Vatican Starts Campaign Against Gay Marriage

[varun]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Vatican-Gay-Marriage.html?hp

VATICAN CITY (AP) -- The Vatican launched a global campaign against gay marriages Thursday, warning Catholic politicians that support of same-sex unions was ``gravely immoral'' and urging non-Catholics to join the offensive.

The Vatican's orthodoxy watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a 12-page set of guidelines with the approval of Pope John Paul II in a bid to stem the increase in laws granting legal rights to homosexual unions in Europe and North America...

:mad:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Hmmm

Let me see if I have this straight. The union of two loving people is gravely immoral and something should be done about it immediately. The molestation of hundreds of children is just a dirty little secret to be hushed up and forgotten until you are caught.

[RapidCreek]

2. A question for Catholics....

How on earth can you ascribe to a church which underwrites such hypocrisy and hate? What is your rational? I'd be very interested to know.

Rapid Creek

[chemenger]

11. As a Catholic, speaking only for myself

I separate the faith from the church. I am in complete disagreement with the Catholic Church on many (maybe even a majority of the) issues but I still believe in 90% of the tenets professed in the Nicene Creed. Admittedly though, it's that last paragraph that I take issue with.

No one faith has a monopoly on God or on the truth and I really think that the Vatican needs to get their damn priorities in order, especially in dealing with priest pedophiles.

And maybe they should consider returning all the loot that they've amassed over centuries of looting by the conquistadores, Jesuits, etc.

[Gman]

130. I agree 100%, As a Catholic that returned not long ago,

I am highly pissed about this. I wandered pretty far from the church because of what I saw as the hypocrisy of a church run by mere men. It's because of my own belief in the Nicene Creed that I decided that they were only men running the church and I ultimately returned. After all, even the Pope acknowledged the influence of mere mortal men when he apologized for the church's silence during the holocaust.

In the case of the church's position on gay marriage, I see this as nothing more than the right wing nuts, probably Opus Dei, using their connections within the church for political purposes. If the church would issue the same "mandates" for social justice and the death penalty to politicians that it does for abortion and gay marriage, maybe I could take the church seriously. However, until proven differently, I see this as nothing more than the Vatican jumping into a political fight in the U.S. at the behest of right wing nuts here.

[youngred]

22. because i don't ascribe to that

but I do respect the churches stance on the defense of life, social justice, and peace (among other things). I look at my affiliation with the church like I do my affiliation with the US. both have major major problems that need to be fixed, and though they don't often do what I'd like to see them do, it doesn't mean I don't work to change it

[RapidCreek]

25. OK

There is a difference, however. The US does not claim to speak for GOD....The Pope, who embodies all that is Catholic, does however. It seems to me that your logic resembles that of a Ford man who has always driven Chevys. Or a registered Democrat who has always voted Republican. Or a Natzi who is Jewish. Or a member of the KKK who is black. Or a member of the Arian Brotherhood who contributes to the NAACP.

Catholisism is not for you to change or define. The Pope determines what is Catholic, you do not. And what is Catholic, by your own words is not what you believe in. One can believe in and work for the defense of life, social justice and peace and not be a Catholic. So I have to ask again...why do you claim to belong to an organization which does not want your membership? Is it fear?

RC

[youngred]

31. Wow, a post that is offensive, rude, ignorant and narrow-minded

Those are some pretty nasty slams you're tossing around in that first paragraph. You asked for an explanation of why i remain Catholic then call me a traitor or hypocritical based on a half truth misrepresentation of Catholicism and your own inability to see that someone might not fit a stereotype. That's impressive!

The Pope does not represent all Catholicsm - Protestant misconception
The Pope does not speak for God - He is a representative of God on earth (note a, not The)

I am not a sheep, I follow my own spiritual, political and social path. I sometimes agree with organizations of which I am a part, and sometimes not, but I retain my right to think freely, criticize, and work to change those organizations. Catholicism is very definitely there for me to define and change, since by being a part of it I have some say in what it is. The pope is Catholic, Does Jesus not speak for catholicism because he wasn't a Pope or even a Christian? How about St Francis. He was never Pope, but surely he had nothing to say about what it was like to be Catholic. Oscar Romero and Mother Teresa knew nothing and couldn't tell you what a Catholic is because they weren't Pope.

Who says the Catholic Church doesn't want my membership? I happen to belong to an extremely liberal community of Catholics, who are very welcoming of my presence. The Priest dines at my house, I see my fellow parishoners every sunday at Mass, and they aren't burning to kick me out for not following the parts of catholic teaching they disagree with.

As for Fear, that's the most bullshit, and stupid response. What would I have to fear leaving the church. If I felt it came to a point where all the bad made the good unsalvagable I would leave. If it stopped helping me along my INDIVIDUAL spiritual path i would leave. however I feel the church can and needs to be changed and running away from it isn't going to accomplish anything.

Why do you feel the need to bash? Is it Fear?

[RapidCreek]

38. The words of your Pope are

offensive, rude, ignorant and narrow-minded. The Pope does not represent all Catholicism? Perhaps you should straighten him out on that then. The pope is the head of an ecumenical council; he presides over it either personally or through legates. Conciliar decrees and other actions have binding force only when confirmed and promulgated by him. An ecumenical council is not superior to a pope; hence, there is no appeal from a pope to a council.

Collectively, the bishops with the pope represent the whole Church. They do this not as democratic representatives of the faithful in a kind of church parliament, but as the successors of the Apostles with divinely given authority, care and responsibility over the whole Church.

Where does it say in the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" or any other ecclesiastical source that a Catholic is free to disagree with the pope on matters of conjugal union because his views on such issues are only "a matter of opinion"? Do tell.... Before you do, here is what the Pope has to say on such matters.

"It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today, do not adhere to the teaching of the Church on a number of questions; notably, sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage, some are reported as not accepting the Church’s clear position on abortion. It has also been noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective to their adherence to the Church’s moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a "good Catholic" and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the Bishops of the United States and elsewhere." Pope John Paul II 16 September 1987

It appears to me that the Pope is saying that you dissent from Church’s teachings dealing with faith or morals and that such dissent is, in virtue of itself, an obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. The Pope himself has described this as a grave error, i.e. a mortal sin which separates you from the salvation graces of Jesus Christ.

Dissent from the established and defined Magisterium of the Mother Church is a mortal sin. The Pope has deemed it a grave matter and you, by your own words have commited it with full knowledge and with deliberate consent.

RC

[youngred]

51. Just shows how truly little you understand of Catholic Dogma

And I really don't care to educate you, but you are misinterperting that. Trust me, i've been there with more members of the clergy than you can count.

[RapidCreek]

56. Uh huh...yea ok ,

You understand Catholic doctrine better than the Pope does. Gotcha, thanks for clearing that up for me. I wasn't aware I was so severely out gunned on this isseu. :)

Peace and Inner Harmony,

RC

[tedzbear]

63. Well, educate me then. I DON'T trust you...

...because Rapid Creek is giving you an excellent argument and you are evading it. Because of your dodge, I tend to see you as someone who is afraid of seeing the truth even if it is spelled out for you in capital letters. The pope obviously would excommunicate you for your personal Catholic ideology. Why can't you see that you are supporting an institution that is actually dismissive of you and your personal vision of your God? Your personal belief is actually anathema to the pope. Oh I get it. As long as you put money in the basket and don't confess to the bishop that you don't agree with him, then it's OK. That's precisely the gentleman's agreement that has got the church in so much hot water over the cover-up of their priests' sexual abuse, IMHO. Everybody agrees to look the other way as long as "the institution" survives.
You talk about changing the church. Ha! What have you done to confront the pope and the higher ups on the parts that you don't agree with? Or do you hide in your little parish and pretend that you actually have something to do with the real scheme of things?

I get so mad at people like you who are so pompous and contemptuous when you are confronted by some really life changing, frightening questions. You can dodge all you want, but it won't make me take your side by doing it.

