UK

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 10° London Hi 14°C / Lo 7°C

The Blairs challenge the Pope over gay sex and condoms

By Jane Merrick, Political Editor

As a recent convert to Roman Catholicism, Tony Blair must know that Lent is a period for repentance, quiet reflection and taking stock. Which makes it all the more curious that the former Prime Minister has chosen the holiest time of the year to take on the Pope, of all people, on the position of the Catholic Church in today’s society.

Mr Blair began last month with an article insisting political leaders needed to “do God”. Then, last week, he directly criticised Pope Benedict XVI and the Vatican for their “entrenched attitude” towards homosexuality.

But while his words were applauded by gay rights campaigners, Mr Blair sparked a withering response from leading Catholics by comparing the Church with a political party that needed its own Clause 4 moment to change with the times.

And now, Mr Blair’s wife, Cherie – one of Britain’s most prominent Catholics – has also directly challenged Pope Benedict. In an interview with The Times of Malta, Mrs Blair described the Pope’s assertion that condoms worsened Africa’s Aids epidemic as “rather sad” and said the scientific evidence refuted his view. In Malta to publicise her autobiography, Speaking for Myself, she said last week: “We do have to understand that there is concern about promiscuity. But there’s also a real concern about saving lives and I absolutely believe, and scientific evidence shows, that condoms do save lives. Therefore, when there’s a choice between endangering and not endangering life, we should also choose life.”

Defending the right of Catholics to use contraception, she added: “I think it’s a matter of personal conscience in the end. I don’t feel bad about making those choices and I don’t feel the Catholic Church feels bad about me making those choices.”

Mr Blair, in his interview with the gay magazine Attitude, said: “Organised religions face the same dilemma as political parties when faced with changed circumstances.

“You can either A: hold on to your core vote, basically, say ‘Look let’s not break out because if we break out we might lose what we’ve got, and at least we’ve got what we’ve got, so let’s keep it’. Or B: you say ‘Let’s accept that the world is changing, and let us work out how we can lead that change and actually reach out’.”

The apparently coincidental attacks on the Vatican from a couple who have done everything to court both Pope Benedict and his predecessor, John Paul II, have raised eyebrows. Mr Blair’s fiercest critics say it is typical of a man who believes he is God to try to lecture the Pope. But while many would find it difficult to disagree with the Blairs’ remarks on homosexuality and contraception, the ex-prime minister’s comparison of Catholicism with a political party has caused widespread bemusement, even among supporters.

Since leaving Downing Street, Mr Blair has created an inter-faith foundation, become a familiar figure in the Holy Land as the quartet of international powers’ Middle East envoy, and, two Christmases ago, converted to Catholicism. He already attended mass regularly with his family and he took communion with Pope John Paul on the eve of the Iraq war. In a Radio 3 programme on faith, broadcast on Friday, Mr Blair said his religious faith was a “comfort” to him at all times, before risking controversy by adding that a “single day” did not pass by without him reflecting on the Iraq war.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

[info]daveheasman wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 12:02 am (UTC)
I recall when Cardinal Hume told Blair that he couldn't regularly receive Mass as a non-Catholic, Blair's response was "I wonder what Jesus would think of that" , which manages to be both a slimy and unbelievably Protestant response. He does still seem to be a protestant, doesn't he? And slimy, of course.
[info]poetswarn wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 01:06 am (UTC)
As a Catholic? Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Blair. It really needs to be said.
Blairs a Problem As Always
[info]stickytruth2 wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 05:26 am (UTC)
His Holiness, has taken on a huge problem with Blair.
Just read the last two lines of this article; now, Bush said God said It's ok to go to war, Blair followed on the same line, Saddam Hussein said God Bless Iraq and Palestine, so what a confusing situation for God?
Last summer intellectual Muslims visit his The Pope, they said WE ALL pray to the same God, then why are we fighting each other??
Let us not forget what B lair is!!
Conversion
[info]stainton wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 07:48 am (UTC)
I have always thought that it was a great mistake and a cause of grave scandal for Cormac Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor to have received Mr Blair into the Roman Catholic Church, and I cannot help feeling that the reception was motivated merely by sycophancy. The man was infamous for his anti-Catholic views on subjects such as abortion, yet he was received into the Church without there ever being any evidence of repentance. Although conscience is a personal matter, where such a public figure is concerned, there is a requirement to avoid such scandal.
he is not a religious man
[info]bowesy wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 08:27 am (UTC)
So Blair wants the church to do what he wants?

