vatican issues guidance for politicians dealing with same sex marriage

[kobayashi]

and the advice is dont allow it. a 12 page document approved by the pope states

Marriage exists solely between a man and woman ... Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.
...
Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior ... but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity.

the globe and mail's posted excerpt from the vatican

a few countries in europe already having long ago made the bold move to legalize marriage for homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, canada has now become a focal point for the issue as canadian courts have ruled laws making marriage only possible for a union of man and woman are unconstitutional and presently null and void. the federal government stated it would not appeal this ruling and went about rewriting the law which is now waiting for constitutional evaluation from the supreme court.

america seems to be lacking the champions of this issue canada has. bush yesterday stated marriage

is between a man and a woman.

cnn link

much like america and bush however, the leaders of canadian government are devout catholics. the three most important people in this situation are pm jean chretien, virtual shoe-in for incoming pm paul martin and justice minister martin cauchon. all of whom have described themselves as practicing catholics. and now a calgary bishop has openly criticized chretien for his apparent divergence of personal values,

"He doesn't understand what it means to be a good Catholic," Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary said in an interview. "He's putting at risk his eternal salvation. I pray for the Prime Minister because I think his eternal salvation is in jeopardy. He is making a morally grave error and he's not being accountable to God."

globe and mail link

it seems apparent that chretien is placing the state above his religion and bush vice versa. for this i am pleased.

it is long since past the time when this barrier fell for homosexual couples. i would be indignant if the catholic church was successful in its bid to turn the tide of canadian legislation toward reinforcing this societal inequality.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

It definitely makes one wonder about the separation between church and state.

 

[ouizy]

The Vatican makes me sick to my stomach.

I do not mean offense to any Christian people out there, I simply feel the establishment of the Vatican and their edicts are not modern, not forward-thinking, and truly intolerable to those who follow their faith (especially in this case, homosexuals.)

 

[Flaming Friar Sr]

 

[80sU2isBest]

Bush is not Catholic.

 

[ouizy]

No he is not, but he is Christian and it is a coincidence the Vatican comes out with its edict the same day the President of the United States comes out with his...

 

[BVS]

"He doesn't understand what it means to be a good Catholic," Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary said in an interview. "He's putting at risk his eternal salvation. I pray for the Prime Minister because I think his eternal salvation is in jeopardy. He is making a morally grave error and he's not being accountable to God."

It's comforting to know there are so many direct mouth pieces from god here on earth to aid us in our day to day walk.

 

[nbcrusader]

"He doesn't understand what it means to be a good Catholic," Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary said in an interview. "He's putting at risk his eternal salvation.

To me, this is the most dangerous statement of all. The Bishop is trying to take away what only God can give. This is a perfect example of how religious authority abuses the pulpit for political purposes.

Threaten excommunication (you can always find another church), but threatening loss of salvation is inexcusable.

 

[Klaus]

nbcrusader: absolutely

since i din't search the bible yet for homosexuality, any hints in which books the bible writes about homosexuality?

And.. wouldn't it be a good idea to (like planed in GB) alow the Homosexual mariage, but just give it a different name but with exactly the same rights like in a hetrosexual mariage?

Klaus

 

[oliveu2cm]

To me, this is the most dangerous statement of all. The Bishop is trying to take away what only God can give. This is a perfect example of how religious authority abuses the pulpit for political purposes.

Threaten excommunication (you can always find another church), but threatening loss of salvation is inexcusable.

Exactly!! This made me quite angry to read, and it's this type of "I'm right, you're wrong" behavior that is just bullocks.

sula, separation of church and state. It's the only freaking way people can live as they want to, and as God let them live: with free choice!!

Imagine loving God and being a Christian, but also being gay and being told by those who run the church that you're immoral for being who you are. Doesn't the church see they are pushing people away (straight & gay)? When did Jesus ever do that??

Sorry but any marriage is about love, and people's OWN lives. So long as they aren't hurting anyone else, that is none of the state's business.

AND good for Chretien. If Bush doesn't like it, well then first change the law to say that the church can rule the state (which I'm sure he will/is/would try to do). And then make the decisions about who can marry who (and other things like which women can receive birth control). Until the church and state aren't separate, these issues shouldn't be coming up.

 

[Klaus]

oliveu2cm:

Verry good! I guess we really don't need laws that everything the current leader of the country disslikes is forbidden.

Klaus

 

[verte76]

To me, this is the most dangerous statement of all. The Bishop is trying to take away what only God can give. This is a perfect example of how religious authority abuses the pulpit for political purposes.

Threaten excommunication (you can always find another church), but threatening loss of salvation is inexcusable.

I agree, and heck, I'm even a practicing Catholic also. It burns me up that the Vatican and the bishops are singling out gays and people who defend gay unions as "risking their salvation". They are acting like a bunch of Inquisitors, terrorizing any one who disagrees with their *politics*. This is *not* cool.

 

[MissVelvetDress_75]

and i wonder why i am thinking about leaving the Catholic church.