Kudos to Rapid Creek for a smart and logical argument.
:kick:

[Liberator_Rev]

71. RapidCreek & Tedthebear have reason on their side.

It may not do much good where, YoungRed is concerned, because he has such misplaced and truly BLIND faith in his view of the church and his denial that it's the "unholy Fathers" who define what that faith is, not Christ and certainly not the powerless laity like himself.
See http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/PopesvsChrist for what this church TRUE track-record. Many of its members are good people, but that is not THANKS to its leadership, but IN SPITE OF IT !

[JNelson6563]

93. good to see you gettin' the plug in

for a Catholic who may be a bit discouraged right now.

Ok, here's the deal from an atheist (me) who was a devout Catholic for many, many years (and Catholicism actually has nothing to do with my atheism).

To the three of you who are talking to youngred right now, there is a lot to Catholicism you do not understand. You can read the Catechism all you like, hell commit it to memory, doesn't matter. The RCC is far reaching and made up of over a billion people. There are all shades of believers within its world.

I for one considered myself a good Catholic in spite of my pro-choice stance and my use of birth control. There isn't a priest that I spoke to over the years who said I was a bad Catholic or excommunicated. There are millions of what you might call cafeteria Catholics.

But wait! Let us not keep our lens so narrow as to not see the rest of Christendom! How many non-Catholic Christians are out there who do so much that their own church speaks out against? In fact, isn't it a good bunch of Christian fundies in power here in the US? Lies, murder, theft.......you name it, these Christians are doin' it. Does their church give the ok on that? Um, no (though certainly parts of the bible do).

The RCC spans from opus dei to Catholics for Women Priests and everything in between. It is like the Democratic Party. A broad mix. It is laughable to see this criticized when, you know for damn sure, if all Catholics marched in lockstep with their orders from Rome, well the criticism of mindless Rome drones would be intense.

Youngred, you owe these people no explanation of your faith and you certainly do not have to take abuse for it. (Also remember, many Christian denominations continue the time-honored tradition of hate mongering toward the RCC, stemming from the days they needed to establish their own legitimacy--old habits die hard friend)

Julie

[saskatoon]

116. Ok, here's the deal from an atheist (me) who was a devout Catholic for man

Your comment intrigued me to the extent that I would like to know why you became an atheist.Naturally, you might not wish to answer as being too personal and I respect that. My email is [e-mail] and would really appreciate hearing from you. Peace, saskatoon

[donco6]

82. No, he's not misinterpreting.

I grew up Catholic - went to parochial school, whole nine yards. Rapid Creek has made good points that deserve an answer.

BTW, when the Pope is speaking ex cathedra, he is THE voice of god on earth. Not "a".

[Rich Hunt]

43. so offensive

Never mind that the KKK has, in the past, targeted Catholic churches and Catholic immigrants. Never mind that anti-Catholic bigotry has hurt my grandparents and other ancestors of mine.

You know, I always sensed that there was a lot of anti-Catholic bigotry out there in the Protestant USA. I'm depressed to see it out in the open, but at the same time, I'm glad that my suspicions are confirmed.

It's a religion, it's not a political advocacy group or a terror group.

[RapidCreek]

55. What the hell does your post have to do with what I am saying?

What is with the "never mind" remarks? Would you care to elaborate? Bigotry? Who said anything about hating Catholics? I didn't and I don't believe anyone else in this thread did either. What I have a problem with is hypocrites and that point is made quite clearly in my post. If you are suggesting that hypocrisy is a necessary element of Catholicism, that sounds like your problem, not mine. Your wonderful Pope, the same guy covering up for pedophiles in his clergy, has issued a bigoted proclamation against homosexuals, the world over. When people call him on it they are anti-Catholic? If so, it follows then that Catholics who disagree with him are as well. This is exactly my point. How can a Catholic be anti-Catholic? You can't have it both ways. Don't attempt to re-frame my words in your own terms, put the back of your hand to your head and cry about something which was never said or inferred.

Catholicism is a religion and not a political advocacy group? What would you call your Popes direction of our Catholic Representatives to engineer bigoted legislation, which discriminates against law abiding, consenting adults, if not political advocacy? What do you call his forcible mandate to marginalize this segment of our society, if not terrorism?

Your in denial.


RC

[Rich Hunt]

75. Sorry, don't trust you

It's not "my" pope. I'm an ex-Catholic. But you, Ted the Bear, and the Liberator Rev are three of a kind, and you're all proof of how much ignorance and bigotry there is in Protestant America. If you were a Catholic, you would know that being a Catholic is much more complicated than what you read in the paper. Funny how liberal cultural sensitivity stops for a lot of you when it comes to Catholics.

Instead, you shrilly moralize about people who give money to the Church.

I know your game - you do this because it's gratifying to find someone to vent your anger on, not because it's fair and truthful.

You sound just like my Irish relatives when they say that all England is bad and that they hate the English. I know this game - you can't fool me. It's about ego and not about justice.

Spirituality is not something you can tear someone away from by making crude, shrill finger-pointing arguments. It's very important to people, it's a huge part of their identity and culture (and this includes gay and lesbian Catholics).

I've long suspected that anti-Catholic bigotry is alive and well in the Protestant US - thanks to the three of you for confirming it.

[tedzbear]

76. I do not appreciate your accusations of bigotry, smartypants!

Now you are accusing ME of being like the pope!

I have little faith in the Protestant institutions in America either. Very few of them are truly 100% supportive of Gay&Lesbian civil rights. You sound like a cry baby bitching about how put upon you Catholics are! Why don't you try being Gay, Lesbian, Bi, or Transgender and see what it's like living in this world? Let me tell you, it's a lot more dangerous than being Catholic! I have no sympathy for people who defend their institution's bigotry by accusing the victims of committing the same offense. I am not anti Catholic per say, I am pissed at anyone who defends or condones the official Catholic assault on civil rights for one and all. GLBT people deserve better than that.
:kick:

[Rich Hunt]

79. I'm not a Catholic

You don't know my religion, or my sexual orientation.

You also don't know what sort of difficulties I've faces in my life.

What I do know is that I wouldn't insult a Catholic priest who saved someone from drowning, as you have.

[tedzbear]

102. Now you are slandering me!!!!!!!!

What kind of intelligent debate is this? I NEVER insulted a Catholic priest! If you interpret it that way, it is on you, not me. Anyone who bothered to read my post could see I was sympathetic but understandably suspicious of the man's judgement. How is my saying "too bad someone had to die because of their negligence" and "thank God no children died" an insult???

Stop slandering people or I will report you to the mod.

[donco6]

83. I'm Catholic, and I agree with Rapid Creek and tedthebear.

They are making sound arguments with supporting text. No they are not being bigoted. Have you something of substance to offer to the discussion?

[Rich Hunt]

86. you're blind, then

Comparing people who adhere to a faith - which is not a "membership", but a bond that is not so easily dissolved, and which is deeply entwined with one's culture - to membership in the Nazis and the KKK is most deeply offensive.

My point was that some people here have families that were persecuted for being Catholic, so it's just not funny.

Also, get ready for the references to "your Pope" and, according to them, you are little better than someone in the Nazi party.

[donco6]

90. Hmm. I guess my experiences as a Catholic must pale . . .

. . . to yours, then.

My father studied at seminary - being the oldest boy in the family, that was expected. He was released when he decided to enter the Navy during WWII. My mother was a convert to Catholicism, which made her all the more zealous - perhaps to prove that she had, indeed, converted.

My grandfather was educated by the Jesuits. He and his 11 brothers and sisters were harassed daily by the rest of the residents of the small town he grew up in. His family came as Germans from Russia, and were despised - ghettoized in shantytowns they called "Russkyville."

For my part, it was a mere twist of fate that kept me from the seminary. As it turns out, I'm certain it was for the best.

Don't think to question my upbringing without facts. Name-calling really does not become you.

