Catholic politicians must oppose gay marriage: Pope says

[U2Girl1978]

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Church's opposition to gay marriage is "non-negotiable" and Catholic politicians have a moral duty to oppose it, as well as laws on abortion and euthanasia, Pope Benedict said in a document issued on Tuesday.

In a 140-page booklet on the workings of a synod that took place at the
Vatican in 2005 on the theme of the Eucharist, the 79-year-old German Pope also re-affirmed the Catholic rule of celibacy for priests.

In the "Apostolic Exhortation" Benedict said all believers had to defend what he called fundamental values but that the duty was "especially incumbent" on those in positions of power.

He said such values included "respect for human life, its defense from conception to natural death, the family built on marriage between a man and a woman, the freedom to educate one's children and the promotion of the common good in all its forms."

"These values are not negotiable," he said.

"Consequently, Catholic politicians and legislators, conscious of their grave responsibility before society, must feel particularly bound, on the basis of a properly formed conscience, to introduce laws inspired by values grounded in human nature," he said.

Gay marriage is legal in several European countries, including predominantly Catholic Spain, and Italy is severely divided over the issue of whether to give more rights to unmarried couples, including homosexuals.

Italian politicians from the right and center praised the pope but leftists criticized him.

Franco Grillini, a homosexual parliamentarian and leading gay rights activist, accused the Pope of launching a "moralistic dictatorship based on the fear of sex." Leftist Senator Rina Gagliardi called it "improper interference" in Italy's affairs.

The Pope's words were also applicable to countries like the United States, where some Catholic politicians have said they are opposed to abortion but feel bound to support pro-choice legislation because they represent many people.

In the 2004 U.S. presidential campaign, when Democratic candidate
John Kerry, a Catholic, supported abortion rights.

The Pope implied local bishops could not turn a blind eye to such politicians. "Bishops are bound to reaffirm constantly these values as part of their responsibility to the flock entrusted to them," he wrote.

Some bishops in the United States have refused to give communion to Catholic politicians who back abortion rights.

The Pope also reaffirmed the Church's law on celibacy in an all male-priesthood, calling it "a priceless treasure."

Liberal Catholic groups have called for celibacy to become optional for priests in the Catholic Church, saying this would help ease the shortage of priests in many areas.

Benedict re-affirmed that Catholics who divorce and remarry cannot receive communion. The Church does not recognize divorce.

In another section, Benedict lamented that many Catholic priests did not know Latin, the official language of the Church.

He said Latin should be used in parts of large open-air masses held at international gatherings "to express more clearly the unity and universality of the Church."

He said he wanted to see more Latin and more Gregorian chant used in Church services.

"Certainly, as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070313/tv_nm/pope_dc;_ylt=AkiNPX170ZD50Ml5S5L3e4FxFb8C

 

[martha]

This certainly can't be a surprise to anyone.

 

[U2Girl1978]

No not really. It makes my blood boil.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Do they always have to mention that he is German

 

[redhotswami]

what the hell "common good" is he trying to promote? everything in that article pissed me off.

 

[indra]

Does anyone really pay attention to him though? Not just the Pope, but any of these religious head honchos.

I guess people do, but I've never understood why.

 

[redhotswami]

Does anyone really pay attention to him though? Not just the Pope, but any of these religious head honchos.

I guess people do, but I've never understood why.

good point. i tend to equate him with the president: i didn't vote for him, i don't agree with him.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Well I suppose that the Catholic church can say what it wants, but if I was a Catholic politician who sincerely differed from the, er, Holy Father, I'd just say so. Deny me communion? Fine, lose your tax-exempt status.

Excommunicate me? Fine, I'll deport you and seize your assets, all of them, and disperse them to the poor.

Good thing I'm not a politician.

The Catholic Church, because of its great age, has a unique problem among Christianity. It believes that its tradition is as valid as the written teachings of Jesus, as best they can be gleaned. A lot of its traditions are a product of its medieval heyday, when (if I can float into the ether for a moment) it became the Moreton Bay fig to the rotted husk (a pine, perhaps) that used to be the Roman Empire.

 

[anitram]

I don't even know Catholic people who listen to the Pope, much less anyone else.

My mother thinks I'll get excommunicated some day because I've expressed a strong desire and plan to do pro bono work in the area of legalizing euthanasia. I don't think she's kidding either.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Oh yes, euthanasia really is something I' a strong supporter for.

