There's this saying “a fish is caught through its mouth,” and this is an illustration of what it means. This pope might present this ‘cool’, ‘modern’ image to the public, but his words spoken in private amongst his peers reveals his real stance about these things.
Edit: proofreading.
Target is one creature the caster can touch (can be self). The target can make a wisdom saving throw against the caster's spell save DC. If successful, the spell ends without having any effect on the target. Otherwise (or if the target chose not to make the wisdom saving throw), the target will immediately taste some really well-made lemonade gin mojito that will linger for as long as the spell is in effect.
For every turn the target takes after this, the target will have to make a constitution saving throw against the caster's spell save DC. A successful constitution saving throw will restore one first level spell slot. A natural 20 will increase the spell slot level this spell will restore. A failure will end the spell. A critical failure will cause the target to deplete all of their spell slots and the spell ends. Every turn increases the save DC by one.
This might pale in comparison with all the other replies here, but one incident really made me uneasy.
I was seated inside a train minding my own business. I was wearing a loose shirt and an even looser pair of walking shorts. The shorts were made of thin and glossy material. It wasn't thin enough to expose my underwear but it readily shows any bumps or whatnot.
The train wasn't that full, and there were lots of empty seats. The train had longitudinal seating (two rows of seats facing each other, with some standing space in between. There's also an area where the train can "bend". This area has no seats of course. I was seated next to this "bendy area".
I remember having difficulty staying awake and was seated in an increasingly loose way. I caught a glimpse of a guy standing in front of me. He was leaning against the train walls and was on his phone.
Now, the train isn't the most quiet, but I distinctly heard an unmistakeable camera sound which jolted me awake. Selfie cameras on phones wasn't yet a thing back then and the way his phone is oriented, I can see the phone's camera lens pointed at me. The guy, noticing that I noticed the sound, quickly put the phone back in his pocket.
I might be wrong, I hope I was wrong, but I thought a stranger took a photo of me just a meter or two away from me.
That's it. Kinda underwhelming, I suppose but I was kept wondering why that guy, if it's indeed the case, took a picture of me.
Investigators also spoke to the priest, who said the woman had been told at an earlier Mass on Sunday that she had not fulfilled all the requirements for receiving communion and could not participate, officials said.
When she returned for a later service, the priest says she “attacked” him and “grabbed” a tray of communion wafers from his hands, the affidavit says.
“She informed the priest she did in fact do the steps necessary and is now accepted by God, thus, granting her the ability to participate,” an affidavit reports.
That’s when the priest “became upset and tried to ram the ‘cookie’ in her mouth,” she told police.
“In response ... she attempted to grab another communion bread which (the priest) was holding. However, (he) grabbed her and bit her arm,” the affidavit says.
AFAIK, the priest does have the power to refuse communion to someone. But then again, a quick online search to confirm this gave me the following:
Can. 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.
Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.
(Taken from https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib4-cann879-958_en.html#TITLE_III)
Not a Roman Catholic priest, let alone a Roman Catholic canon lawyer, but I think any baptized Catholic can take communion unless:
And then, Catholics are enjoined to refrain from participating from mass or receiving communion if they're aware of committing a grave sin and haven't yet done the sacrament of confession.
The only way I can justify the priest's prior actions given all this is if the woman has been explicitly (visible to all the people in the church) committing grave sin. Or is known by the congregation that the woman is committing grave sin.
However, from the other places, it seems that the advice is to privately convince the person to refrain from participating in communion. Assuming the priest has done this in that previous mass, and the woman escalated the situation by reaching for the communion wafers, I could understand the priest going wild. Afterall, the priest has a duty to ensure the sanctity of the communion wafers.
That the priest's first impulse in this situation is to bite the woman still is funny to me though. Was his hands and arms already otherwise occupied?
