I wanted to send a list of articles from the Guardian about what we might expect from the new Pope and when I tried to submit it, I got this message:

Action Denied: Blacklisted Item Found

It then gives the link, which I can’t even repeat here because i get the same message as when I tried to send the original list.

Does anyone know what this is all about?

Who’s doing the blacklisting?

I will try to figure out another way to send the information.

Here is the list of items, referenced above, with the blacklisted link deleted. I have had no problem sending this to other discussion groups.

If anyone would like the deleted link, which was to the Guardian Newspaper, let me know and I’ll send it to your email address.

Violence grows as gay marriage bill divides France, Rise in homophobia worries Paris’s gay community  

[link to Guardian article deleted here because of blacklisting]

Happy Sunday. I gave Pope Francesca a chance, but she blew it. “Pope Francis called homosexual “marriage” a “machination of the Father of Lies” ” -T

Pope Francis to maintain hard line on American nuns LCWR ‘radically feminist’ on birth control, gay marriage15 April, 15:05

Guarda la foto1 di 1

(ANSA) - Vatican City, April 15 - Pope Francis is continuing the Church’s critical position on the majority of American nuns for deviating from official Catholic doctrine, the Vatican said Monday. Gerhard Mueller, prefect of Church orthodoxy watchdog Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, met with directors from the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), which represents more than 80% of American nuns. In April last year the LCWR was chided in a Vatican report for allegedly promoting “radical feminist themes” and devoting too much time to social justice while remaining unacceptably quiet on the Church’s opposition to birth control and same-sex marriage. On Monday, Mueller said he recently discussed the report with the pope, “who reaffirmed its conclusions and the reform plan for LCWR”. The reforms, which included getting the group’s statutes and by-laws in line with official Vatican doctrine, have been put off by LCWR leaders, who have
cited a need to have a further ecclesial dialogue with the Holy See.

http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/rubriche/english/2013/04/15/Pope-Francis-maintain-hard-line-American-nuns_8555089.html

Pope Francis will never approve homosexual civil unions by John-Henry Westen Fri Mar 22, 2013 16:31 EST Comments () Tags: civil unions, pope francis

Analysis.

ROME, March 22, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Rumors have been swirling that perhaps Pope Francis will approve of homosexual civil unions. There have been suggestions, which have been refuted by others, that as Archbishop of Buenos Aires he approved such unions in the context of trying to stop a homosexual “marriage” push in the nation.

Beyond the rumors, though, the simple fact of the matter is that the Pope will not reverse the Church’s teaching on the matter.

Specifically on the matter of homosexual civil unions, the Church’s teaching is laid out in a 2003 document approved and ordered published by Pope John Paul II and written by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was is currently Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.

That document Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to unions between Homosexual Persons, leaves no room for doubt on the teaching of the Church regarding homosexual unions. It says:

There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”. In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval
of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions And what weight does this Vatican document ordered published by the Pope carry? Could the thrust of it be reversed by a future Pope?

To answer that I spoke with Professor Scott Nicholson, the Chair of the Theology at Our Lady Seat of Wisdom Academy, ranked one of the most faithful Catholic colleges in North America by the Cardinal Newman Society.

Professor Nicholson said that the document in question, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, expressly approved by the Pope has the same status as the Catechism. (see ref. Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium 25, and On the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, AAS 82, pp. 1550-1570) In theological parlance, they “participate in the ordinary magisterium of the successor of Peter.

Thus, the document on homosexual civil unions, he said, “demands religious submission of mind and will.”

Nicholson added, A Catholic following Vatican II teaching will accept such a document, aware that one may explore the issue further, but that the general thrust will not be reversed.

Meanwhile, additional information has come out strongly refuting contentions that Francis in some way supported the concept of giving recognition to homosexual unions.

Catholic News Agency reports today its Argentina director, Miquel Woites, told the agency that claims by Sergio Rubin that then Cardinal Bergoglio “proposed that the bishops [of Argentina] adopt a moderate position and perhaps leave room for civil unions as a compromise” are in fact “not true, they are totally inaccurate.” CNA adds Woites emphasized It’s wrong to invent something like this out of thin air.”