This man has no real religious belief - in the same way he was hardly a socialist, it was a means to an end. Take the party turn it into whatever suits him worked in 97 so it seems he is trying to do the same again but with the church

What does he really believe - i assume that the catholic church works for him as he can do whatever he wants, repent and it is all ok.

Maybe the only religion that would work for Blair is one he started with his own rules and rules taht he could change at will.

Perhaps the best way here would be if he went on hunger strike for a rule change - and we could all be rid of him

One thing I know is that if there is a god - he is going to hell
Needed saying............
[info]janebolacha wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 08:32 am (UTC)
Much of what the Blairs have said needed saying. There is a tremendous groundswell against Benedict within the RC Church but of course they nearly all just mutter to themselves without having the courage to say it. So of course God's Vicar on Earth gets away with it all. The RC Church has welcomed Blair as a kind of Celebrity Catholic, well now you reap what you sow.
no quaker he
[info]susiet99 wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 08:43 am (UTC)
I am so glad that it is not my sect that Tony chose to join, although it could have been briefly amusing see how he would advise the Quakers to "rebrand" themselves!
Preposterous Pope
[info]richardm30 wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 09:10 am (UTC)
This is exactly the sort of thing that need to be spelled out time and again to the Pope and the Catholic Church Hierarchy. The Pope's message about condoms is preposterous. It is completely without foundation - exactly like his irrational and Hateful message about gay people. The Blairs are just stating the obvious - it is just common sense. The Catholic (and other) churches need to start growing up. Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen anytime soon as it is in the hands of old bigots, who belong to the 1950's not the 21st century.

As Pat Condell states, the bible is like a window into peoples hearts. Because the bible is so contradictory and vague, you can interpret it in almost anyway you like, it really is a window into the hearts of individual Christians - if you have bile in your heart then (surprise!) you interpret the bible in a Hateful way. The reverse, of course is also true. Interpretation has always been a problem for Christians. The bible mandates genocide in certain circumstances. If they (Christians) think it is the word of god then apparently that is OK too. So much for the unchanging word of God. The world is changing and no amount of gnashing of teeth is going to change that - so get used to it. Well, two good results within 24 hours - Blair and Obama. I wonder what the next four years will bring?

