Pope's speech causes outrage

Hi all. There is a translated version of the speech out there available for all to read:

Since faith in the Creator is an essential part of the Christian Creed, the Church cannot and should not limit itself to transmitting to its faithful only the message of salvation. She has a responsibility for Creation, and it should validate this responsibility in public.

In so doing, it should defend not just the earth, water and air as gifts of Creation that belong to everyone. She should also protect man from destroying himself.

It is necessary to have something like an ecology of man, understood in the right sense. It is not outdated metaphysics when the Church speaks of the nature of the human being as man and woman, and asks that this natural order be respected.

This has to do with faith in the Creator and listening to the language of creation, which, if disregarded, would be man's self-destruction and therefore a destruction of God's work itself.

That which has come to be expressed and understood with the term 'gender' effectively results in man's self-emancipation from Creation (nature) and from the Creator. Man wants to do everything by himself and to decide always and exclusively about anything that concerns him personally. But this is to live against truth, to live against the Spirit Creator.

The tropical rain forests deserve our protection, yes, but man does not deserve it less as a Creature of the Spirit himself, in whom is inscribed a message that does not mean a contradiction of human freedom but its condition.

The great theologians of Scholasticism described matrimony - which is the lifelong bond between a man and a woman - as a sacrament of Creation, that the Creator himself instituted, and that Christ, without changing the message of Creation, welcomed in the story of his alliance with men.

Part of the announcement that the Church should bring to men is a testimonial for the Spirit Creator present in all of nature, but specially in the nature of man, who was created in the image of God.

One must reread the encyclical Humanae vitae with this perspective: the intention of Pope Paul VI was to defend love against consumer sex, the future against the exclusive claim of the moment, and human nature against manipulation.
Click to expand...

You'll notice the above contains no references to homosexuality or transsexuality.
 
Werbung:
Mare Tranquillity said:
Believing in Scripture doesn't make one a bigot, it's what you do with those beliefs. If you believe and live your life according to your own lights, letting others live as they choose, then fine and dandy, but laws passed against the people YOU don't think are living by Scripture--well, that's another thing altogether.

I've never actually known of a Catholic Church that would give communion to openly gay couples attending the service, is this common?

Or is it that only gays who "desire sex with same gender" but do not actually engage therein? If so, then the Church's treatment of them is the same as divorced people or women who've had an abortion. If the Church doesn't know, then it will give communion to all of them.
Click to expand...
The thought is not the sin the act is. Sex before marriage is a sin in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church. It’s considered a sin in the scriptures too.
It would not matter if it were two women having sex or a woman and a man.

A man who lets say only got turned on by 3 year old girls; his thoughts though they are sick to me are not a sin. Acting on those thoughts would be the sin. If a person who admitted to their priest they are only sexually stimulated by a 3 year old would not be in trouble with the priest or be doomed to hell fire in the eyes of the church unless he acted on those thoughts.

I can see the problem, homosexual marriage is not legal but sex before marriage is sinful... that leaves an unfixable gab for homosexuals. I don’t know the answer to it. Funny thing is Male/Male homosexual acts are forbidden in scripture but there is no mention of Female/Female homosexual acts at all in scripture. Though I am sure its still meant to be wrong in scripture if you take it all in context.

You said that passing laws against people you don’t like is wrong. I don’t think people in California or any place passed the law because they did not like homosexual people, I think they passed the law because they believed that marriage was a union between a man and a woman and in most cases because of scripture.... they believe that union was given down by the Creator himself. It was more about original intent than against any one they didn’t like.

We pass laws against people we don’t like all the time, we don’t like thieves, child molesters, If people were actually allowed to vote on abortion they would not vote to stop abortion because they did not like pregnant women but because they felt the child who had no say needed a voice to speak up for them or because they felt it was wrong, you cant ask someone to condone what they feel is morally wrong just like they cant ask you to adopt their morals. Or at least both sides should not.

But again the Pope only speaks for Roman Catholics and half of that group doesn't really respect what the Pope says or thinks anyways so he doesn't have the power some seem to think he has.
 
Dawkinsrocks said:
No direct reference.
Click to expand...

Which hardly qualifies it as a "homophobic attack," no? :rolleyes:

Really now. Why should anyone care if some deluded, hypersensitive, self-entitled minority group perceives slights in a relatively mundane condemnation of the destructive power of attachmentless sex?
 