Of course, all I've said above (TL;DR: the priest can possibly bar someone from participating in the holy communion, that the priest has a duty of keeping the sanctity of the consecrated hosts) still doesn't excuse the priest from being charged with assault and battery. I feel this part needs to be said out loud.
And since I'm already quoting the Roman Catholic Canon law, I think this one's most apropos:
Can. 909 A priest is not to neglect to prepare himself properly through prayer for the celebration of the eucharistic sacrifice and to offer thanks to God at its completion.
Before, I use Active for my subscriptions, and Top Day or Top Week for the All feed. Currently, I use Scaled for my subscriptions and All feed unchanged (Top Day or Top Week). I just like how I can take a peek at All and looking at the day's or week's top posts while mostly keeping to my subscriptions.
I sometimes look at Top 12 hours or Top 1 hour in my All feed, but rarely.
It's been in maintenance mode for years now.
I was supposed to pick things back up with self-studying via textbooks and stuff, but my routine has been pared down to just trying to do my daily Anki reviews (and then, only adding new cards whenever my reviews fall below some threshold), and some other language learning apps I might be sticking with at the moment.
Yeah, as far as I've seen, that's the vibe: Esperanto isn't perfect, it can be improved, but it works and changing it would introduce confusion and would make it harder to learn.
I also sense this unease among the Esperanto-speaking community with regards to changing anything in the language. That allowing any one of the proposed changes will lead to a slippery slope of accommodating any and all proposed changes.
And then there's the fact that not many of these changes have gained foothold amongst the community (perhaps due to the aforementioned unease in changing anything about the language).
Esperanto has no grammatical gender, indeed. However, it isn't as gender neutral. For example, the word for "woman" (virino) derives from the word for "man" (viro). Lots of other words referring to females (humans or otherwise) can be derived that way. Examples include:
This is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it helps with the learning of the language by making it easy to derive words from existing ones, but it also makes it easy for someone ascribe sexism in the language. There's also no agreed-upon way to make words gender-neutral. There's a lot of proposals such as listed in this wikipedia article on Esperanto gender reform but I don't think there's been a consensus other than "don't change it!"
Of all the claims Esperanto has, I think "one can easily learn it" is the one that has most ground to stand on. It's been a while since I've dabbled in the language and I can still read and listen to it without much trouble (save for having to look up some of the more specialized vocabulary).
Indeed. Translating from Japanese is hard, even more so Japanese that involve figurative expressions and idioms (that are already usually hard to translate to and from any language to begin with).
Hate is such a strong word. But yes. The real world can get really tiring sometimes.
With that out of the way, off to my tangent. There's probably two parts to explaining why there's a lot of isekai works out there.
It is easy to write. It's easy for the writer to basically insert themselves into their works. That way, they would have a far easier time working through the main character's motivations, actions and reactions. Isekai also makes it easier for the writer to worldbuild. They can just do an anything goes setting with a god who specifically made the world in whatever way that's most convenient to the writer. That is, lazy writing. That is not to say this means all isekai is bad, but rather, since it's easy to write, there's bound to be a lot of people who'd give it a go.
It's easy to read. A lot of the isekai works I've read so far has been the type where I can just check out my brain at the entrance and dive in. A lot of this has to do with the kind of isekai I read, but with a setting that's anything goes, and an MC that I can relate to, I can easily snuggle into the work and pretend. Yes, it's escapism, and I don't think the genre as a whole has any pretentions otherwise.
As far as I'm concerned, isekai as a genre is like potato chips. It's unhealthy, even not that interesting culinarily, but it's also something I would love to indulge in from time-to-time. Add to that a tub of vanilla ice cream as a dip (probably a hot take) and I'm set for a relaxing night watching isekai. (Of course, the next morning, I'm back to the real world and all its shit).
I wonder why.... Surely it isn't because a seminary is a good place for a confused, self-hating homosexual to be in, right? Surely it isn't because being gay was seen as so anathema in Catholic-dominant societies that the seminary seems to be a sanctuary, right?