Gone are the days when clergy (including the Pope) dictate to the rest of us what we should do and think. They still have far more power than they deserve. And have far more input into public policy than they should - especially given their distaste for the use of scientific evidence in decision-making. Many Catholics in power (i.e. in elected Governments) cannot be trusted to make unbiased decisions based on evidence. For example a couple of years ago the Australian Health Minister, Tony Abbot, has to be stripped of his powers by Parliament because he could not be trusted to put good public policy before the dogma of the Pope. Let's all start asking questions about how much influence these (often bigoted) clergy have on Government policy.
Sickening
[info]isaacbrown wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 09:16 am (UTC)
So Blair speaks to representitives of a perverts' magazine does he? Can there be anything more disgusting, unhealthy and unhygenic than men engaging in homosexual acts, either in public lavatories, hedge bottoms, Hampstead Heath or anywhere else for that matter? The human body was not designed for such depraved and decadent activities, yet here we have Blair, former PM of the UK associating himself with such activities. How much further can we descend into depravity before our society finally goes to the dogs along with mass third world immigration, aids, Muslim terrorism, feral Blacks and, feminism?
Re: Sickening
[info]richardm30 wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 09:32 am (UTC)
The only sickening things is people like you who make judgements against other - you talk like a member of the BNP or a faith-head. Nowhere in your pernicious post have you mentioned love - and commitment. These are the qualities that bind many gay relations - there is no difference from straight relationships in that context. Really the language of your post is so last century.
Re: Sickening
[info]janebolacha wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 09:58 am (UTC)
Well, yes we can descend further...........into the depravity of perverted religion, of feral faith, of decadent divinity, of theocratic terrorism, oh yes there'd be much, much further to go if people with your kind of beliefs were ever allowed to rule over us all.
Re: Sickening
[info]richardm30 wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 10:23 am (UTC)
Well said. Spot on.
Re: Sickening
[info]mazzerkhan wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 01:27 pm (UTC)
@issacbrown Me thinks the lady doth protest to much..not come to terms with living life in the closet?feral blacks?? Feminism?? Are you sure your not a memeber of the taleban?
Re: Sickening
[info]yfiajn wrote:
Tuesday, 14 April 2009 at 01:49 am (UTC)
Re: Replies to 'Sickening'
oh, he got you didn't he.....the 'sickening' comment was just too juicy to be let go: feminism, toilet sex and feral blacks, hey! what a disgusting red-necked attitude. Well, it was a plant: another set up in order to publicly equate conservative religious attitudes with sickening hate, a thorough lack of understanding and intelligence. Every forum (even the more intelleigent ones) seem to swarm with these types of comments, posted in order to inflame YOUR response against those 'hateful bigots' in cyberland.
The reason some of us disapprove of the legitimizing of a gay lifestyle and of feminism (as differentiated from equal legal rights for women) is because these are anti-humane, anti-love. Sharing resources (by accepting immigrants), fighting AIDS, educating against terrorism, ... these are humane, loving things to do and would not be on the same page. As to 'feral blacks' .... that was the comment that gave it away.... may I be more specific: what we don't need is 'feral leftists' in a Brave New World.
Re: Sickening
[info]mazzerkhan wrote:
Tuesday, 14 April 2009 at 06:40 am (UTC)
Last time I looked concervative religious attitudes do equate with hate. And btw thanks for letting women have legal rights..thats very religious of you. How do you know it was a plant? You don't unless YOU wrote it. And finaly how does "feral blacks" get you to "feral leftists"? I am not going bother asking what gives you the right to decide who gets to live what lifestyle or do you think your somesort of god?
Tony for Pope!
[info]abonfi wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 09:17 am (UTC)
Go for it Tony, why content yourself with President of Europe when you can be the Pope!
The Blairs challenge the Pope over gay sex and condoms
[info]laconico wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 09:25 am (UTC)
Sounds like a righteously ribald night of jousting swordsmanship. Not since the Borgias has the vatican been rent by so many a wail of sexual ecstacy.
"Gay sex and condoms" are just the new "tea and cakes". Benedict's leer is a dead giveaway
sickening
[info]isaacbrown wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 09:48 am (UTC)
I have no problem with love and commitment, but homosexual genital acts are not only unnatural (by definition) and disgusting, but should be avoided. As far as the BNP are concerned, I once read on their web site that homosexuality should be tolerated but not foisted upon society as the equivalent of heterosexism. I am more extreme than the BNP - I think we should return to the situation pre 1967 and recriminalise it, for the sake of decency, family values and a civil society.
Re: sickening
[info]richardm30 wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 10:22 am (UTC)
" I am more extreme than the BNP "

Oh. You must feel very lonely. This thing called "Family values". Curious term that. Sounds so benign, doesn't it. Gay people have families too - did you know that. They are the sons and daughters of straight people - your brothers and sisters, your cousins, uncles and aunts. Once people are as 'far gone' as you seem to be there is not really much point in seriously debating them.
Meglomamiac?
[info]davidmichaelson wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 10:24 am (UTC)
Blimey, Blair has only been a Catholic for five minutes now he is telling the Pope how to do his job!

Who does he think he is I wonder? What makes his opinion any more valuable than anyone else's?

Is this charitable pseudo religious stance some sort of penance for a reduced time in purgatory?

Time have changed since I was taught Catholicism, when the Pope was infallible and the voice of God.

How long before we have New Catholics and a New Bible?
Re: Meglomamiac?
[info]janebolacha wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 10:51 am (UTC)
Did you never question the doctrine of the Pope's supposed infallibility? It's something that the Catholic Church itself didn't come up with until the late 19th Century so is it unquestionable? There have been so many u-turns in Catholic dogma over the centuries that the Popes must have got it wrong quite a lot, either that or God must keep changing his mind! Blair's not my cup of tea at all but good for him for speaking up. Yes, there are already lots of New Catholics, they use their common sense to just disregard the pronouncements of these old men in their Vatican palaces, good for them, too.
Re: Meglomamiac?
[info]davidmichaelson wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 01:41 pm (UTC)
Oh Yes I started questioning when I was confirmed and as no one could give me a clear and sensible answer I asked more questions until I came to the inescapable conclusion that there is no god well not in the sense of Christianity Judaism Islam etc.