Only problem here in Germany, either the church says it's wrong or some moralists come and say: "But remember what the nazis did!"

 

[Angela Harlem]

I don't even know Catholic people who listen to the Pope, much less anyone else.

The CCLS shows the problem is him not listening to the people. But if he doesn't care what 160,000 deserters say, then why should people listen to him? It must be frustrating for catholics.

 

[Ormus]

The Church's opposition...is "non-negotiable"

Which is why "ecumenism" will always be an exercise in futility, unless non-Catholic Christians are interested in converting to Roman Catholicism and listening to all the Vatican's dictates.

Because, after all, they're "non-negotiable."

 

[Ormus]

Catholic politicians have a moral duty to oppose it, as well as laws on abortion and euthanasia, Pope Benedict said in a document issued on Tuesday.

You know, it used to be that a Catholic could never win an elected office in a predominantly Protestant region. This was because there was a fear that Catholics' loyalties were not to the state, but to the Vatican; and that a potential Catholic politician would be nothing more than a mindless drone reciting the dictates of a foreign leader that we call "the Pope."

JFK did an awful lot to alleviate such fears, and he overcame a lot of public hesitance to become America's first Catholic president by asserting that he was an independent thinker who would do the best for the United States, and not what's best for the Vatican.

Yet, it seems that this Pope is more than willing to erase decades of progress on this front in a mad grab for power. And no one should ultimately be surprised at this. His past life as "Cardinal Ratzinger" showed him to be a far-right zealot who had no problems removing any cleric to the left of him in Catholic universities. And, yet, we have far-right, cult-like heresies like Opus Dei running wild in the Vatican with little supervision and no condemnation whatsoever. Hell, their late founder ended up on the fast track to sainthood instead!

 

[PJW]

The CCLS shows the problem is him not listening to the people. But if he doesn't care what 160,000 deserters say, then why should people listen to him? It must be frustrating for catholics.

I think the Pope would probably say that it’s his job is to guide the Catholics around the world in a spiritually correct way, even if it isn’t a popular stance to take. He honestly believes that abortion is a sin, that contraception is a sin, and no matter how unpopular that may be with people, he will continue to say as much because he truly believes that it is the only stance to take, and the only stance of which God approves.

I don’t agree with him, I’m just saying that’s how he would look at it, and he would also say just because people choose to leave the church if they don’t agree, doesn’t mean that he should change his stance. Ultimately guiding the spiritual well-being of his flock (ie Catholics) is the mandate that he believes God has given him. (And yes, I am aware of the logical argument that if he continues to take such an unpopular stance on issues, he won’t have a flock, but he wouldn’t see it that way.)

I’m not of any religion, but my husband and his family are Catholic, and I know that some of them disagree with the Pope and Rome’s teachings, but they do come from an Irish Catholic background which has a long and honourable history of dissenting with the Church in Rome

 

[DrTeeth]

Does anyone really pay attention to him though? Not just the Pope, but any of these religious head honchos.

I guess people do, but I've never understood why.

I come from a Catholic family and I don't know anybody under 80 who agrees with him or has any respect for him. But then again, the Vatican has all but given up on Dutch Catholics.

 

[Angela Harlem]

There's a certain amount of contempt for alternative or modern views, which he and his cronies put forward. At a synod here, not sure if it was in Sydney or to address issues in Australia, his small army of drones stated emphatically to an audience of dumbfounded bishops that they were helping lead Australians astray, and if we as a nation were not so open minded, we'd not be influenced by the sinful temptations of allowing same sex marriages, contraception, first trimester abortions, remarriages with or without annulments, marriage for clergy and the clincher - gay clergy... 'Cause, abstinence is different for each orientation.
His refusal to move the massive institution that is the church forward is just stupidity. we don't live in a society where sexuality is irrelevant. We don't live in a society where you die of old age with the person you marry. Life, society, and the individuals in it are not the same as they were 200 years ago. Even 100 years ago. The world outside the upper echelons of the Roman Catholic Church is moving and evolving. He and his predecessor are and were not. I think we all agree you don't actually 'leave' the Catholic Church, you just stop attending. His unwillingness to help the flock who are shattered at these choices is shameful. The issue just goes on and on. I don't disagree with you by the way, PJW, quite the contrary.

 

[Angela Harlem]

I come from a Catholic family and I don't know anybody under 80 who agrees with him or has any respect for him. But then again, the Vatican has all but given up on Dutch Catholics.