 

[Rono]

Wow, how can the vatican, full of unmaried males that are living together can say something like this. priests are not contributing to the inheritance of humanity .

 

[anitram]

The Vatican has been out of touch with the people and reality of existence for decades now. As AIDS ravages the world, they speak out against condoms. This is just another edict in a long line.

That Bishop should be concerned with his own salvation, leave people to theirs.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Dinosaurs roam the earth...

 

[DaveC]

since i din't search the bible yet for homosexuality, any hints in which books the bible writes about homosexuality?

Leviticus 18:22
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them will have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Romans 1:26-32

"Because of this (people turning away from God), God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. The have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

 

[melon]

Don't even start, DaveC. I suggest you do a thorough search of my past posts in this forum regarding this subject.

FYI, "homosexuality" didn't exist until 1874. Any mention of it before then is a different and mistranslated concept, mainly of pagan temple orgies, which were not homosexual, but bisexual. In other words, the idolatry is what really freaked them out, not the sex.

Melon

 

[melon]

Leviticus 18:22
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

How funny. "Abomination" is now "detestable." But either way, it is incorrect. The Hebrew word, "toe'vah," refers to ritual condemnation, in the same vein as prohibitions against eating shellfish and pork. Secondly, the word for man in Hebrew is "ish," and the ritual condemnation is not against lying with another "ish," but a "zakar." That "zakar" is probably a temple prostitute, and, when thrown in with the ritual "toe'vah," it makes more logical sense.

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them will have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Again, "ish," "zakar," and "toe'vah."

Romans 1:26-32

"Because of this (people turning away from God), God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. The have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

"Unnatural" is "para physin." St. Paul calls God "para physin" at one point. Secondly, you should never take your moral pronouncements from the beginning of Pauline epistles. St. Paul used his epistles to "trick" people into believing what he believed; the beginnings are purposely vague to appeal to their moral sensibilities and the end ultimately condemns their morality and instructs them to change to his.

Melon

 

[melon]

I should also mention that the Catholic Church doesn't even condemn homosexuality on the basis of the Bible, but of "natural law" arguments fostered by St. Augustine and his later successors, such as St. Thomas Aquinas. I won't even begin to tell you how mentally fucked up these people were.

Melon

 

[BVS]

Dave since we're going to quote Leviticus can you help me out with a few of these passages as well. I'll just paraphrase. I'd appreciate your help.

Lev.15:19-24 says I am to have no contact with a woman while she is in her menstrual cycle, for she is unclean for seven days and on the eighth day she should offer a sacrifice to be made clean again. Does this mean I should ignore my wife during her period?

Lev. 11:10 says I shouldn't eat shellfish for it's an abomination. Should I give up all shellfish, and should I also protest all Red Lobsters?

Lev. 19:27 speaks of men not getting the hair around their temples trimmed or marring the corners of your beard. Now I have sideburns but no beard, will I still go to hell?

I can go on if you'd like. I'm sorry but the Bible especially Leviticus is full of laws that don't make sence today. Now are these man's laws or God's laws? I have a hard time believing God would create such laws. I have hard time believing God would judge someone who's doing nothing harmful to anyone except loving another person.

But I do remember 2 laws that do make sence today. Love thy neighbor as thyself and judge not lest he be judged.

 

[larrysgirl]

My Question is: What does religion have to do with who you fall in love with?

To say that whoever doesn't conform to the standards of marriage and blessed union as established by the Catholic church will end up in an eternal hell is Asinine, Immoral , Cruel and Stupid.


And this from a religion that professes forgiveness and tolerance..

what tolerance?!

I'm extremely pissed off about this..i have a daughter, what happens when she reaches womanhood, and it turns out she's gay?

Does she bury her head in the ground?

*grrr*

 

[melon]

Ah, don't forget, Christianity has an excuse for everything. Conservative Protestantism makes an arbitary distinction between ritual Mosaic Law and the rest of it. Needless to say, St. Paul and his Church of Antioch was completely against it.

Regardless, prohibitions of homosexuality are under the ritual "toe'vah" restrictions, and mainline Judaism agrees with this. In fact, some have gone as far as to say that the Mosaic Law only refers to Jews. It was never intended to refer to Gentiles.

Melon

 

[sharky]

I don't necessarily agree with the church on some issues but as a Catholic [ok, I'm biased] I at least appreciate that the pope's edicts, such as this one, are based on historical church teachings. You may not agree with them, but at least they stick to their beliefs and convictions. the same can't be said of many politicians.

melon, since I know you know so much about this topic, i wonder if you can answer this. The church does not condone someone for being gay -- even priests can be gay. the church condones homosexual acts, partially because it is a sexual act outside of the sacrament of marriage. Its the same as condoning heterosexual sex outside of marriage. so take it a step further: why does the church specifically say gays and lesbians can't actually marry?