And although not a complete Atheist I cannot see how any supposedly benevolent creator would allow so much suffering to the very people that believe most subserviently. (Oh yes I remember now, ". . .suffer now and you will get your reward in heaven later . . .". Convenient eh when no one can confirm or deny that)

It is clear to anyone who wishes to see it that Religion was created to control the masses who were at the time uneducated and uncontrollable and is of course inextricably linked to politics and power as history right through to the present day has shown time and time again.

Now that the masses are educated as never before is there any wonder so many people are challenging religion and politics to a point where no one has any respect for the power brokers of either.

Oh and by the way just who is the arbiter on common sense?
Re: Meglomamiac?
[info]janebolacha wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 02:07 pm (UTC)
You're right, in many ways people have grown out or become educated out of the need for belief in religion. The philosophy of Jesus is wonderful but it's such a pity it has been corrupted by the churches. The "why so much suffering in the world" question is one I've never heard a good answer to, really the "free will" thing just doesn't wash!
Re: Meglomamiac?
[info]davidmichaelson wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 04:04 pm (UTC)
I agree, "The Philosophy of Jesus is wonderful" odd that perhaps from an Agnostic going on Atheist :) Is this philosophy so different in the other mainstream religions once the church and ritual is removed?


Re: Meglomamiac?
[info]janebolacha wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 04:39 pm (UTC)
Is the phrase odd? It's a truly humanist philosophy in essence, extremely attractive still to this former student of theology whose conclusion was that the mainstream churches have truly lost the plot. :)

Other mainstream religions stripped of their institutional and ritual expressions, yes, may well be just as attractive. Jesus does come through as such a gentle person, women find such affinity with his philosophy. Is that why the churches generally have many more women than men.

I'm not a feminazi but can't help feeling that the philosophy would have been safer in women's hands, rather than in the those of popes and archbishops throughout the last two thousand years.
Re: Meglomamiac?
[info]davidmichaelson wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 06:52 pm (UTC)
Sorry poorly written. The phase is not odd but that as an Agnostic I should agree with it, I think is perhaps a little odd.

And quite unusual that you who appear to be a religious believer suggest that Jesus's philosophy is humanist.

In my humble opinion the very book of Genesis demonstrates to me that religion was man made. God seemingly Masculine makes Man first then Woman as a mate perhaps even a plaything but certainly not an equal. Such inequality mirroring the inequality of the times.

It's an interesting idea about women and one that I would love to debate with you sadly I feel this medium is not the appropriate one.
Re: Meglomamiac?
[info]janebolacha wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 07:16 pm (UTC)
Unfortunately my faith in the church went but not my belief in the philosophy of Jesus as a guide to human life, some would see that as contradictory but to me it isn't.

There are really two creation stories in Genesis, 1:27 and 2:22. People focus on the latter, the rib story, and in that story it's even the man who gives 'woman' her name! In 1:27 it's rather different, in that version 'man' clearly is meant to refer to humankind, it's not androcentric.

Well yes, the Bible reflects the relationship between men and women at the times the different books were written, evidently unequal.

Pedophile Priests and Pigs
[info]redroseandy wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 10:42 am (UTC)
The Pope must also be pushed on the Catholic Church policy of hiding 5000 pedophile priests simply because the Catholic pedophiles have a video of the last Pope doing something unbiblical. The Chuch must come clean and publish it on Youtube to prevent any more bribery influencing policy.
Re: Pedophile Priests and Pigs
[info]carmel44 wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 09:39 am (UTC)
So you believe everthing you read do ya? Have you studied these tabloid papers for years , or you just make it up as you go?
isaacbrown on Blairs and Pope etc
[info]spyderman2 wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 01:18 pm (UTC)
What an excellent posting by isaacbrown! (See 'Sickening' below).
He really covers all the bases. I can't help thinking this is a satirical posting.
Surely no one can be so out of touch with the world we live in today to be against every change as he appears to be.

However, i do agree with those who are anti B Liar and Wife. They are a pair of chancers and wasters. B Liar should be in jail for life, not telling anyone how to behave. The war criminal and mass murderer is the last one we should take notice of any matters of morals.