I think I said this to you before when this topic came up a few weeks back, lol, but it's not the Dutch personally. It is any society or nation which is not still practicing old fashioned living reflective of old Church teachings.

.. But you guys are sinners, anyway.

 

[anitram]

Originally posted by Angela Harlem The world outside the upper echelons of the Roman Catholic Church is moving and evolving. He and his predecessor are and were not. I think we all agree you don't actually 'leave' the Catholic Church, you just stop attending. His unwillingness to help the flock who are shattered at these choices is shameful. The issue just goes on and on. I don't disagree with you by the way, PJW, quite the contrary. [/B]

I agree.

It is one thing to stick to theology, but it is another to realize the practicalities of life. I am not saying they need to believe something is anything less than a sin, but maintaining a strong stance against birth control (particularly condoms) in the era of AIDS adds up to gross negligence. It is worse than that - it amounts to an abuse of a position of trust and authority in areas of the world which are very impoverished and very influenced by the Church and its teachings. These people are not being properly educated and the Church is abusing their position of trust, in my opinion. It's really rather shameless.

Something can be a sin in your eyes, but let's not condemn the alleged sinner to death. Let us deal practically while we live in a less-than-ideal world. You can provide spiritual guidance all the while providing education and protection and let God sort us out when we've left this place.

 

[redhotswami]

but maintaining a strong stance against birth control (particularly condoms) in the era of AIDS adds up to gross negligence.

but i thought he was changing his stance on that issue? i can't remember what the final word was...

 

[anitram]

As far as I remember, there were some rumors but they were stated to be patently false and there is absolutely no move to change this policy anytime soon.

In fact I know there is no move, because of the recent developments in Brazil, and the Bishops there reaffirmed the Vatican's view, and this was just days ago.

 

[redhotswami]

the only reason these guys are clinging so close to tradition is so they can maintain their hierarchy. the joke is on them though, because as it has been stated repeatedly here, people are turning a deaf ear.

 

[Ormus]

I am not saying they need to believe something is anything less than a sin

I wish, at least, that they had a coherent reason for deciding that something is "sinful," rather than basing it off of illogical medieval methodology and/or "tradition." The "natural law" pronouncements stretching from the time of St. Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354-430) to St. Thomas Aquinas (A.D. 1225-1274) that led to the Catholic Church's virulently anti-sex theology is nothing short of a historical embarrassment. It is not "Christian" in the slightest, to me, as much as the fact that when Augustine had his "conversion," he, instead, brought all the anti-sex attitudes of his former heresy, Manicheanism, into the church (this heresy's other major contributions to Christianity include an obsession with "good versus evil" and a complete hatred of women). Regardless of the history, however, the fact that anyone takes this crap seriously, when we have things like science and reason and logic today, just shows how much they have deified "tradition" above anything else.

It is sick and sad, and if lines like this were uttered by any other dictatorship, we'd laugh them off and implore them to join the 21st century...perhaps even through a "coalition of the willing" (tongue planted firmly in cheek on that part). But because this ancient autocracy has demanded respect for so long, it seems like the whole world is too scared to tell them off. But there's one thing that we cannot forget: they are nothing but human beings, just like you and me.

 

[Ormus]

the only reason these guys are clinging so close to tradition is so they can maintain their hierarchy. the joke is on them though, because as it has been stated repeatedly here, people are turning a deaf ear.

The Vatican displays the classic symptoms that plague any long-running dictatorship. Since they operate under a completely closed loop of power (i.e., the Pope appoints the cardinals who then appoint the next Pope), there's absolutely nothing that can be done to foster a "marketplace of ideas."

And, in many ways, that structure is their joke on us. We can turn a deaf ear all we want, but that means nothing to them, because that does nothing to affect that closed loop of power. The people are not the Church; they are. The people are there only to listen to their dictates, to carry out their orders, and to give them money. And, in the end, "money" is the only way you can hurt them, because without donations, their world cannot survive.

 

[AussieU2fanman]

I don't want to sound agressive, I'm just very curious as it's something I still don't understand. How can anyone call themselves a Catholic and support homosexual marriage and the act of homosexulaity, when the Bible (the word of God) is so incredibly clear on the issue? I don't understand how you can cherry pick and embellish the religion to suit you, it makes no sense to me.