[RapidCreek]

91. I am not comparing Catholicism to Nazism or the KKK

and I think that is quite clear. I suggested that being a self described Catholic while willfully disobeying the edicts of the Pope is as hypocritical as being a self described Nazi and willfully disobeying the edicts of Hitler. Your suggestion that Catholicism describes a faith, not membership in a Church, is patently ludicrous. Do those who you speak for have two faiths then? If not, I would ask which is their faith, Christianity or Catholicism?

Indeed, some people do have families that were persecuted for being members of the Catholic Church, of which mine is one, that is not the isseu here, however. I agree hypocrisy is not funny. Niether is it inconsequential.

Your last sentence is unintelligible. What are you trying to say?

Rapid Creek

[Rich Hunt]

92. that is illogical

Your argument assumes that religion is, qualitatively, exactly the same as a political party.

Religion is a part of people's culture and identity. You don't join or leave at the drop of a hat. One's practice of a faith is not a "membership".

It's called "distinction".

"Membership" is...erm, well, it's a very PROTESTANT term.

You ought to remember that Catholicism worldwide is an integral part of people's cultures, and respect that. It is simply one way of practicing one's faith.

[tedzbear]

100. No, it's VERY logical.

"Religion is a part of people's culture and identity. You don't join or leave at the drop of a hat."

Why not?

Sometimes in life one has to take a stand. It's much much easier finding a new church in town than moving to a different nation. That, I have more sympathy for.
I'm sorry, but the Catholic Church and the pope are promoting bigotry and to choose to remain a member of that institution disqualifies one from being a liberal.

So there. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

[Rich Hunt]

128. does that include

...the nuns who have gone to prison demonstrating for peace? Gay and lesbian Catholics (including priests and nuns)?

You don't understand and you don't want to understand. The Catholic church is culturally different from many other churches. To simply walk away and leave, for many, is deny their heritage.

It's a shame you don't feel you have anything new to learn.

[JNelson6563]

95. from what I understand

most religions who speak out against homosexuality draw this conclusion from the bible. In all honesty I have spoken with a scholar who knows the origianl languages and insists that the passages attribted to the anti-homosexual teachings are actually incorrectly translated but that is neither here nor there at this point.

The point of it is that Rome is not alone. I'd wager that 99% of bible based religions are against homosexuality. The RCC is trying to become a bit more rudimentary in its thing, that whole back to the bible thing.

Let's face it, to single out the RCC on this matter is ridiculous. If you are basing teachings on the bible as all of Christendom does, well frankly, gross inequities are unavoidable. It is the nature of the superstitious, judgemental, patriarchal beast.

Julie

[cboy4]

44. Hate, hate, hate

That's an excellent question.

With all due respect to the Holy Father, he sounds no
different these days than those two insane, immoral
haters: Falwell and Robertson (I'm leaving out many more).

The Pope has spent more time and energy speaking out against
gay marriages and other ridiculous issues, than all of the
disgusting sexual abuse cases the church has, and continues
to cover up. There's no question about it and it's OUTRAGEOUS!!!

I struggle every day with my Catholicism because the times
I am in church (and they're getting fewer and fewer) all I
think about is being surrounded by Christian Republicans who, if
they knew I was gay, would feel I shouldn't be allowed to
be Catholic.

I don't know what to do.

[youngred]

50. Find a new parish?

I come from a very liberal parish in which Gays and Lesbians are openly welcomed, accepted for who they are and celebrated for it as well. It's not all the monolith of conservatism that its made out to be many at DU and in the US.

Don't forget the Pope also spoke very ill of the War in Iraq and as has been mentioned here and on the other threads about this at DU, is spending time discussing other things, just no one is talking about it.

I too am finding it harder and harder to stay Catholic when they talk like this, but I feel that it can be changed if enough people cared to stay and fight for it

[cboy4]

64. I'm glad that I'm not alone

in my frustration. Thank you for your advise. I live close to San Francisco, so researching other parish is a good idea. If only the Pope realized just how deeply hurtful his comments are about decent, hard-working, law abiding gay people! I can't imagine God would approve.

[tedzbear]

77. Your parish IS part of the problem, youngred!

Your so called "liberal" parish chooses to exist within the embrace of a bigoted institution, therefore you are condoning its official bigoted position. You are like the Germans who looked the other way while millions of Jews were systematically expunged. I'm sure those Germans didn't approve of the official German dogma either, but most of them sat back and let it happen.
You are being hypocritical as long as you choose to participate in an institution that is systematically assaulting the civil rights of Gay&Lesbian people. For me to trust or support your own personal faith, I would need to see you make an honest effort to make your Church leaders change their tune, or break away from the church yourself. Otherwise, I don't trust your sentiments anymore than I trust the pope's.
Sorry.
:kick:

[Rich Hunt]

80. please

You are a bigot.

Liberal parishes are trying to change the church.

Let's talk about your tax dollars. Are you a capitalist?

And the Nazi stuff is revolting.

You sound like Ian Paisely, but you don't know who that is.

[JNelson6563]

97. ted, do you know the main difference

between say Protestant Christian beliefs and Catholic beliefs? I am guessing you do not or you wouldn't be insisting a Catholic change his faith over some disagreements in dogma.

Hint: Seven Sacraments.

Julie

[tedzbear]

101. What the hell does that have to do with anything???

If you choose to remain a member of an institution and look the other way while it systematically persecutes a certain segment of society, then you are a bigot. It's that simple. Logical too.
:kick:

[JNelson6563]

103. apparently you are ignorant of

the differences then. Ok. Your attitude and simplistic black and white thinking also makes it apparent that to explain such things would be a waste of time and effort.

I'll put it to you nice and simple though, what a Catholic believes is not to be found in any other denomination. One that truly believes in those core issues cannot leave and feel "right" about it.

Julie

[tedzbear]

108. No excuse!!!!!!!!

Why not observe those beliefs on your own or create your own breakaway church? What you say is not a very good excuse for remaining in a bigoted institution. Obviously, you don't believe the persecution of minorities is a strong enough moral issue to make you alter your life. That's OK. But don't call yourself a liberal.

Check out these links. They can point you in the right direction if you REALLY do want to find a new church:

http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/ChurchvsGays &
http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/about/equality4gays.html

:kick:

[JNelson6563]

109. um, I'm an atheist

I see bigotry, narrow-mindedness, superstition and much else wrong with all religion so you bark up the wrong tree. I merely tried to explain the perspective of Catholics, having been there, done that.

But your loving patient post is a fine testimony to the other, good kind of Christian denominations there are. A fine witness you are for your faith. May all take note and learn......

Julie

[Liberator_Rev]

111. Ted, take a deep breath. Julie's on OUR side.

You and Julie are both sensitive Liberals. Julie hasn't been a Catholic in some time. She's a Secular Humanist now and was just trying to point out that you were wasting your time telling YoungRed to make "a lateral move" within Catholicism or even within Christianity. You just ASSUMED that she was arguing on behalf of YoungRed, with whom she disagrees even more than you do.

Personally, I wish YoungRed would recognize that we Liberals are on his side of Liberal Catholics who REALLY understand what is wrong with the Catholic Church. HE and his other DU Catholic defenders THINK they know, but show by their many defensive posts that they DON'T, and that they don't want to know, unless and until the Pope tells them so EX CATHEDRA.

[JNelson6563]

121. I think that folks who were never Catholic

do not seem to understand. The Pope generally does not figure into the daily life of Catholics. Ironically when the Pope spoke out against the Iraq war many here thought that was great and were even glad Rome spoke up.......

The key point though on the issue here is the core of Catholicism, the Sacraments--most notably, Communion. No other denomination has this, it is unique to Catholicism (i.e. Communion=transubstantiation). Why should they leave it?

It's like me for instance. I am an American. My country has committed atrocities (i.e. the pre-emptive strike on Iraq among many others) and is currently entertaining some pretty wretched policies. Should I leave? Should I renounce my citizenship? Or should I carry on my life in what I determine is the American way?