He is a most nauseating creature. How sickening (and what a tatseless joke) that this awful thing is the Middle East Peace Envoy - this shows there is no interest in a settlement in that area. He is totally pro-Israel. And now he wants to be President of Europe. What next? God?
Anything for a dime merchant
[info]johnsmith007 wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 03:17 pm (UTC)
This man will do anything for money.
He will convert to Jewdaism next. He is already giving his address as Jerusalem.
Hypocrites
[info]walterwall wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 03:51 pm (UTC)
Aren't Roman Catholics supposed to believe in the infallibility of the Pope?
Political Party
[info]tcf1612 wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 07:18 pm (UTC)
Mr. Blair is correct in likening the Catholic Church to a political party. Having come from a conservative Catholic family, I well know that political votes and favour are often determined not only due to the candidates own platform, but whether or not that platform is synonomous with core Catholic doctrine and belief. Though he himself was not a Catholic, John McCaine received not inconsiderable support from Catholic voters who aligned themselves with his positions on gay marriage and abortion; positions much in keeping with the Catholic Church's official teachings. Additionally, many Catholics were influenced to vote not 'for' McCaine, but against Obama, due to the millions of pamphlets and flyers distributed by Catholic churches throughout the U.S. with such titles as 'Voting with a Conscious', and 'As a Catholic How Should I Vote.' So, while Mr. Blair's remarks may have caused 'widespread bemusement', Catholics, especially, will recognize the poignancy and accuracy of his remarks; though, of course, they will not show support for his crucial observations. Those who demonstrate visible and vocal support will, inevitably, be gays and lesbians; and, we know that those voices, as opposed to the voices of 'upstanding' Catholics, are to be 'pitied', loved, but 'pitied', and not worth including in the discourse concerning the same flawed doctinres which condem the souls of gay-Catholics. The pope ought to read Mark D. Jordan's 'The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology,' before he makes a statement against the gay and lesbian community as offensive and ignorant as those he made regarding AIDS and condoms. Mr. Blair is right: change is of vital necessity. Unfortunately, the current pope prefers the safety of continuity.
Blair tells Pope how to do good.
[info]hpicot wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 09:57 pm (UTC)
Maybe Tony should get George Bush to sit on his lap while he takes the Pope on. The last pope said that it was time to get the yoke of Israel off the necks of the Palestinians. Has Tony got that done yet? I am not sure which of the Ten Commandments says how the Church should think of homosexuals, but wasn't one of them, "Thou shalt not invade Iraq and kill 100,000 people."? Maybe it was, "Thou shalt not break your neighbor's economy and then sell his oil to fix it." Get the beam out of your eye. Tony.
They're both right!
[info]panama_city_cl wrote:
Monday, 13 April 2009 at 01:58 pm (UTC)
They are all good people trying to help solve an epidemic. They are both correct and lets not nick pick words out of speaches.

The Pope is trying to teach people to live a life of love and kindness toward one another by obeying the commandments to avoid sin which leads to unhappiness and social proplems. There is no doubt that condums promote promuscuity. Why else would people in uncommitted relationships use them. If society is so weak that they can't teach the difference between promiscuity and safe sex within a committed relationship then society has to deal with their neglect by paying for the STD's that are the result of selfish behavior. The Pope wants the world to take responsibility and "teach their children well".

On the other hand the Blair's and other statesmen see the need to distribute condums to immediately curtail the spread of STD's among those who have no idea what sexual morality means in order to protect the innocent. They don't know what love means in the large scope of live. If they truly loved one another they would stop having sex in uncommitted relationships and save their fellow man from disease.

The Pope is trying solve the problem by teaching one to have a moral conscience and the Blair's are trying to deal with the actual result of having no moral conscience on a civil level. They are both doing their job. This is an example of church and state needing to work together to solve this problem otherwise it will continue to get worse as neither can do it alone.

The media should stop pitting one against the other.

No one is trying to prevent people in committed, moral relationships from using condums. That is a matter of conscience and another subject completely.

Panama City Claire
No standard
[info]srtate wrote:
Monday, 13 April 2009 at 03:54 pm (UTC)
Tony Blair exposes the vast distinction between Biblical Christianity and religion in general. The former is a relationship with the Living God, founded exclusively in what God has done for us through Jesus Christ. The latter deals with man's continuing failure to pride himself in thinking he is worthy of God's love by virtue of his ability to keep an agreed upon set of values and regulations. It is founded upon what man alledgedly does for God.

