Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 496082)

I assumed "they" was the NFL, and the point being that the NFL hasn't really seemed to care that much about what happens to game balls (other than kicker balls). For example, why doesn't the ref lock the balls in an equipment trunk after he tests them and then unlock it on the field (or something). The fact that the ball bag sits in the refs lockerroom, unguarded, suggests the NFL doesn't really put much emphasis on the issue.

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 496082)

I assumed "they" was the NFL, and the point being that the NFL hasn't really seemed to care that much about what happens to game balls (other than kicker balls). For example, why doesn't the ref lock the balls in an equipment trunk after he tests them and then unlock it on the field (or something). The fact that the ball bag sits in the refs lockerroom, unguarded, suggests the NFL doesn't really put much emphasis on the issue.

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 496082)

I assumed "they" was the NFL, and the point being that the NFL hasn't really seemed to care that much about what happens to game balls (other than kicker balls). For example, why doesn't the ref lock the balls in an equipment trunk after he tests them and then unlock it on the field (or something). The fact that the ball bag sits in the refs lockerroom, unguarded, suggests the NFL doesn't really put much emphasis on the issue.

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 496082)

I assumed "they" was the NFL, and the point being that the NFL hasn't really seemed to care that much about what happens to game balls (other than kicker balls). For example, why doesn't the ref lock the balls in an equipment trunk after he tests them and then unlock it on the field (or something). The fact that the ball bag sits in the refs lockerroom, unguarded, suggests the NFL doesn't really put much emphasis on the issue.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 496075)

That "contrary to church doctrine" can be the "right thing to do." But once you cross that line, then where are you vis-a-vis church doctrine?

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 496086)

or that the church trusts the priests recognize the faith is built on the trust of their congregations, and wantonly granting annulments threatens the health of the church?

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 496062)

Unless the catholic in question was told in the second grade by a nun that she was a bastard and going to hell because her father had been married once before and therefore her parents weren't married in the eyes of god and she had to choose whether she loved God more or her parents more.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 496066)

Priests don't give annulments. Church tribunals do. You need two of them.

If you're going to celebrate legalistic precision and hair splitting, you've got to get the process right.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 496069)

Is it such a shame if the flexibility is based on $?

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 496071)

No, my experience has been the same as yours. I have been blessed to interact mostly with Catholic authorities whose primary interest keeping Catholics like me coming to church, and often that means pretending that church teaching is more practical and humanistic than it really is. I had one priest send me off to college with the valediction (hi, Greedy!), “If you can’t be good, be safe.” And a few years after that, my parish priest tried to assure my Episcopalian wife that the pledge we signed to get a permission to marry to the effect that we “will” raise any children born of our marriage in the Catholic Church actually meant that we would “try.” He said this because he knew if he said anything different, the form would go unsigned, and we would be married without the Church’s permission and never darken his door again. I don’t blame him, but I also do not pretend that what Father Dave says to a liberally-minded parishioner is church teaching. There are thousands of Father Daves, but they belong to a church that actually has a formal way of making rules, and a certain pride in offering redemption to those who stray. The result is a lot of rationalization. Which is fine. We are talking about religion, after all.

If your Father Dave and my Father Dave both allow folks to get married in the church without an annulment just because Groom’s first marriage was a civil ceremony, that’s fine by me. It’s contrary to church doctrine, but also the right thing to do, ultimately. And what are we to make of that?

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 496082)

I assumed "they" was the NFL, and the point being that the NFL hasn't really seemed to care that much about what happens to game balls (other than kicker balls). For example, why doesn't the ref lock the balls in an equipment trunk after he tests them and then unlock it on the field (or something). The fact that the ball bag sits in the refs lockerroom, unguarded, suggests the NFL doesn't really put much emphasis on the issue.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 496094)

It certainly can't be because the refs have any faith in the moral standards of the players as a group.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 496085)

Ha! You Boston fans slay me. Sure. They should lock the footballs up to keep teams from tampering with them instead of just saying "Don't break the fucking rules." You win for most ridiculous stance on this yet.

TM

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick (Post 496088)

NotBob, I saw you on 44th Street. You were on the phone talking about sports, perhaps, and I was with a colleague walking to a meeting. I did not say hi -- I apologize profusely, I forgot your real name and I didn't want to interrupt your call (which may not have been about sports) and say Hi NotBob, which would have confused my colleague and also perhaps you.

Now I remember your real name. It came to me about 5 min after we passed you.

I hope all is well with you. Lookin' good!