Julie

[tedzbear]

126. Still no excuse...

You don't HAVE to do Communion and the Sacraments from within the Pope's official institution. You can find a breakaway church or create your own, or figure out how to do Communion on a personal level with trusted friends. You keep making excuses for your fellows when I honestly don't see the difficulty in making the necessary change. If one believes in a truly loving God, that God will allow one to seek a relationship with him/her that does not include a bigoted church. If one worships a God that forces one to accept bigotry, well then, that's all fine and good too, but don't ask me to trust you as a friend. You and such a God are not truly loving to my mind.

I don't trust your arguments. They seem very calculated to defend people who are willingly participating in a bigoted institution. I don't see how you can be on my side. Sorry.

P.S. I agree that changing countries is much more difficult than changing your church. It's much, much harder to move to a new land than to go across the street to a new church. But some people do it and God bless them. They just show that where there's a will there's a way, and that right there sucks the air out of Julie's insistence that one HAS to stay in a church because of rituals. Funny that these rituals only "work" if administered under the pope's jurisdiction. How convenient. I don't buy it.

[JNelson6563]

129. Believe me

I'm not on your side. I could never be on the side of someone so closed-minded and judgemental. Believe me on this also, I could easily obliterate any argument you choose to put forth regarding your belief system, as you try to do with Catholics here, but this is not the time or place.

Besides it is more fun to watch you wallow in your own ignorance.

Julie

[donco6]

84. youngred, that's the same argument the . . .

Log Cabin Republicans use for staying in the Republican party. Would you agree that it's a good idea for gay people to encourage others to vote for Republicans, because "staying in the party is the best way to foment change?"

[Liberator_Rev]

88. Thank you, Cboy4, for all of your outstanding contributions to this

discussion. It's especially important that Catholics speak out, all the more so if they are GLB or T. You might find my http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/ChurchvsGays &
http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/about/equality4gays.html pages helpful.

[karlschneider]

107. Religion is the opiate of the masses. Run, don't walk, away.

To the extent that evil exists, it has been largely perpetuated by popes
over the last 20 centuries.
Don't believe me? Read up on their histories.

[Liberator_Rev]

112. Good advice, karl, but why not direct them to

http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/PopesvsChrist to make it easy for them to follow it immediately?

[karlschneider]

117. I should have done so. Had to take a quick charter, just got back.

:eyes:

[dArKeR]

94. Question 2: Did the priests speak in sermon not to child molest?

Did the priests speak in sermon that priests shouldn't molest little boys? Serious question. I haven't been to church in awhile and honestly wonder if the Vatican had/has a sermon campaign addressing priests who suck on little boys genitals?

And remember, this is going on 1000% more overseas to helpless boys and girls! God Bless the Pope!

[absolutezero]

99. I'm catholic

only in name, I've all but given up on the church, and all other organized religions. Too much dogma and corruption. These people read the bible with their eyes closed. and forget that it was written by monks in the 4th and 5th centuries.

I'm also pretty sure homosexuality is mentioned as an abomination, and mentioned with the other "Abominations" like eating pork and shellfish.

It's also a lessersin than breaking one of then commandments, which I will now recite:

"1) Thou shalt worship no other God. 2) Thou shalt make thee no molten gods. 3) The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. 4) Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest. 5) Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks. 6) Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the Lord God. 7) Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven. 8) Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left until the morning. 9) The first of the firstfruits of thy land shalt thou bring unto the house of the Lord thy God. 10) Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk."

[EFF BrandyWine]

113. I believe it's listed under The Purity Laws...

and I also believe it is the only place where it is mentioned and listed as an abomination. That would mean that since this act is an abomination, then ALL bible based relgious institutions must insist their congregations abide by ALL the Purity Laws as well. The prohibiton against eating rare meat, calves cooked in its mother's milk, {no cream sauces on meat, or eaten with meat,) fish bearing no scales is forbidden, a woman must be cleansed in a ritual bath after each menstrual period and before her wedding and no sex on the Sabbath.

This list of prohibitions is very long and a homosexual act is just one of the abominations. Now, would religious extremists consider bacon and shrimp equally as offensive to God as they do gay love?

:silly:

[Nlighten1]

3. Wouldn't it have been nice...

if they would have had a campaign to stamp out the child molesters in their churches?

[youngred]

23. Wouldn't it be nice

if people could stay on the issue at hand instead of bashing so broadly

[RapidCreek]

26. Bashing?

Where the hell do you get off accusing anyone of bashing? The leader of the organization to which to claim to belong is diseminating hate and intolerance for 2 of every ten Americans and attempting to polute our political process with it as well...I'd say that is pretty broad. Further I would suggest that signifigantly larger numbers of human beings have been damaged by priests raping children that gays getting married.

The isseu is that the Pope should invest is energies cleaning his own filthy home before he castigates the condition of anyone elses. When your Pope starts fucking with my life it's open season. You see I am not a Catholic and for Catholics to jam their shit down my throat is very damn offensive. VERY!!

RC

[youngred]

32. Read the post I was replying to

and tell me what on earth it has to do with the topic at hand. nothing. it is simply meant to tar the church for a very very large mistake. no mention of the churches positive stance is made, its just derogatory and mindless bashing.

Calm down, chill out and breathe.

I am Catholic and for atheists, protestants and others to bash the church when they don't know half of what is going on, or indeed anything other then their own prejudices and sterotypes. That to me is offensive, so I'm sorry but you cannot discriminate or bring a bigotry into this discussion.

I agree the pope should stay the fuck out of politics in this country. There is much much much to criticize in Catholic Dogma without resorting to the stupidity that the origial post I was replying to used and which you continue through your post

[donco6]

85. Facilitating pedophilia for decades a "mistake?"

Hmmm. I guess that's one way of looking at it.

Others may choose to see it as indicative of a morally bankrupt organization.

[Liberator_Rev]

87. Thank you, Donco, for all of your outstanding contributions to this

discussion. It's especially important that Catholics speak out, all the more so if they are GLB or T. You might find my http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/ChurchvsGays &
http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/about/equality4gays.html pages helpful.

[Democat]

4. If they lost their tax exempt status they would change their opinion

Maybe this will hurt the the church in their quest to make the EU constitution more religious.

Is it illegal in some European countries to campaign against civil rights for people just because they are gay? If you went after Jews like the church is going after gays, I would think you could be fined or punished in some way in some of the countries in Europe.

[RapidCreek]

6. Interesting point

I thought that maintanace of a tax exempt status precluded the organization recieving it...particularily churches, from engaging in political activity. This move by "the church" contitutes political activity beyond any doubt....it also comes dangerously close to breaching the seperation of church and state.

RC

[Cheswick2.0]

5. they have a right to think as they want

Their religious beliefs are their business. What bothers me is when the church goes after catholic politicians and tries to strong arm them.
You will notice that when the war with Iraq started the church was against it. However you will not see that used against catholic politicians in the coming campaigns. What you will see is democratic and pro-choice republicans being run against as bad Catholics and you will see those who are "soft on homosexuals" being campaigned against on that issue.

On the other hand, in a few weeks there will be a meeting at my church, of a group which is interested in expanding the rights of Gay and Lesbian members to serve as Clergy etc.....

[Merlin]

7. Once again Catholic Church right wingers are playing US politics

There's not a bit of doubt in my mind that this push is being engineered by the cabal of right wing, fascist, dried-up, octegenarian assholes who run the Vatican whenever the current pope permits them to. It is timed to coincide with an all-out offensive in the US against liberals and our doctrine of tolerance and liberty.

These Vatican bastards are the same group who have run roughshod over the teachings of Christ since the memory of man runneth not to the contrary.

When this pope dies, they will install another who is equally reactionary.

As a former Catholic, I feel it is high time for another Martin Luther to appear. The Vatican is out of control.

[Liberator_Rev]

96. Hope the next Luther isn't an anti-semitic "Paulist"

Right on, Merlin. But, as much as the Catholic Church needed reform, Martin Luther unfortunately kept the anti-semitism and amplified the predominance of Paul over Christ. (see http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/ForSalvation ).