The Bible, as the Word of God, is the exclusive standard of faith and practice for the Christian. Ignorance of the same leaves room for man's worthless opinions, which man tends to raise to the level of God's authority. Truly nothing has changed; Satan attempted to raise himself to God's level. At his suggestion, Adam and Eve did the same. Through Adam's fall, all mankind is born into the same damnable mindset.

God names homosexuality as indicative of the final stage of man's rejection of God in Romans chapter one; for the Christian, that is enough.
So called Christians
[info]2timothy wrote:
Monday, 13 April 2009 at 04:53 pm (UTC)
To those of you who agree with Mr. Blair, and disagree with the Pope on this subject, and claim to be Catholic or any legitimate denomination of Christianity; please read your Bible's and study God's Word. It is very clear that homosexuality is a major sin. There are a number of passages that state this, two of them are Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. These acts are so detestable to God that they are called abominations. Is the Pope to neglect his sworn duty, is he somehow wrong to uphold Gods Truth and Will? The Pope and the rest of us Christians are told by Jesus Himself that we are not to be conformed to the world and the things of this world. He did not say that we are to compromise His commandments and standards just because sin is trendy, we are in fact instructed to do the very opposite! Should the Pope and other Christian leaders proclaim that stealing is no longer a sin, are we to support and commit adultry just because it too has become more fashionable. There is enough apostasy in todays churches already! I don't expect non-believers to know God's word, I do at least hope that they have common sense and are able to recognize when something is destructive and goes against nature, this applies to abortion too. But those of you who do call yourselves believers, whether Christian or Jew, you are either ignorant about your own professed faith, or you too are living in sin, and I would suspect to be a huge dissapointment to God; just like Tony.
Re: So called Christians
[info]jaffgyp wrote:
Tuesday, 14 April 2009 at 10:04 am (UTC)
going against nature?- have you seen what some of god's other natural creatures , domesticated and wild, get up to?!!
something to think about
[info]varvcava wrote:
Monday, 13 April 2009 at 09:48 pm (UTC)
Anti-christ- Promising leader of one world govt.
creates peace in middle east
organized own religion
Bold and saucy
Anti-christ theology and anti biblical ideals.
money, power, cunning


Tony Blair- prospect of EUs first president
Head of envoy peace talks for palestinian israeli conflict
obvious anti-christ anti biblical theology
has conformed "interfaith" organization
bold saucy
financial advisor for Chase n the united states one of the only banks that isnt suffering as bad as the rest. who bought out washington mutual on a rediculous discount pushed by the govt.
mysticism beliefs pagan healing crystals.
what about little leo?
[info]jaffgyp wrote:
Tuesday, 14 April 2009 at 07:44 am (UTC)
hang on, aren't these the folk whose greatest public relations coup was the bringing out of little leo just when mr b's political virility was in some doubt?
and oh god, did this article have to say that blair is 'a familiar figure in the Holy Land'- talk about laugh, i nearly died..if only walt disney was around these days to do a lovely cartoon film of it all it would beat even 'dumbo' and 'the sorcerer's apprentice' at the box office
When it comes to infallibility
[info]deimosp wrote:
Tuesday, 14 April 2009 at 10:05 am (UTC)
The pope may have papal infallibility but that is nothing compared to Blir's infallibility. When it comes to any contests about "being right" Blair will win everytime.
gays vs non gays
[info]carmel44 wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 09:07 am (UTC)
I'm so done with all this crap! Argue all you want , most of the comments I'm reading sound more like people hating each other...What is this truly going to solve? God gave us all freewill , and if we do not follow his teachings, you answer to him! Everyone is so rightous, makes me want to vomit!!
blaires vs Pope..
[info]carmel44 wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 09:59 am (UTC)
The Pope is the number one apostle to God. He prays to God for guidance to do his will..... I believe the Pontiff loves God and respects his wishes , and will do his best to lead everyone to God. It's painful to see people attacking him. But the Catholic church has been persecuted for over 2000 years, and is still going strong. God is God he has his reasons for everything, you people need to follow the Lord or turn your back, you choose!

Most popular


Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date