 

[dazzlingamy]

I think people do that all the time to twist it to their view. I don't know what things are in the bible to said its any homosexuals, but then I have seen people take the most inane passages and make some stupid conclusion out of them.

Besides, who gives a fuck what the pope thinks. If you believe in God and the like, then you believe in it regardless if you gay and whatnot, i don't like this sort of fairweather type of belief where you have to be a perfect something before you're one of gods children or something and the fact that people go along with it.
Maybe thats why im not religious i don't like people tell me what to do or think.

 

[Ormus]

I don't want to sound agressive, I'm just very curious as it's something I still don't understand. How can anyone call themselves a Catholic and support homosexual marriage and the act of homosexulaity, when the Bible (the word of God) is so incredibly clear on the issue? I don't understand how you can cherry pick and embellish the religion to suit you, it makes no sense to me.

We've had many threads on this subject before, and I know that you've read them. And I'm not in the mood to repeat myself. In short: The Bible is not "so incredibly clear" on this issue to many Biblical scholars, and those fluent in the ancient languages that make up the Bible often reveal a much different picture on this subject than traditional translations would have us believe.

However, Catholicism takes on a whole new dimension in that many key Vatican scholars have flat out agreed with the scholarly assertion that the Bible does not mention modern homosexuality. And when they say that, they are quick to point out that the Catholic Church's view on sexuality is not based on those Bible passages, but based on medieval "natural law" theology that I mentioned above. It is this same theology that bans all sexual expressions outside of penis-vagina intercourse between a married heterosexual couple that could lead to pregnancy. And, as such, everything from homosexuality to masturbation to oral sex to anal sex to contraception to premarital sex is banned. And, with that, probably 99% of the Western world has engaged in at least one of those.

The official Vatican stance on this subject is that same-sex orientations are part of nature, and, as such, they officially do not believe in "ex-gay therapies" that are prevalent in fundamentalist Protestantism. However, their refusal to budge on their "natural law" theology--the same theology that once stated that all women were from Satan and that all fetuses were male, with female fetuses existing only due to the interference of Satan in the womb and referred to the "rhythm method" as evil--is why homosexuality is "sinful" in their eyes.

Plus, the notion that a religion is an unchanging institution with no allowance for dissenting voices is a more modern construction. The first millennium or so of the Catholic Church had many varying philosophies, which a good Catholic encyclopedia would be more than happy to tell you about ad nauseum. This is why Christians in England, for instance, are so different from Christians in Italy. Each were influenced by different philosophies in their formative years.

 

[redhotswami]

theres loads of people affiliated with other christian religions who believe in the bible but also support homosexual marriage and homosexual acts, not just catholics.

its not necessarily cherry-picking though. the bible clearly also condemns eating shellfish, while promoting things like slavery, and oppression of women.

the bible is not my faith. if somebody were to come out and prove every word in the bible to be false, i would still have my faith. my spirituality transcends text. i take it for what it is, but i also consider the context in which it was written. i mentioned before in another thread about some scholars retranslating the bible back into aramaic, which really turned my notions upside down when i read it. i do believe that the translations that exist today have lost some of the beauty of the original language.

 

[BVS]

I don't want to sound agressive, I'm just very curious as it's something I still don't understand. How can anyone call themselves a Catholic and support homosexual marriage and the act of homosexulaity, when the Bible (the word of God) is so incredibly clear on the issue? I don't understand how you can cherry pick and embellish the religion to suit you, it makes no sense to me.

You've asked this before and it's been answered before, as Ormus has also pointed out. Are you just trying to provoke?

 

[Irvine511]

It is this same theology that bans all sexual expressions outside of penis-vagina intercourse between a married heterosexual couple that could lead to pregnancy. And, as such, everything from homosexuality to masturbation to oral sex to anal sex to contraception to premarital sex is banned. And, with that, probably 99% of the Western world has engaged in at least one of those.

this is quite true. at least there's consistency with Catholicism.

if you've ever performed or received oral sex, masturbated, had premarital sex, or used any form of birth control, you're every bit the sodomite i am.

 

[redhotswami]

Ormus, when you say "natural law" are you referring to the passages like in Romans that talk about unnatural acts?

I've always interpreted that particular passage about natural relations to be condemning doing things that are unnatural. Thus, heterosexuals naturally engage in heterosexual acts, and homosexuals naturally engage in homosexual acts, and so on.

Oh and by the way, AussieU2fanman, from what I remember, the bible doesn't say anything about homosexual marriage.