So I hope the next great reformer is a "Liberal Like Christ". If you'd like to know what I mean, check out http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/Challenge .

[JNelson6563]

98. I hate to say it but AMEN!!!

Ah the ignorance it so blatant! To wish for the likes of Martin Luther to appear on the scene, well nothing like buying into popular myth!!

That guy was so hateful!! Little known fact apparently.

Spread the facts....they are enlightening.

Julie

[FlaGranny]

8. Catholics consider marriage

a sacrament. That's why the Pope is against same sex marriage. We need to get rid of the "marriage" label. I wonder if the Pope would start a campaign against civil contracts.

[MaineDem]

10. Exactly!

Let the Catholic Church, or any church for that matter, decide the requirements for receiving its blessing through the sacrament of marriage. I have no problem with that.

On the other hand, since the Catholic Church doesn't recognize civil weddings when it comes to being married "in the eyes of the church" how can they make this distinction now as far as same-sex unions?

And the timing just stinks! I'm overwhelmed by all the child molestation scandals. It's made my already shaky Catholic beliefs all the more tenuous. I knew some of those priests and we always knew they were "odd". How could the Bishops, Monsignors, etc. not see it? The fact that this whole scandal hasn't been handled well - or at ALL - by the men who run the Church and now they want to legislate this ban on same-sex unions pisses me off.

I know many gay couples who are in far more stable relationships that many traditional families. They should have the same LEGAL rights as other couples - inheritance, next-of-kin, etc.

I'm extremely disappointed that the Catholic Church is taking this stand when there are much more important issues for which people should be condemned.

[Merlin]

13. They deliberately don't want to get rid of the "Marriage" label.

Don't be fooled.

This is quite intentional. "Gay Marriage" is an easy target and an automatic slam against Democrats and liberals who--in the true spirit of Jesus--support the notion of tolerance.

They don't want to build a campaign against "gay civil unions". It doesn't have the political cajones that a campaign agains "Gay Marriage" has.

The Vatican is playing its role precisely on cue.

[Arlington]

20. this is the correct line of debate

marriage vs civil unions -- sort of like the recasting of late-term into "partial birth" abortions.

The point is, that for the most part, this is pure democrat-baiting -- GW and his ilk don't really give a royal shit about any of this as long as the dollars and votes continue to come in. They inject it into the debate to elicit predictable responses -- and they can never carry a presidential election without a good dose of single-issue Catholic votes.

[Merlin]

48. Amen

You've said it well.

[RapidCreek]

27. Bull...

I am not a Catholic....and when Catholics start trying to dictate how I live my life, they are treading on very dangerous ground. The Pope does not dictate to me what marriage is. Marriage to me is NOT a sacrament, I am an agnostic, on the atheistic side and I don't appreciate some hypocritical SOB who covers up for child rapists dictating to me what is right and wrong.



RC

[youngred]

33. Well marriage to the pope is a sacrament

so you two disagree, you have every right to demand your full rights, and he has a right to say what he believes (even if it is wrong).


but again with the bringing up of unrelated topics...one sounds like a freeper screaming about Nazis and bailing out the French because they didn't support the Iraq war when one cannot stick to the topic at hand.

[RapidCreek]

35. The topic at hand is

Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged. He has judged and is being judged himself. Yes, he certainly has a right to believe what he chooses....he does not have the right to inflict his hatred on me, nor does he have the right to pollute my countries political system with it and mandate intollerance via it's legislative branches.


RC

[youngred]

52. Nope

I was adressing a poster who was using this as a chance to take a cheap-shot. You barge in here acting the final judge and arbiter on things you barely understand.

The Pope is wrong, but that is no reason to attack others with so broad and stupid a brush

[varun]

9. Catholic countries are having same sex marriages...

latest to join is Argentina. France, parts of Italy and Spain, Brazil, Ecuador, have civil union like laws...

So who is the pope trying to influence? American protestants?

[Stuckinthebush]

12. Don't they have anything better to do?

Like...say...feed the hungry?

Clothe the poor?

House the downtroden?

Care for orphans?

Show love and compassion in all that they do?

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. They do that already

No institution is perfect. You take the good with the bad.

[Stuckinthebush]

16. Yes...but that is pretty bad

Perhaps they would be better served to concentrate more of their efforts on the positive things they do instead of the negative, hate filled things.

Just a suggestion.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bushisanidiot]

19. AMEN! my brother!

Get yer rosaries out of my ovaries! er.. something like that. :)

Nosey people need to mind their own damned business. Who am I harming by pledging my love and commitment to my S.O.??? WHO??

Maybe I'll send the pope an invitation to my commitment ceremony this October. I may also send one to AWOL and Pickles just to see if I get a response.. heh.. Bill & Hill, Dr. & Dr. Dean, Al & Tipper are getting invites. I'm hoping to get a letter of congrats from at least one of them to put in the album. :) :) I'll keep my fingers crossed.

[Liberator_Rev]

89. My congratulations, bushisanidiot !

I'm no celebrity, except perhaps here at DU, but I hope you hear from a great Democrat, and best wishes for a long, productive and happy Liberal life together !
Ray D., founder of http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org

[atreides1]

15. Hypocrites

What I find hypocritical about this is that the same Catholic lawmakers who went against the Vatican and voted for war in Iraq are
now going to use their religion to ban gay marriages.

Also it seems funny that the Catholic Church is against Gay marriages
but don't seem to mind child molestation.

I am a former Catholic, now an Episcopalian.

[IDUDOYOU]

18. The Vatican issues numerous statements all of the time

Recently, did you hear the one in which the Pope pleaded with Russia and the US to drastically reduce the number of arms exported around the world in order to reduce conflicts in many third world nations?
Recently, did you hear the one about nations implementing a true progressive tax system in each nation around the world?

Of course you did not.

Red herring, people on this issue people.
RWers are pushing this statement.

And the Pope has addressed all of the concerns people have mentioned before on this thread.

The Pope issues statements all of the time, 90% of which you probably never hear of but would agree with.

You people sound like freepers.
Base things on one issue and one statement.

And someone once said DUers were more enlightened than freepers.
Yeah, right.

[youngred]

24. they can be more enlightened

but they're also just people with their own prejudices, biases and ignorance. Its not many of their faults that they don't hear about the good thing the pope says, no one broadcasts that. If something happens and the media doesn't report it, did it really happen?

[dansolo]

60. The Pope said that the Iraq invasion was immoral, too.

n/t

[Bridget Burke]

21. Religious versus Civil marriage

In some countries (Mexico & France come to mind), civil marriage is the "legal" marriage. It usually occurs in a government office with a simple ceremony--witnesses, signatures, etc.

A religious marriage may follow, usually the same day. Or not.

The Church has the right to define the Sacrament of Marriage for Catholics. Some members of the Church will continue to try to change policies they consider wrong, without abandoning their faith. Good for them.

Too bad that Civil & Religious aspects of marriage aren't more separate in this country.

(Historical note: Ancient Ireland recognized numerous forms of marriage & divorce. Christianity came but did not interfere--marriage was still considered a contract. In the 12th Century, the Church wanted to increase its control on distant congregations. Nicholas Breakspear became Adrian IV--the only English pope. He gave the Anglo-Normans permission to "straighten out" the wild Irish. Much history followed.)

[cap]

28. Catholics are more "faith centered" than "clergy centered"...

this is one of the differences between us and the Protestants. Remember a lot of Catholicism derived from life-affirming pagan rituals. Today's tribulations with the clergy are nothing compared to the Middle Ages and the Spanish Inquisition. We go through bad periods and then reform periods. I am confident that eventually we will go through a bright and shining Vatican III. It just will take a long time. Our clergy are not the core of the faith -- even the Pope. Lots of Catholics have cheerfully ignored the clergy since the beginning of time.