Related LifeSiteNews story:

Bergoglio didn’t suggest endorsing homosexual civil unions in 2010, says confidant of new pope

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-will-never-approve-homosexual-civil-unions/

New Pope Francis called homosexual ˜marriage™ amachination of the Father of Lies™ by John-Henry Westen Wed Mar 13, 2013 15:37 EST Comments () VATICAN CITY, March 13, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, now Pope Francis, is known to LifeSiteNews readers as a valiant defender of life and family.

In terms of homosexual marriage, Cardinal Bergoglio fought valiantly to have the law in Argentina continue to protect the traditional family.

Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, now Pope FrancisIn July 2009, he called on the priests of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires to bring the faithful to an upcoming protest against homosexual “marriage.”

“Let’s not be naive, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God,” wrote Cardinal Bergoglio in a letter sent to the monasteries of Buenos Aires. “We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

 

To the clergy of the parishes, Bergoglio requested that all of them read from the pulpits a declaration defending the true definition and understanding of marriage.

“The Argentinean people will have to confront, in the coming weeks, a situation whose result could gravely injure the family. We are speaking of a bill regarding marriage between people of the same sex,” a bill that calls into question “the identity, and the survival of the family: father, mother, and children.”

The latter, warns Bergoglio, might also be threatened by homosexual adoption, which would be a true form of discrimination.

The country now needs “the special assistance of the Holy Spirit, to place the light of truth in the middle of the darkness of error, to defend us against the enchantment of so many sophistries with which they seek to justify this bill,” he wrote.

At the same time, in a story that is being much-repeated today, Pope Francis demonstrated his compassion when he visited a hospice on Holy Thursday where he kissed and washed the feet of 12 patients suffering from AIDS, a disease that is often associated with homosexuality.

More: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-pope-francis-called-homosexual-marriage-a-machination-of-the-father-of-lies.

I am so annoyed about the “blacklist” that I’m going to paste the whole article here. I’d be interested in anyone’s opinion as to why it was blacklisted and who was doing it. What word do you think was the trigger?  It was apparently published in The Observer but the link was to the Guardian,  I don’t know why.

Kim Willsher and Gemma Ware in Paris
The Observer, Saturday 20 April 2013 17.06 EDT

Demonstrators shout as they march during a rally to protest against upcoming bill on gay marriage in Paris. Photograph: Michel Euler/AP
A large American wartime poster proclaiming “We can do it” hangs behind the bar at Les Souffleurs, a fashionable bar in the Marais, the traditionally Jewish, but now gay, quarter of Paris.

The barman admits business is a little quiet for a Friday evening: the drinkers sitting on stools and chatting say they are concerned about the increasingly vocal and violent rise in homophobia in France, provoked by the bitter debate over same-sex marriage.

On Sunday the issue that has divided France will reach a potentially explosive peak as opponents of gay marriage take to the streets in a last-ditch attempt to stop the so-called “marriage for all” bill, which is expected to be approved by parliament finally on Tuesday. A demonstration by supporters of the right for homosexuals to marry and adopt children has also been planned.

Less than two weeks ago, in a spate of violence against gays, Dutch-born Wilfred de Bruijn was beaten up while walking arm in arm with his partner in Paris. De Bruijn posted a picture of his bruised and bloody face on Facebook, stating “it’s the face of homophobia”.

As an often ill-tempered debate in the national assembly came to an end last week, the violence was clearly escalating, with arrests at protests in the capital and other cities, and reports of attacks on gay bars.

Anti-gay marriage protesters, who have taken to calling their movement Le Printemps Français (the French spring, an echo of the Arab spring uprisings that overthrew unpopular dictators), mimicked the radical feminist movement FEMEN, whose members demonstrate topless, and took off their shirts outside the French parliament.

President François Hollande has condemned the “homophobic” violence, and his interior minister, Manuel Valls, has warned that the protests have been hijacked by far-right organisations.

