think that

> 'casting a living light' is achieved by battling

> the spread of ignorance and superstition based

> upon medieval values, through the use of reason;

> not granted by a venal, paedophilic, abusive and

> power hungry organisation that has poisoned

> society for far too long.

>

> But as we can see they just can't stop themselves

> can they.



The Cathilic church - a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, smeared with the blood and fears of its enslaved fearful adherents.never forget the Lateran pact & reichskoncordat.

Intersting reading woodrot.


So in fact Obama 'war' is actually an attempt to defend the US constitution and bill of rights and an individual's rights enshrined therein against a catholic funded campaign to limit them.


Somewhat reminiscent of Republicans bleating about the need to curtail Iranian expansionism when the country is almost entirely surrounded by US allies and airbases. I think the word is 'propaganda'.


Nice try MotC.

I love this quote:


?That is a constant challenge,? said Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association of the United States, which represents the nation?s roughly 600 Catholic hospitals. ?It?s a challenge we take very seriously.?


Being a Catholic hospital means adhering to the church?s religious directives about care, Sister Carol said, but she says hospitals also see their mission much more broadly, including caring for those who are less fortunate and treating patients with respect.


Because at its heart she knows that Catholicism has nothing to do with respect. In order to achieve respect for other people its necessary to treat those directives more broadly. ;-)

A couple of years ago the Pope sent an emissary to Africa to tell them that 1) condoms do not prevent the spread of the HIV and 2) promoting the use of condoms was the West's way of trying to control the population in Africa.

This is the 21st Century ffs.

Since thousands of Mexicans (mostly Catholic) try to get into the US all the time Obama has a vested interest in promoting the use of contraception any which way. '...man thinks things divine because he does not understand them....' so said a Greek philosopher of BC. This still suits the church today and thousands are kept in ignorance!

indiepanda Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In any case, sticking to the "no artificial

> contraception/vatican roulette/avoiding sex during

> your fertile period" method doesn't have to mean

> tons of kids if you do it properly.


While it's true that properly practiced, the rhythm method for abstaining from intercourse during a woman's fertile period does prevent pregnancies, it is also true that it prevents a woman from having sex during the time her libido is most active. Therefore this demands that a woman abstain from sex during the time that she would most enjoy it. Smacks of mysogyny to me.

I'm not sure that the Catholic Church actually hates women, so much as it is entirely indifferent to the needs of a second class human being. It would far prefer that you knew your place.


It never occured to me that the rhythmn method had that particular side effect, which is rather shameful in retrospect.

Saffron Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> indiepanda Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > In any case, sticking to the "no artificial

> > contraception/vatican roulette/avoiding sex

> during

> > your fertile period" method doesn't have to

> mean

> > tons of kids if you do it properly.

>

> While it's true that properly practiced, the

> rhythm method for abstaining from intercourse

> during a woman's fertile period does prevent

> pregnancies, it is also true that it prevents a

> woman from having sex during the time her libido

> is most active. Therefore this demands that a

> woman abstain from sex during the time that she

> would most enjoy it. Smacks of mysogyny to me.


Trust me, I wouldn't practice it myself - and I don't like an awful lot of what the Catholic church stands for, hence I am lapsed and haven't been to church for another than weddings for over 20 years. Come to that, I think most religions see women in a second class role, which is one of my many objections to them.

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not sure that the Catholic Church actually

> hates women, so much as it is entirely indifferent

> to the needs of a second class human being. It

> would far prefer that you knew your place.

>

> It never occured to me that the rhythmn method had

> that particular side effect, which is rather

> shameful in retrospect.


The Catholic Church venerates women. or at least one woman in paricular - a Christian cult that seems to home in on the untouchable Virgin bride rather than Christ himself.Its easier to place the untouchable on a pedestal - remember jesus lived his life as an ordinary man during his wilderness years and probabaly got up to all kinds of macho stupidity - Mary was pure to the very end.


Not surprising that real world women come a distant second when comapred to Mary, especially when its celibate men who are making the rules & in all likelyhood are unable to cope with the realpolitik of relationships with women.


Theres sub Reichian theme going on here - just like the the teenager who plasters his walls with airbrushed pin ups and then have to come to terms with the reality of actual live women. Sometimes they cannot bridge the gap between mythical and real.expthe expectations can fall far short.How can any catholic priest view the women in his flock as anything less than second choice?


awful bunch of hateful shitters.


read Hitchens on Mother Teresa to get a feel for this lot of charlatans and snake oil peddlers

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...