[cap]

29. Catholics are more "faith centered" than "clergy centered"...

this is one of the differences between us and the Protestants. Remember a lot of Catholicism derived from life-affirming pagan rituals. Today's tribulations with the clergy are nothing compared to the Middle Ages and the Spanish Inquisition. We go through bad periods and then reform periods. I am confident that eventually we will go through a bright and shining Vatican III. It just will take a long time. Our clergy are not the core of the faith -- even the Pope. Lots of Catholics have cheerfully ignored the clergy since the beginning of time.

[Wonder]

30. Huh! What Happened to their Campaign Against Child Molesting Priests?

:shrug:

[youngred]

34. multi-tasking

one can take care of more than one issue at a time

[Betty]

36. I would suggest they multitask

in the following way:

Clean up your own house first. (re: abusive priests)

Then tell all Catholics that if they want to be married IN THE CHURCH, that will mean one man to one woman... (I also think it means both parties must be Catholic, but I am not sure about that. Please correct me if I am wrong.)

Don't tell all non-Catholics what to do, and don't expect secular governments to force non-Catholics to live under Vatican rules.

[Rich Hunt]

45. what irony....

I've been living under Protestant values my whole life, which are NOTHING like the more communal, compassionate values of my grandparents.

I have no regard whatsoever for the elitists in the Vatican, HOWEVER...

The dominant assimilationist culture in the U.S. is an Anglo-Saxon Protestant one, so it feels like a cruel joke to hear that the "papists" are a threat to anyone's well-being here:

http://www.euroamerican.org/

[Wonder]

46. Yes I see what you mean there!

!

[youngred]

53. Where ANYWHERE

did I say i wanted to rule what Non-Catholics do?

The poster said Shouldn't they be adressing priest scandals, which they are.

I think the church should butt out of this, but I also feel its unecessary to take pot-shots. I would be pushing for Gay and Lesbian marriage within the church, and through the secular government.

[Betty]

58. Where did I say

that YOU wanted to rule what non Catholics what to do? I said that the Catholic Church should not expect secular governments to enforce their rules on non Catholics. It has nothing to do with you personally.

[Rhiannon12866]

123. It depends on the priest

Some are more liberal than others, these days, in agreeing to marry couples in which one is not Catholic.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

37. "join the offensive"...

There's an interesting choice of words. How apropos!

[SharonAnn]

39. With all the really serious problems in the world, they're focusing

their energy on this?

Geeez!

[PROGRESSIVE1]

40. "Vactican Starts Campaign against Gay Marriage"

and for pediophile periests. The church has shamefully been hypocritical on this issue.

[bicentennial_baby]

41. Why hypocritical?

The vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual.

[IndianaGreen]

42. The issue is equality before the law, not what any religion says!

The issue is how to give people equal rights. Giving whites rights that blacks don't have was very much part of our society. Religious leaders would even point to Bible passages to justify bans on interracial marriage, segregation, and slavery.

Here is Howard Dean's very moderate position on LGTB issues, followed by the 2000 Green Party position (which mirrors Dean's position on civil unions).

The Marxist-Leninist position is that religion is a private matter, but that the state must remain atheist which simply means that sectarian orthodoxy must never be allowed to be translated into public policy. IOW, keep the bigotry within the churches and out of the law!

Equal Rights for All

I’m proud to say that as Governor of Vermont, I signed legislation to grant homosexual couples the right to enter into civil unions. This law, the first of its kind in the United States, guarantees lesbian and gay couples the same basic legal rights that married couples enjoy – the right to inherit property, obtain child custody, visit a partner in the hospital and control a partner’s affairs upon death.


The Republican Party seems eager to run against me because of my role in enactment of this historic law. I welcome that debate -- I can’t wait to ask the President of the United States why he doesn’t support equal rights. I can’t wait to ask him to repudiate the GOP-authored Defense of Marriage Act, an unconstitutional, mean-spirited law that stoked fears of homosexuality and pitted one group of Americans against another.


I’m tired of being divided. America is better than that. In this election, I promise that when Republicans pander to our lowest fears, I will fight back by speaking to our highest aspirations. I will offer the American people the chance to choose hope instead of fear, community instead of division, healing instead of hatred.

I’d like to tell you about my vision for an America that includes every one of us. As President I would:

Work to ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars employment discrimination based on race, religion, sex and national origin. But nothing in federal law prevents an employer from discharging or refusing to hire someone because he or she is gay. I will fight for enactment of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to remedy this gap in federal law.

Strengthen federal protections against anti-gay violence. The murder of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming was not an isolated incident but part of persistent anti-gay violence in the United States. I support enactment of the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act to help states investigate and prosecute bias crimes and to add “sexual orientation” to the list of protected categories in the federal hate crimes statute.

Give federal employees the right to name same-sex partners as beneficiaries. Major U.S. corporations such as Boeing, Ford Motor Co. and AOL-Time Warner have adopted human resources policies to allow employees to designate a domestic partner as a beneficiary of health and other employment benefits. The federal government should do the same.

End bias in the immigration laws. Current law authorizes family members of U.S. citizens and permanent residents to obtain immigrant visas, but the Immigration and Nationality Act's definition of family does not include same-sex partners. I support enactment of the Permanent Partners Immigration Act (H.R. 832) to add the term "permanent partner" to the statutory list of family members eligible to obtain immigrant visas.

End the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy. Last November several Arabic and Korean linguists from the Army's Defense Language Institute were discharged for being gay despite the critical need for qualified linguists in the war on terror. That was wrong. As president, I will offer gay and lesbian soldiers the opportunity to serve our country openly.

Ensure access to affordable health care, including AIDS/HIV Services. My health care proposal ensures that all Americans would have access to affordable health insurance. This would be a major step forward for individuals suffering from AIDS, many of whom lack coverage despite the need for costly life-saving interventions. I also support increased funding for public health programs like the Ryan White CARE Act.

As President I will fight for the civil rights for all Americans – and that includes lesbian and gay Americans.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_civilrights_equalrightsforall

Equality by sexual orientation, including gay marriage

We affirm the right to openly embrace SEXUAL ORIENTATION in the intimate choice of who we love.

We support the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people in housing, jobs, civil marriage and benefits, child custody - and in all areas of life, the right to be treated equally with all other people.

Source: Green Party Platform, at 2000 National Convention Jun 25, 2000

http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Green_Party_Civil_Rights.htm

For more information on the Socialist position on religion:

Socialism and Religion (1905)
V.I. Lenin

Religion is one of the forms of spiritual oppression which everywhere weighs down heavily upon the masses of the people, over burdened by their perpetual work for others, by want and isolation. Impotence of the exploited classes in their struggle against the exploiters just as inevitably gives rise to the belief in a better life after death as impotence of the savage in his battle with nature gives rise to belief in gods, devils, miracles, and the like. Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward. But those who live by the labor of others are taught by religion to practice charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven. Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man.

But a slave who has become conscious of his slavery and has risen to struggle for his emancipation has already half ceased to be a slave. The modern class-conscious worker, reared by large-scale factory industry and enlightened by urban life, contemptuously casts aside religious prejudices, leaves heaven to the priests and bourgeois bigots, and tries to win a better life for himself here on earth. The proletariat of today takes the side of socialism, which enlists science in the battle against the fog of religion, and frees the workers from their belief in life after death by welding them together to fight in the present for a better life on earth.