The figurehead of the anti-gay marriage movement, the comedian Virginie Tellenne, who calls herself Frigide Barjot and who has described herself as “press attaché for Jesus”, had earlier said: “If Hollande wants blood, he’ll get it.” She later retracted her comment, saying she had “gone too far”.

However, she admitted “troublemakers” were joining protests and called on the government to round them up, saying they were “blackening” the organisation’s image.

“On Sunday, many peaceful people will be in the streets and the forces of law and order have a responsibility to ensure calm demonstrations. We know the police have identified the troublemakers ... but they have done nothing,” Tellenne said.

Back in Les Souffleurs, Dorothée Jenny, a 26-year-old bisexual working in human resources, said she had been incensed at the homophobia at a recent anti-gay marriage march. “I do think about it at the moment, but I don’t want to change my habits. Hopefully, when the law is passed, things will calm down,” she said. Her twin brother Hyppolite, a webmaster, agreed. “I wouldn’t kiss my boyfriend in the street these days,” he said. The pair thought those opposed to gay marriage were also using the demonstrations to rail against Hollande. “I’m surprised at the popularity of the anti-gay campaign. These are young people we could be talking with.”

The twins’ friend, Estelle Luporsi, 24, a bank worker, spoke of a climate of fear. “There are certainly areas in Paris where you have to pay attention,” she said.

Standing at the bar, artist Daniel Vincent, 50, thought that the social media had exacerbated the violence and created a “paranoia of an invisible enemy” among the anti-gay marriage protesters. “It’s very present on social media. It brings back a lot of the homophobic experiences [people] have had in the past, the old stories,” he said.

“We’re finding the same amalgamation of tensions that we had around the presidential elections,” said his friend François-Henri Galland, a 41-year old teacher, pointing to when both right and left goaded each other on social networks.

In other bars in the Marais on Friday, after the parliamentary debate wound up, the gay community was out in force and determined not to feel under siege. Standing with a group of friends on the terrace of the popular Café Open, David Rol, a 40-year-old engineer, said he was more wary than afraid about going out in the Marais. “Scared no, because I come out in this area a lot, but tonight I thought there could be problems.”

Jean Soubeyre, a 43-year-old who works in marketing, said the legitimacy given to homophobia in the current climate was horrible. “The law will pass, but it’s crystallising all sorts of other problems, such as the financial crisis.”

Rol agreed that the law will pass. “Hollande knows he doesn’t have a choice. If he renounces it, he will lose all credibility,” he said. “For me, the [anti-gay marriage] protests just confirm that France is a rightwing country at heart.”

I can’t find anything wrong with any of those articles to make anyone ‘blacklist’ them.

It is ‘gay’. I tested it.

Replace ‘guy’ in the address below with ‘gay’, and it will be refused…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/20/guy-marriage-france-violence

Now we can make all kind of interesting speculations… At least it seems we still have a long way to go to get rid of all homophobia.

GdB - 21 April 2013 11:04 PM

It is ‘gay’. I tested it.

Replace ‘guy’ in the address below with ‘gay’, and it will be refused…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/20/guy-marriage-france-violence

Now we can make all kind of interesting speculations… At least it seems we still have a long way to go to get rid of all homophobia.

Yes it seems that that is the offending word, buy what I’d like to know is who or what is creating the blacklist mmechanism on this group? Why are posts being censored and who’s doing it? I sent the same item to a google group and a yahoo group and there was no censorship.  Why would a CFI group allow censorship of a word or concept as inocuous as “gay” ? Why would it allow censorship at all for any reason? Censorship would go against what a freethought group stands for. i just dont get it.

...

Anoter thing.  Two of the links I sent contained the word “homosexual” and they went through.  Apparently, it’s when the word “gay” is used that it triggers a blacklist. That makes it even more ridiculous.  What is the fifference between homosexual and gay?

Lois

GdB - 21 April 2013 11:04 PM

It is ‘gay’. I tested it.