NO Obamanation said:
We pass laws against people we don’t like all the time, we don’t like thieves, child molesters, If people were actually allowed to vote on abortion they would not vote to stop abortion because they did not like pregnant women but because they felt the child who had no say needed a voice to speak up for them or because they felt it was wrong, you cant ask someone to condone what they feel is morally wrong just like they cant ask you to adopt their morals. Or at least both sides should not.
Click to expand...
I'm not asking anyone to adopt my morals, I'm asking them to stop persecuting us, denying us our Constitutional right to equal protection under the law. All consenting adults should be equal before the law, but ONLY gay people are singled out to be denied legal pair-bonding. Every one of the types of people that you listed above as having laws passed against them can still marry the person they love--the lowest, scum-sucking, drug-dealing, murderer can still get married in prison on death row, but gay people aren't good enough no matter what? Seems like hate, feels like hate, sounds like hate, not protection of marriage.

All the examples you gave have a level of inherent violence or coercion, homosexual pair-bonding does not. There are a lot of sins in the Bible listed as abominations right along with homosexuality, but which ones get laws passed against them? The Bible says that if you break one of the laws it is as if you have broken all of them, doesn't it?

I would believe your view that people don't hate gays (but just want to protect "marriage") if gays had not been persecuted by the Christrian religion for about the last 600 years, look at how many gays have been beaten to death, read the transcript of the trial of Joan of Arc and you'll see the same vitriol and invective being used today. They didn't burn her at the stake for her opinions on marriage.

No one owns a word, marriage has meant many things to many people down through history--including gay couples.
 
Pope Benedict XVI suggested that a blurring of the distinction between male and female could lead to the "self-destruction" of the human race.

His remarks were immediately denounced as "totally irresponsible and unacceptable in any shape or form" by Britain's Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement.

Its chief executive, the Rev Sharon Ferguson, said: "It is more the case that we need to be saved from his comments. It is comments like this that justify homophobic bullying that goes on in schools and it is comments like this that justify gay bashing."

The Rev Dr Giles Fraser, Vicar of Putney and president of Inclusive Church, the pro-gay Anglican movement, said: "I thought the Christmas angels said 'Fear not'. Instead, the Pope is spreading fear that gay people somehow threaten the planet and that's just absurd.

"As always, this sort of religious homophobia will be an alibi for all those who would do gay people harm. Can't he think of something better to say at Christmas?"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...ian-groups-accuse-Pope-of-spreading-fear.html
Click to expand...

Probably better if the old fella had tottered to the poduim, muttered the usual latin gibberish with a quick "Happy Christmas" and buggered off back inside for a cigars and brandy with God!
 
The Scotsman said:
............thinking about it you're probably right as the ancients were never that fussy about what and where they shoved various parts of their anatomy! Anyway what it was is irrelevent as the here and now is the issue.
Click to expand...

It's not irrelevant in that "tradition" and "thousands of years of history" arguments are being used to push the agenda against gay and transsexual people. I'm legally married and I have been for a long time, but our marriage will be taken away from us if the mad-barkers have their way--and for no reason, transsexuals are not even mentioned in the Bible. It's a birth defect, nothing more.

It took women centuries to gain the level of equality they now have, even in the US it was a terrible fight to change the laws so that women could own property in their own names. One of the reasons given for denying them the right of property was "protection of marriage"! The Christian church was foursquare against it because men would no longer be able to "control their wives". I intend to continue trying to educate people while I wait for the intransigent dinosaurs to die peacefully of old age.
 
SW85 said:
Which hardly qualifies it as a "homophobic attack," no?

Really now. Why should anyone care if some deluded, hypersensitive, self-entitled minority group perceives slights in a relatively mundane condemnation of the destructive power of attachmentless sex?
Click to expand...

Well at least you aren't judgmental and cite many authoratative sources to support your position.

Definition: Bigot--the lowest form of life on Earth, easily identified because they have a red-neck and no brain.
 
Mare Tranquillity said:
I'm not asking anyone to adopt my morals, I'm asking them to stop persecuting us, denying us our Constitutional right to equal protection under the law. All consenting adults should be equal before the law, but ONLY gay people are singled out to be denied legal pair-bonding. Every one of the types of people that you listed above as having laws passed against them can still marry the person they love--the lowest, scum-sucking, drug-dealing, murderer can still get married in prison on death row, but gay people aren't good enough no matter what? Seems like hate, feels like hate, sounds like hate, not protection of marriage.

All the examples you gave have a level of inherent violence or coercion, homosexual pair-bonding does not. There are a lot of sins in the Bible listed as abominations right along with homosexuality, but which ones get laws passed against them? The Bible says that if you break one of the laws it is as if you have broken all of them, doesn't it?