Religion must be declared a private affair. In these words socialists usually express their attitude towards religion. But the meaning of these words should be accurately defined to prevent any misunderstanding. We demand that religion be held a private affair so far as the state is concerned. But by no means can we consider religion a private affair so far as our Party is concerned. Religion must be of no concern to the state, and religious societies must have no connection with governmental authority. Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule. Discrimination among citizens on account of their religious convictions is wholly intolerable. Even the bare mention of a citizen's religion in official documents should unquestionably be eliminated. No subsidies should be granted to the established church nor state allowances made to ecclesiastical and religious societies. These should become absolutely free associations of like minded citizens, associations independent of the state. Only the complete fulfillment of these demands can put an end to the shameful and accursed past when the church lived in feudal dependence on the state, and Russian citizens lived in feudal dependence on the established church, when medieval, inquisitorial laws (to this day remaining in our criminal codes and on our statute-books) were in existence and were applied, persecuting men for their belief or disbelief, violating men's consciences, and linking cosy government jobs and government-derived incomes with the dispensation of this or that dope by the established church. Complete separation of Church and State is what the socialist proletariat demands of the modern state and the modern church.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm

[dback]

47. DId anyone see Star Jones on "The View" today on this?

She was great. "You know, the Vatican couldn't get its act together and speak out against child sexual abuse all these years, but THIS gets them worked up?" Vigorous audience applause.

[Duncan Grant]

49. 2 words...

Remember Galileo?

>>It was a sad end for so great a man to die condemned of heresy. His will indicated that he wished to be buried beside his father in the family tomb in the Basilica of Santa Croce but his relatives feared, quite rightly, that this would provoke opposition from the Church. His body was concealed and only placed in a fine tomb in the church in 1737 by the civil authorities against the wishes of many in the Church. On 31 October 1992, 350 years after Galileo's death, Pope John Paul II gave an address on behalf of the Catholic Church in which he admitted that errors had been made by the theological advisors in the case of Galileo. He declared the Galileo case closed, but he did not admit that the Church was wrong to convict Galileo on a charge of heresy because of his belief that the Earth rotates round the sun. <<

http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Galileo.html

I'm certain the church is as wrong on this issue as they were about the sun revolving around the earth. JPII's announcements won't be the last word on this. Hopefully, we won't have to wait as long as Galileo for justice.

[Voltaire99]

61. Two more words: Nice post

A timely reminder, thanks.

It's a shame, in one respect, that the Pope's life draws to an end on this note of ignorance and malice. He is an otherwise intelligent, moral man. Misguided on sexual matters and pompous as any male who wishes to govern women's bodies, to be sure. But also a man who has opposed war valiantly and sought to rein in the violence of capitalism.

But as with the case of Galileo--today a symbol of the many denigrated through the ages when religious zeal becomes wickedness--our sympathies turn to the oppressed, not the oppressor.

JPII's pronouncement takes us one step further from justice and toward the abyss of theocracy. I wonder, often now, whether the world has the strength to resist going over the edge.

[RaRa]

54. The Pope has Zero credibility

The Catholic church has practically condoned abusing children (at least by their priests). The Pope, being its leader has done NOTHING about this. As a mother,- hell, as a human being this makes my skin crawl. So who the F***K does he think he is pushing this intolerant garbage? Ok, I'll accept his refusal to accept gay marriages based on his religious interpretations, but this new public assault is absolute bulllshit.

I'm so glad I found a sane church, the United Church of Christ. It's the only mainstream Protestant church (that I know of) that will conduct gay marriages. One of my pastors married his partner in our church. I wish I knew WHY married folks felt that their marriages would be so threatened or cheapened if gays could have legal unions. Because I really think this hysteria about gay unions has straight folks feeling really insecure. Perhaps they don't want to encourage monogomy in the gay community? Must be.

[Muddleoftheroad]

57. Only

Only when you disagree with him.

[young_at_heart]

59. Can't the scientists tell them it's biological?

There must be a few Catholic people who study scientific journals, etc.

[Muddleoftheroad]

65. Telling

I'm not sure anyone is 100% sure about that. Nurture or nature. Good question or possibly both.

[Liberator_Rev]

74. Popes don't care what SCIENTISTS say.

Young_at-heart,
When you say,
"Can't the scientists tell them it's biological? . . . There must be a few Catholic people who study scientific journals, etc.",
you're assuming that Catholics who have scientific knowledge should be able to influence the Pope. Here's an excerpt from my web site, which shows how utterly baseless the claims of "the Holy Fathers" of the Catholic Church are:
"After Galileo gave one of his newly invented microscopes to his friend, Pope Urban, and the pope had marvelled at a world he had never known existed, the pope said to Galileo concerning the new book Galileo had just published about how the sun, rather than the earth is the fixed center of our universe: 'You may have irrefutable proof of the earth's motion (around the sun).  That does not prove the earth actually moves. . .  God is above human reason and what seems perfectly reasonable to men may prove folly to God.' Urban went on to say that he, as pope, was responsible for the salvation of souls.  Sometimes scientific discussion imperilled souls.  The Copernican system, unless taken as a pure mathematical device, might cast doubt on Scriptures.  Should that happened, he would have to take steps to stamp it out.
        Because the pope had read in the bible that the sun "comes up" and "goes down", the pope knew that Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo (and any number of other scientists) couldn't be right about the earth revolving around the sun, instead of the other way around.See much, much MORE at http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/PopesvsChrist

[JNelson6563]

104. um, Rev, not to rain on your holy parade

or anything but I am afraid that ALL of religion has its problems with science. To see you joining in this gang bang against Catholicism is sad.

Julie

[Liberator_Rev]

120. Julie, who's joining?

I'm sure that the defenders of the papacy around here will correct you and tell you that if anyone is LEADING in this "gang bang", it is I. But if you pay attention, you will discover that I, at least, keep insisting that my complaints are not "against Catholicism" but specifically "against the papacy" (and those who represent and/or defend the papacy". Now when the defenders of the papacy can't deny the truth of my charges, even THEY will tell you that there is a big difference between the hierarchy and "Catholicism".

Now if your reference to "gang banging" is supposed to shame me, may I ask you why a little old penniless individual like me should be ashamed to take on the leader of a billion member organization with trillions of dollars in his treasury and thousands of institutions all over the world to do his bidding, including one a stone's throw from my house????


As for your claim "that ALL of religion has its problems with science," if THAT's your idea of a statement that a person with a scientific background would make, then you had better ask for a refund on your science classes. What competence do you have to pontificate about EVERY religion, and ALL science?

IMHO there are THOUSANDS of scientists who don't feel there is any problem with their faith and their profession.

[JNelson6563]

122. Interesting

I wanted to reply to what you say:

I'm sure that the defenders of the papacy around here will correct you and tell you that if anyone is LEADING in this "gang bang", it is I. But if you pay attention, you will discover that I, at least, keep insisting that my complaints are not "against Catholicism" but specifically "against the papacy" (and those who represent and/or defend the papacy". Now when the defenders of the papacy can't deny the truth of my charges, even THEY will tell you that there is a big difference between the hierarchy and "Catholicism".

It seems to me you try to infer there is a willful blindness involved in Catholicism that I charge is present in all believers. Why you feel theirs is worse than yours I do not understand.

Now if your reference to "gang banging" is supposed to shame me,

It's not to shame you, it is merely a statement of my perspective. I find it ironic and distasteful to see so many "Christians" bashing Catholicism and to see you jumping in, well it's counter-intuitive to the more positive impression I have of you genreally. It smacks of the old Catholic-hate-mongering routine that is so very old and tiresome in the rest of Christendom. So my-god-is-better-than-your-god sort of behavior with hints of self-righteousness sprinkled in.

may I ask you why a little old penniless individual like me should be ashamed to take on the leader of a billion member organization with trillions of dollars in his treasury and thousands of institutions all over the world to do his bidding, including one a stone's throw from my house????

Um, Rev? I like you a whole lot better when you aren't draggin' your cross about the board, k? Spare me the dramatic portrait of your imagined martyrdom....taking on "the leader of a billion member organization" my eye. You are joining a chorus of critical voices on Catholicism on an anonymous DB, let's not lose touch with reality here. This isn't a theology discussion afterall.

As for your claim "that ALL of religion has its problems with science," if THAT's your idea of a statement that a person with a scientific background would make, then you had better ask for a refund on your science classes. What competence do you have to pontificate about EVERY religion, and ALL science?

