Pope sends direct message to Ben

[Ben Kenobi]

I was reading up on it and the reason I think he was excommunicated (rather than censured or something) is because he kept officiating at weddings for gay couples, saying he was doing it as a Catholic priest (even if claims they were unofficial). Not that kentonio would like that anyway, but for greater clarity.

He was excommunicated because he's been doing all sorts of things contrary to canon law, including letting animals take the host, etc.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I was reading up on it and the reason I think he was excommunicated (rather than censured or something) is because he kept officiating at weddings for gay couples, saying he was doing it as a Catholic priest (even if claims they were unofficial). Not that kentonio would like that anyway, but for greater clarity.

[DinoDoc]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3954776.html

I knew I was going to like this guy.

Incidentally:

Pope Francis Excommunicates Priest Who Backed Women’s Ordination and Gays

Despite his reforming attitude, Francis still supports traditional doctrine

Father Greg Reynolds of Melbourne, Australia found out last week that Pope Francis had excommunicated him, and he was shocked. Granted, Reynolds holds less than traditional views in the Catholic Church—he supports women’s ordination and gay marriage—but Pope Francis has more than hinted lately that the Church needs to adopt a new tone towards those social issues. “I am very surprised that this order has come under his watch; it seems so inconsistent with everything else he has said and done,” Reynolds told the National Catholic Reporter, a widely read source for Catholic news.

Excommunication is a severe penalty in the Catholic Church. Today it is the church’s harshest punishment, and it means an individual can no longer participate in the sacraments or worship ceremonies, much less ever officiate a mass again. Reynolds’ letter of excommunication itself contained no official explanation for his excommunication. It accused Reynolds of heresy and claimed he had violated the sacrament of the Eucharist.

Reynolds told the National Catholic Reporter that he also believes he was excommunicated because of his support for the gay community. He has officiated mass weddings for gay couples, even though he claimed they were unofficial, and he justified his actions as a call for reform. “I still love the church and am committed to it,” he told the Standard newspaper, arguing he was trying “to help highlight some of the failing and limitations.”

Pope Francis has made waves lately for advocating for necessary reforms in the Catholic Church, especially when it comes to gays and women. While the Supreme Pontiff does have to sign off on excommunications, Francis may not be as directly responsible for Reynolds’ dismissal as it might initially appear. Excommunication processes tend to take a long time, even years, and Reynolds was likely already tagged for removal before Francis took office in March. His non-traditional views stem back years. He preached in support of women’s ordination in 2010, resigned as a priest in the Melbourne Archdiocese in 2011, and yet continued to practice as a priest without the authority and backing of the church. He then founded a group called “Inclusive Catholics” for people who also support women’s ordination and gay marriage.

However, the announcement serves as a reminder that despite the recent excitement over Pope Francis’ reforming attitudes and calls for increased compassion for women and gays, he has not changed any actual Catholic doctrine, nor is he likely to do so. Women’s ordination and gay marriage are still closed doors. The Pope, as they say, is still Catholic.

Read more: http://world.time.com/2013/09/25/pop...#ixzz2g0o2pj4q

[DinoDoc]

I didn't think it was possible but this thread got even more boring.

[Elok]

all these actions have now stopped. they don't continue. for actions which start in the past and continue until now, you need to use the present perfect.

the form you looking for to express your idea is something like "they have always been run differently."

The present perfect progressive--not to be confused with the past perfect progressive, the future perfect, or the passive future perfect progressive, all of which exist in English, but not the imperfect.

(This is one of the weirder BK arguments, and that's saying something)

[Sava]

is dry humping a sin?

Only if your underwear is made from mixed fabrics.

[C0ckney]

Labelling it a 'past tense' isn't really correct. It's a whole different tense that confers the idea of something in continuous operation, and something that is both true, then and now. Saying that they are ran differently is true, both now and in the past. Saying that they are run differently implies that this might not have been true in the past.

it deals with events in the past. of course it's a past tense. once again you are wrong. the imperfect deals with past situations, things which used to be true and no longer are and things which used to happen and no longer do.

let's take a couple of sentences. in english, french and portuguese

i was smoking outside when it started to rain
je fumais en dehors quand il a commencé à pleuvoir
eu estava fumando lá fora quando começou a chover

i used to smoke
je fumais
eu fumava

when i was young, i would smoke 20 a day
quand j'étais jeune, je fumais 20 par jour
quando eu era jovem, fumava 20 por dia

all these actions have now stopped. they don't continue. for actions which start in the past and continue until now, you need to use the present perfect.

the form you looking for to express your idea is something like "they have always been run differently."

[Berzerker]

is dry humping a sin?

[Sava]

Is there a meaningful difference between Anglican and Catholic Doctrine?

No. They are both heretics who are going to burn.

[Ben Kenobi]

by the way in latin languages the imperfect is a past tense. in english we use the past continuous "was running", or used to or would, or the simple past, to express those ideas.

Labelling it a 'past tense' isn't really correct. It's a whole different tense that confers the idea of something in continuous operation, and something that is both true, then and now. Saying that they are ran differently is true, both now and in the past. Saying that they are run differently implies that this might not have been true in the past.

[Ben Kenobi]

anything else using the past tense in place of the past participle are all ungrammatical nonsense

Actual grammar backs me up. Arguing, "we don't use that tense in English" failed. Anything else you want to trash me for as a proxy for attacking my educational qualifications? The only thing more satisfying than dealing with douchey grammar nazis is when they err in their ignorance.

[Elok]

WTF? That's gibberish. The imperfect, in languages which have it, is used in exactly the same way we use the past progressive and the "used to" construction. "Is ran," "was ran," and anything else using the past tense in place of the past participle are all ungrammatical nonsense. Just admit it was a typo, man. This doubling down is simply bizarre.

Xpost

[C0ckney]

you are completely wrong and not just about the grammar.

by the way in latin languages the imperfect is a past tense. in english we use the past continuous "was running", or used to or would, or the simple past, to express those ideas.

[Ben Kenobi]

That would be great if you were actually using the imperfect--I'm not aware of the tense as such even existing in the English language. We typically use the past progressive ("was running") where Spanish-speakers use their imperfect, as your source notes. Anyway, you said "is ran," and the present-tense "is" pretty well rules out any past-tense intentions.

It would be if the Catholic church were not also ran this way in the past and that there is a continuous unbroken running of things throughout. I'm familiar with the imperfect - we do take French up here, Elok.

"Run" implies that it is the way that it is run now - and not the way that it was in the past. "Is ran", implies that while it is being ran now, in the same fashion as previous. I was thinking of continuous verb, and that's 'ran'.

[Elok]

This is the correct tense. The imperfect of 'run' is 'ran'.

That would be great if you were actually using the imperfect--I'm not aware of the tense as such even existing in the English language. We typically use the past progressive ("was running") where Spanish-speakers use their imperfect, as your source notes. Anyway, you said "is ran," and the present-tense "is" pretty well rules out any past-tense intentions.