I would believe your view that people don't hate gays (but just want to protect "marriage") if gays had not been persecuted by the Christrian religion for about the last 600 years, look at how many gays have been beaten to death, read the transcript of the trial of Joan of Arc and you'll see the same vitriol and invective being used today. They didn't burn her at the stake for her opinions on marriage.

No one owns a word, marriage has meant many things to many people down through history--including gay couples.
Click to expand...

Well not exactly true that just homosexual couples cant marry.

A man and woman who are siblings cant marry either no matter how in love they are. So you are not the only "couples" who can not marry.

Polygamy is not legal either and that one is a clear violation of the constitution. 1st Ammendment says that the government can not deny or condone a religious belief, they deny polygamy and according to the reformation group of the mormons you can not get into thier version of heaven without plural wives. so in a sense the government forces them to (as they believe) go to hell or break the law and do secret marriages.

I personally think the law should be changes

anyone or anything can marry anyone or anything any time for any reason in groups or in singles period.

that would stop the bickering
 
NO Obamanation said:
Well not exactly true that just homosexual couples cant marry.

A man and woman who are siblings cant marry either no matter how in love they are. So you are not the only "couples" who can not marry.

Polygamy is not legal either and that one is a clear violation of the constitution. 1st Ammendment says that the government can not deny or condone a religious belief, they deny polygamy and according to the reformation group of the mormons you can not get into thier version of heaven without plural wives. so in a sense the government forces them to (as they believe) go to hell or break the law and do secret marriages.

I personally think the law should be changes

anyone or anything can marry anyone or anything any time for any reason in groups or in singles period.

that would stop the bickering
Click to expand...

Your analogies breakdown in that the laws about both plural marriage and incestuous marriage apply to all consenting adults--gay or straight, black or white, Christian or Jew, everybody is equal under these laws. Only gay people are singled out for discrimination based on sexual orientation. A few percent of our population denied legal marriage based on (not science) but only religious dogma.

I, too, think that people should be allowed to marry as they will, in groups or whatever. Incestuous relationships produce flawed offspring at a much higher rate than non-incestuous ones, the medical science behind this law is solid, since it applies to all equally I am willing to let it be.
 
SW85 - the allowance of the persecution of minority groups facillitates the rise to power of people like Adolph Hitler.

Just about everyone is in a minority group of one kind or another and your crass comment just show how little you know about the importance of human rights and those who have fought for them.

But then ity is xmas a time of peace on earth and good will to all men.

Except gays, blacks, Muslims etc etc eh SW85(IQ)?
 
Mare Tranquillity said:
Your analogies breakdown in that the laws about both plural marriage and incestuous marriage apply to all consenting adults--gay or straight, black or white, Christian or Jew, everybody is equal under these laws. Only gay people are singled out for discrimination based on sexual orientation. A few percent of our population denied legal marriage based on (not science) but only religious dogma.

I, too, think that people should be allowed to marry as they will, in groups or whatever. Incestuous relationships produce flawed offspring at a much higher rate than non-incestuous ones, the medical science behind this law is solid, since it applies to all equally I am willing to let it be.
Click to expand...

Polygamists are a group like homosexuals are a group and both are denied legal marriages. The only differnce I see is someone in polygamy can be arrested for doing it and someone homosexual will not be arrested. and one is under religous reason (suposedly protected under the constitution and the other is not.

but im with you it all should be legal. I would marry a few people I know to get them on my health insurance and one to save us from the death tax :)
 
NO Obamanation said:
The old Pope would have, this Pope takes things more seriously and isn't as soft hearted as John Paul.
Click to expand...

Maybe that's because Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) enrolled in the Hitler Youth at age 14. Yes, it was mandatory, but his time spent in such an organization seems to have left some nasty scars.

Isn't it interesting that both the Nazis and the Catholic Church have many things in common, such as the condemnation of homosexuality. Pope Benedict is and was comfortable in both worlds.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7576505/
 
Werbung:
Popeye said:
Maybe that's because Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) enrolled in the Hitler Youth at age 14. Yes, it was mandatory, but his time spent in such an organization seems to have left some nasty scars.

Isn't it interesting that both the Nazis and the Catholic Church have many things in common, such as the condemnation of homosexuality. Pope Benedict is and was comfortable in both worlds.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7576505/
Click to expand...

I personally dislike this Pope very much but I do respect that he is trying to get the RCC back to its roots.

I am not sure it is fair for anyone to say he liked being in hitlers youth or disliked it. actually since he was forced it safer to say he did not like it. You have a right to think he got jollys out of it I supose but it doesnt seem realistic to me, and I dont even like the man.
 
Back
Top