Oh I will spare you any pontificating, how about you share with me all the religions that have accepted the evidence of evolution for instance. Tell me all about the religions who are always adjusting doctrine to better suit the new scientific discoveries. Once those are even established as existing I suppose we could move forward. You made the initial assertion, you carry the burden.

IMHO there are THOUSANDS of scientists who don't feel there is any problem with their faith and their profession.

Yes, like those desperate souls who work tirelessly to make incredible leaps of logic to establish the Intelligent Design theory in order to make some sense of the growing piles of scientific evidence regarding evolution. It's not really evolution that way is it? Nope, they try to make science fit their beliefs. If you call that accepting, well by golly we apply different meanings to the word then friend.

Julie

[IndianaGreen]

62. Vatican also opposes hetero cohabitation

"In no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such," the January document said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10811-2003Jul31.html

Vatican also opposes hetero cohabitation as it does any marriage that does not lead to children.

So much for couples no longer in their child bearing years.

At the bottom lies the belief that women's roles is to produce children. This is not a belief unique to Catholicism, and it is unfair to characterize it as such.

We need to look no further to the Gospel of Matthew in which an unknowingly pregnant Mary gets a visit from an angel and she is told that she has been impregnated by God.

We all read this story without realizing that among its elements one has the rape of Mary by a Deity who impregnates her without her previous consent. Had that been a man who had done that, under our legal system, he would have been arrested and charged with rape.

This is the problem with basing public policy on religious beliefs. What may seem to the believer a story about Mary's submission to God, to the non-believer it is a story of rape and forced impregnation of a young impressionable woman.

[Aaron]

67. Ty for the good insight IG

[Liberator_Rev]

131. What problems do mainstream Protestants have with Science?

If you are aware of problems that mainstream Protestants have with Science, I'd like to know about them. The problems are usually with the Conservative branches of any faith, not with the Liberal branches.

[cboy4]

66. You guys are great!

What a bunch of wonderful posts!!! You've cheered me up,
at least today. I should forward
them to the Vatican to demonstrate how true Christians
should act (with all due respect to those of you who
posted and are not Catholic). :loveya:

[whirlygigspin]

68. I'll say this slowly

Civil Unions=secular (not a religious issue)
Marriage=religious (not a secular issue)

*remember seperation of church & state?
That's the whole point.

hello?

[OldEurope]

69. what makes me really angry, is this:

in these papers they do not only say, that gay marriage should not be allowed, they say, every sexual contact that is not hetero, is a terrible sin.
AND:
If a child would be allowed to live with gay persons (adoption), this would be
" an act of violence to the child"
sorry, only have a German link:
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/ausland/artikel/548/15533/

How dare they say such things?



:grr:

[IndianaGreen]

70. It also means that a child should not live with a parent that is gay

I can only deduce that the Vatican would also oppose granting custody of the children to a divorced parent that is gay.

Religion is a bad template for public policy, and I mean any religion!

[Merlin]

72. This has way more to do with US politics than with Church policy.

The timing of this thing, and its simultaneity with US reactionary campaigns against "Gay Marriage" and the fact that gay marriages are not the real issue--Civil Unions are the issue--all indicate very clearly that this is a trumped up campaign by the Vatican. Its goal is to create a straw man (Gay Marriage) which they can villify.

It's what Nixon used to do. Exaggerate the opposition's intentions, then demonize them.

The fact is, there is no serious effort in this country to promote gay marriages, and everybody knows that. There is a serious effort to promote civil unions, and they don't want the debate to be about something so reasonable and otherwise acceptable to most Americans. The want to focus the public discourse in a way that allows them to use liberals as whipping boys. They want to do it in a way that gives demagogues like Limbo and Coulter some raw meat to bloviate about.

The right wingers in the Vatican (and that includes nearly every Cardinal, and most of the operatives) are launching this in coordination with Karl Rove's efforts to get Bush lying and Iraq off the front page, and as a "make-good" for the Pope's recent outspokenness against the war.

[dusty64]

73. The fact that this organization

is working SO hard to keep segments of society from achieving equality at the very less demands an end to their cushy tax exempt status.

[tedzbear]

78. Right on!

That sure would help the California budget crisis, wouldn't it??

:kick:

[Rich Hunt]

81. Catholic schools

Catholic schools educate a lot of poor children, like me, who would not have made it to college if I had attended the local underfunded public school.

It's okay to starve American children and neglect their education, it's okay to bomb Arabs and Muslims.

Until you can prove that you give a damn about these things, you're a hypocrite.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

105. And Children should start a campaign against Pediophile Priests!

.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Liberator_Rev]

110. I don't approve of post !06 by karlschneider

Just for the record. I've just alerted the moderators re: this post and want Catholics to know that I don't want to be associated with such posts. Here's the wording of my alert:
" Although I believe the public needs to know a lot about the popes which shows that they haven't earned anywhere near the level of respect they are getting, I don't think posts such as this one should be tolerated at DU. ... Liberator_Rev "

[karlschneider]

118. And you needed to make your complaint public because..............????

:grr:

[Liberator_Rev]

119. To show the contrast between what I am accused of doing and

the real thing.

[Voltaire99]

114. The coming theocracy: why religious tolerance is overrated

Yes, before we get started, I love the First Amendment for more than just its promise of a free press. I support the right of the superstitious everywhere to pray, churchify, hobgoblin their children, tithe, handle snakes, play Bingo, drink blood, help the poor, bless weapons, wear weird clothing, commune with the dead, skip out on taxes. You name it, I probably don't mind them doing it; and not minding (which is not the same as not disliking) is the first condition of pluralism.

But when you preach hatred with political intent--as the Pope is doing now--then Buster, your ass is grass in my book.

It's easy to see where our radical fundamentalists can undermine pluralism, so essential to the vitality of democracy. Whether in the long campaign to re-inflict prayer and Bible reading in schools or the ongoing redaction of text books by the super-organized and super-powerful national censors in Texas, the effects are pernicious. Difference is reduced to an approved sameness. Authority shifts from the public to the pulpit. In the worst scenario, the welcome mat is laid out for Talibanism. Apart from the matter of reproductive rights it has been somewhat less clear where matters lay with the Catholic Church; but the view is muddied no longer.

The problem we face isn't exactly the traditional one of how to protect a minority's right to their private fantasies while simultaneously safeguarding democratic rights and processes, not to mention increasing those rights (as gay marriage would, correctly, do). The problem we face is much worse: how do we sustain democracy in the face of evidence that vast numbers of Americans willingly surrender to theocratic rule? The faith-based wars of the Bushmen, as well as their leader's famous one-on-ones with the Big General in the sky, raise sharply worrisome doubts about the ability of the people to resist supplanting secular rule with shamanism.

It's pretty remarkable and splendid really that given our Puritan ancestry we got as far as we did. Will we get further, or go backwards? Is Falwellism, and now John Paul IIism, the future of America? What kind of democracy is it when churches cast ballots for their followers?

For those interested I recommend this piece by the superb (and, obviously, pseudonymous) Gaius Publius on the nature of the peril and its relevance to the 2004 elections. Be warned; it's not for the weak of heart:

http://www.counterpunch.org/publius07152003.html

[tedzbear]

127. Thank you for an excellent post.

I put you in my buddy list.
It's so true. The Bush-Christian right in America is really the same as the Taliban: "Do as I say or else!"
:kick:



(Oops, I'm not a donor.)

[aquart]

115. Commitment between consenting adults is immoral.

But molesting children is just the price of doing business.

For my Catholic friend, Dennis, who only asked that the Pope die first and didn't even get that, I say WHERE DOES THAT SENILE CELIBATE GET HIS BLOODY FUCKING NERVE?

This planet may have never known a man as decent and innately good and generous as Dennis, who was completely rejected and betrayed by his Church.

As were so many children.

May the hypocrisy the Pope preaches rot his mouth.

[LiberalFighter]

124. Mistake #1

Recognizing the Vatican the same as a country.

[LiberalFighter]

125. The same goes for recognizing...

Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell by including them in political events.