Replace ‘guy’ in the address below with ‘gay’, and it will be refused…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/20/guy-marriage-france-violence

Now we can make all kind of interesting speculations… At least it seems we still have a long way to go to get rid of all homophobia.

Double yew effin’ ow!

Just a few (technical) words why the whole thing might not be so terrible as it seems.

http://www.someblubsite.com/with-the-word-guy-in-it

Replace ‘guy’ with ‘gay’ and the address is refused. But the address does not even exist! So it is definitely not the article itself that is blacklisted.

Most of these ‘web blockers’ use different methods to filter web pages:
- actual blacklists: lists of sites to be known to be morally doubtful (pornography, illegal software, sites that try to install malware on your PC, etc)
- heuristic principles, like some words in addresses

These web blockers are used by companies and other organisations to avoid that employees
- infect their PCs
- spoil their time that they should work (my boss should block CFI…)
- misuse their PC for immoral activities for which possibly the organisation might get blamed
- build up some Web board for the wrong purposes (then some kind of http links are very suspicious)

Now search in Google the word ‘gay’, and see what you get: many of these sites an employer would not let its employees on these sites during working hours. The cheaper the web block software is, the simpler the rules are. And as I understand CFI is not the richest organisation in town. If my employer would have the same web blocker, I possibly could not have read the article.

GdB - 22 April 2013 11:42 PM

Just a few (technical) words why the whole thing might not be so terrible as it seems.

http://www.someblubsite.com/with-the-word-guy-in-it

Replace ‘guy’ with ‘gay’ and the address is refused. But the address does not even exist! So it is definitely not the article itself that is blacklisted.

Most of these ‘web blockers’ use different methods to filter web pages:
- actual blacklists: lists of sites to be known to be morally doubtful (pornography, illegal software, sites that try to install malware on your PC, etc)
- heuristic principles, like some words in addresses

These web blockers are used by companies and other organisations to avoid that employees
- infect their PCs
- spoil their time that they should work (my boss should block CFI…)
- misuse their PC for immoral activities for which possibly the organisation might get blamed
- build up some Web board for the wrong purposes (then some kind of http links are very suspicious)

Now search in Google the word ‘gay’, and see what you get: many of these sites an employer would not let its employees on these sites during working hours. The cheaper the web block software is, the simpler the rules are. And as I understand CFI is not the richest organisation in town. If my employer would have the same web blocker, I possibly could not have read the article.

It would seem that such blocking would be a function of an employer.  I don’t have an employer and work from my own personal computers. It seems more like CFI doing the blocking or perhaps the server they’re using.  It’s political correcteness gone mad. I should think CFI would not stand for it. Maybe they need another server. In my experience, neither Google nor Yahoo have content blockers. If they do i’ve never triggered it, but maybe I’m just living in an innocent bubble.

As GdB mentioned, CFI is a very low budget organization so they use a website that is given to non-profits at no cost.  I’m assuming the company that supplies it included the censor unit in the program. 

On the other hand, we are supposed to be creative people so making the minor change GdB showed along with instructions on how to change it back should solve the problem.

Occam

Occam. - 23 April 2013 10:55 AM

As GdB mentioned, CFI is a very low budget organization so they use a website that is given to non-profits at no cost.  I’m assuming the company that supplies it included the censor unit in the program. 

On the other hand, we are supposed to be creative people so making the minor change GdB showed along with instructions on how to change it back should solve the problem.

Occam

Yes, thats good advice but its an extra step forbme and an exttra step for the interested recipient. 

Is there a 12year old in the US who doesnt understand “gay” or most controversies surrounding the concept? Whose sensibilities are they protecting?  Oh, never mind, I dont expect an answer.  I’m just venting.

When I lived in Ireland, friends of us told this story: their young son cam one morning to their bed, and asked what ‘gay’ meant. So his mother took a deep breath, trying to explain it in a way he could understand it (the boy probably did not even know what the words ‘sex’ or just ‘attraction’ mean). Then he got rather confused. In fact, he wanted to know what the title of this book meant: