A
AmberDale
Guest
Okay sure.
- Status
Okay sure.
G
GodsGadfly
Guest
Educating Bill O’Reilly is impossible.
What network does the most to promote the liberal agenda? FOX News. It makes conservatives look like idiots.
What network does the most to promote the liberal agenda? FOX News. It makes conservatives look like idiots.
S
sonofourlady
Guest
Then explain why the O’Reilly Factor was the Number ONE news TV show for the past 100 consecutive months. Explain why the O’Reilly factor has higher ratings than CNN and MSNBC **combined! **O’Reilly is generally crass but when you watch the hate from MSNBC and even CNN it makes liberals what they are: Idiots!
G
GodsGadfly
Guest
He gets ratings because, like Hannity, he’s a dissident liberal Catholic who feels free to criticize the Holy Father whenever it suits him, and he supports artificial contraception.
T
takers
Guest
Huh. I always thought it was an English (as in British) cuss word that didn’t relate to God in any way.
S
sonofourlady
Guest
That isn’t the reason why he gets the high ratings as EVERY major news commentator supports artificial contraception and criticizes the Holy Father.
P
phoenix3212
Guest
Well said!You guys are incredible…
I watch O’Reilly and Hannity regularly, almost daily. The is a difference between honoring the man, and respecting the office. O’Reilly, Beck, and Hannity have said they object to the honorary degree, but not the invitation itself. Obama was just at Georgetown, and he said nothing of animosity towards the Catholic Church, however, his covering up of the school’s identity is a sign by itself.
As some of you know, I am a veteran. In this country, we pay our respects to those appointed over us, even if it is against our consent (no, I didn’t vote for him, I voted for the other guy). When I was active, I had no right to not salute my superiors if I disagreed with them personally. Now I can refuse, but to do so is to also refuse to acknowledge everything else that involves the President of the United States.
We need to respect the office, while at the same time telling the person we will fight some of their plans. If we don’t, then we become just like the liberals who refused to recognize anything that Bush did right. In their eyes, everything he did was wrong, no matter what. Inviting the President to speak is not a crime given the fact that every President in recent history has been invited to speak there. This is what O’Reilly and others pointed out on their shows. This is not unorthodox, anti-Catholic, selective morality, or sinful. Also, none of you have mentioned that they did oppose giving him the honorary degree. Pay closer attention, and maybe you’ll have something legitimate to complain about other than “talking heads”.
And yes, they are all very pro-life, pro-marriage, anti-contraception, and pro-parental rights and have no problem saying it on their shows.
T
Tezza
Guest
R
RobbyS
Guest
Allies? More like fair-weather friends.
R
RobbyS
Guest
Bill Clinton did not get invited. And Notre Dame’s stubborness in the face of all the complaints by bishops is instructive. When Jenkins was chosen it was hoped that he was not be a liberal like Hersburgh. But he is. Obama is, I think, exploiting a division in the Church, and it reveals that on the hinge issue of abortion, many Catholics do not see it as a serious matter. Fact is that many Catholics did not see Hitler’s anti-semiticism as a serious matter, since it reflected their own. This was true in the United States as well as in Europe. But if abortion is not evil, and here I am really meaning abortion on demand, which is allowed by law in this country, nothing is evil.Well said!
R
RobbyS
Guest
Poor Sean. But he is not the only Catholic who on this issue, and many others I guess, is wedded to the notion of private judgement. Father tried to point out that Sean has no competence in the matter of whether contraception is right or wrong. But to make a simple analogy, this is like my claim to say what the law is in a particular case. I don’t have the power to do this. Neither does a lawyer, for that matter. Only the courts have the power to say what the law is. The analogy fails, of course, because I can resort to the political process to get the law changed. A lot of the discord in the church arises from the false notion that there is a political route to change what the Church teaches. There is, of course, a development of doctrine in the Church, but it is more like the development of a person, where the change is inherent and leads toward an end.
J
Jesus_N_Cherie
Guest
Would that it were so. I learned about it from a reliable priest if I remember correctly. It was about 20 years ago that I remember hearing it. I do remember it was from a reliable source. I was horrified because I had never thought anything about it different from what you thought.
I just want to say that I did not mean the correction to sound ugly in any way. For me, if I am doing something which offends God, but I am not aware of it, I am grateful for someone loving God and myself enough to tell me.
That is all that I was doing. I hope no one took my words to be ugly. I am certainly not perfect, or above sounding crass sometimes. I believed she would appreciate knowing.
Christ’s peace be with you,
Cherie
L
Lujack
Guest
That’s really not the case. No one is quite sure what the origin of the word bloody as an interjection is, with it possibly being a reference to any of these: menstruation, Queen Mary of England, Charlemagne, the Wars of the Roses, drunks, or merely a reference to blood. The reference to the crucifixion is just a later rumor added to it.
Its just a nonsense word.
L
Lujack
Guest
If people were hoping that Notre Dame was going to try and pick someone who would act differently than Father Hesburgh, they were crazy; the man is a legend, beloved at the school, and they named the library after him. When people at the school were looking to pick a new president, “not being like Father Hesburgh, whose been successful for the past thirty-five years” was probably not one of the criteria.
J
Jesus_N_Cherie
Guest
Unfortunately, you are wrong. It was shortened from the words “Christ’s blood” being used in vain.
L
Lujack
Guest
Can you come up with a source more substantial than “you are wrong”?
M
maggiemay2u
Guest
I can hardly believe I’m saying this
but I agree with you. I believe I looked up the meaning after I scandalized an aunt years ago. I’m pretty sure the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language debunked the blasphemy origin, and went into the fact that there was a sect known as Blods or some such who were clearly not the favorite of the Celtic or British inhabitants, so using the term “blod”, or later “bloody” was the height of insult.Mark this date on your calendar.
M
maggiemay2u
Guest
Hit the quote tab for the wrong quote…but you get my support, anyhow at least for this one…
J
Jesus_N_Cherie
Guest
As I said in an earlier post, over the past 20 years I have heard so many sermons from REALLY good priests who are like Fr. Corapi…and read so many books, and I cannot recall exactly where I learned it from.
I really wish that I could, because I know that it is unfair of me to expect everyone to believe just on my word.
I remember that it made a really big impact on me when I heard it, because I was someone who loved to read English historical romance novels…and many times, those words were the curses. It was common to use Christ’s Blood or His Wounds as a way of cursing. I stopped reading more than one really well written and interesting novel because of this.
With all due respect, do you have anything to back up your denial? I am not looking for an argument. I am not interested in taking away someone’s right of free speech. I was passing along important information. What the reciever does with this information is totally NOT up to me. They will be responsible to God for having been informed and either ignoring the information, or in discontinuing to use the language.
May our hearts be open to the Truth of Jesus Christ given to us by the Holy Spirit through the One, Holy, Apostolic, Roman Catholic Church.
M
maggiemay2u
Guest
JNC–hope this helps–MM
encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/546/Bloody.html
An expletive much used in the past four centuries, although its impact and currency in global varieties of English have varied considerably. It is common in British English, essential in Australian English, but rare in American English. In general it shows loss of intensity, having become a mere intensifier through overuse.
Discussions of the origins of bloody have been confused by a frequently retailed “folk etymology,” deriving the word from a corruption of “by our lady.” While this explanation is plausible phonetically, it is clearly not logical grammatically, since “by our lady” would not fit the adjectival function. (“By our lady hell!” would be a bizarre conjunction.) As is common with underground or slang usage, original written instances are difficult to trace. The OED cites an example from the Scots poet Gavin Douglas as far back as 1513, but most authorities trace the meaning much later. Samuel Pepys described the Fire of London in his Diary as “a most horrid, malicious, bloody flame, not like the fine flame of an ordinary fire” (September 2, 1666), while the playwright Thomas Otway uses the phrase “a bloody Cuckold-making scoundrel” in 1681 ( Works II, 137). The metaphorical connection with literal bloody seems to have started with the phrase “bloody drunk,” originally meaning “fired up and ready to shed blood,” still surviving in “bloody minded.” Samuel Johnson (1755) condemned “bloody drunk” as “very vulgar,” but Jonathan Swift used a very modern idiom in a letter to Stella: “It was bloody hot walking today” (May 8, 1711).
The Oxford English Dictionary entry for bloody (originally published in a fascicle or small volume in March 1887) makes some pointed comments on class usage:
In general colloquial use from the Restoration 1660 to about 1750; now constantly in the mouths of the lowest classes, but by respectable people considered “a horrid word,” on a par with obscene or profane language, and usually printed in the newspapers (in police reports, etc.) as “b?y.”
encyclopedia.com/doc/1O214-bloody.html
bloody covered with blood or involving bloodshed and cruelty. The adjective is used informally to express anger, annoyance, or shock; recorded in English from the mid 17th century, the origin of the term is uncertain, but it is thought to have a connection with the ‘bloods’ (aristocratic rowdies) of the late 17th and early 18th centuries. From the mid 18th century until quite recently, bloody used as a swear word was regarded as unprintable, probably from the mistaken belief that it implied a blasphemous reference to the blood of Christ, or that the word was an alteration of ‘by Our Lady’; hence the shock occasioned in Shaw’s play when Eliza uses the words ‘Not bloody likely’ (see Pygmalion).
Bloody Assizes the trials of the supporters of the Duke of Monmouth after their defeat at the Battle of Sedgemoor, held in SW England in 1685.
Bloody Mary a nickname of Mary Tudor (1516–58), in reference to the series of religious persecutions taking place in her reign.
Bloody Sunday a name for various Sundays marked by violence and bloodshed, especially 30 January 1972 in Northern Ireland, when 13 civilians were killed during the dispersal of marchers by British troops in the Bogside.
Bloody Thursday a name for 5 July 1934, when 3 people were killed on the San Francisco Waterfront during industrial conflict surrounding the longshoremen’s strike.
Bloody Tower in the Tower of London, supposedly the site of the murder of the Princes of Chancery.
utterpants.co.uk/news/science/bloodybrits.html
“Origin mid 17th century; from bloody. The use of bloody to add emphasis to an expression is of uncertain origin, but is thought to have a connection with the ‘bloods’—aristocratic rowdies who were the late 17th and early 18th century equivalents of 21st century ‘Chavs’ and ‘Pikies.’ Hence the phrase ‘bloody drunk’ i.e., as drunk as a blood. After the mid 18th century until quite recently bloody used as a swear word was regarded as unprintable, probably from the erroneous belief that it implied a blasphemous reference to the blood of Christ, or that the word was an alteration of ‘by Our Lady.’ Hence a widespread caution in using the term, particularly in the United States, even in such phrases as ‘bloody battle’ to merely refer to bloodshed, arose. Such mistaken beliefs have now largely given way to an acceptance of the word as an informal adjective of considerable utility and popularity. Most lexicographers no longer consider it to be a swear word.”
- Status