As for condoms, the church is rightfully against any form of birth control -- pills, condoms, abortions -- because sex is supposed to specifically be used for procreation, as stated in the bible. accd to the church, to stop the spread of AIDS don't have sex. In a day and age when there are so many people who disrespect human life, its good to see that the Catholic Church still supports the creation of life. do I practice what they preach? um...not entirely. but there is a difference between most priests and me. that's why I didn't go to the nunery.

 

[nbcrusader]

As for condoms, the church is rightfully against any form of birth control -- pills, condoms, abortions -- because sex is supposed to specifically be used for procreation, as stated in the bible.

This is news to me. Do you have a verse?

 

[melon]

melon, since I know you know so much about this topic, i wonder if you can answer this. The church does not condone someone for being gay -- even priests can be gay. the church condones homosexual acts, partially because it is a sexual act outside of the sacrament of marriage. Its the same as condoning heterosexual sex outside of marriage. so take it a step further: why does the church specifically say gays and lesbians can't actually marry?

You know what? Just because they have believed things since the dawn of time, it doesn't mean that it is right. You know, do you agree with the Church's official teachings on women? Women are to, first and foremost, be mothers and have children. If you don't do that, then you're a bad woman. So why haven't you gone out, gotten married, and had children yet? And why have you even *considered* having a career over these? After all, the only functional purpose for women is to create children. Why on Earth would they exist otherwise?

Of course, this is a vast improvement over medieval theology on women, which believed that women were pure evil. Yes, if I remember correctly, around A.D. 1000, Catholic "natural law" philosophers went as far as to believe that "original sin" was the result of being born through a "dirty" woman and that all fetuses were inherently male. Those who are female were turned female by Satan. So why don't we believe this anymore? Because it's preposterous! But it is *precisely* from this era where the Catholic Church gets its repugnant philosophy on homosexuals from.

It is easy to sit on one's pulpit and point fingers at homosexuals...and then go home to your opposite-sex mate and demand affection, as if they never existed. For homosexuals, they can't escape themselves. What religion insists upon is that homosexuals are a mistake; that, for whatever reason, they were created with the purpose of suffering. Well, you know what? They're wrong. Just as the Catholic Church has been wrong countless times over the past 2000 years and is always 500 years too late on apologizing. Science has *repeatedly* laughed at the face of religious philosophy on this subject, and, still, people insist on believing it.

It's sorry to say, but I've seen this day coming for years. If Roman Catholic apparitions have been any guide, this is the beginning of something terrible...and many of you are going to be on the incorrect side. The Pharisees that populated Jesus' time have returned.

Melon

 

[joyfulgirl]

Lev.15:19-24 says I am to have no contact with a woman while she is in her menstrual cycle, for she is unclean for seven days and on the eighth day she should offer a sacrifice to be made clean again. Does this mean I should ignore my wife during her period?

Lev. 11:10 says I shouldn't eat shellfish for it's an abomination. Should I give up all shellfish, and should I also protest all Red Lobsters?

Lev. 19:27 speaks of men not getting the hair around their temples trimmed or marring the corners of your beard. Now I have sideburns but no beard, will I still go to hell?
...

But I do remember 2 laws that do make sence today. Love thy neighbor as thyself and judge not lest he be judged.

You are a Supastar.

Go melon.

 

[DaveC]

Don't even start, DaveC. I suggest you do a thorough search of my past posts in this forum regarding this subject.

You're jumping the gun, melon. I assume that you are suggesting that I am a Christian and that I intend to go against you. Totally the opposite. I am not a Christian (although I was at one point) and I totally support the right of homosexuals to get married.

How funny. "Abomination" is now "detestable." But either way, it is incorrect. The Hebrew word, "toe'vah," refers to ritual condemnation, in the same vein as prohibitions against eating shellfish and pork. Secondly, the word for man in Hebrew is "ish," and the ritual condemnation is not against lying with another "ish," but a "zakar." That "zakar" is probably a temple prostitute, and, when thrown in with the ritual "toe'vah," it makes more logical sense.

"Abomination" has become "detestable" because I was using the New International Version. And I completely agree with you. No work, literary or otherwise, can maintain the exact same meanings over 5,000 years of rewriting after rewriting, and also after countless language translations. Meanings are bound to be messed up.

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Dave since we're going to quote Leviticus can you help me out with a few of these passages as well. I'll just paraphrase. I'd appreciate your help. [/B]

I'll help as much as I can, cause I think I'm fairly well-versed on Theology, but I'm no scholar.

Lev.15:19-24 says I am to have no contact with a woman while she is in her menstrual cycle, for she is unclean for seven days and on the eighth day she should offer a sacrifice to be made clean again. Does this mean I should ignore my wife during her period?

Taken literally, yes. Taken figuratively, it means that you really shouldn't have sex with her, because it can get a bit messy, and that ritually, she's in her "cleansing period" (pun intended) and that her body is "cleaning itself". I personally think this is a crock.

Lev. 11:10 says I shouldn't eat shellfish for it's an abomination. Should I give up all shellfish, and should I also protest all Red Lobsters?

Taken literally, yes. Another crock. Heck, Shellfish are so good, I don't care if I go to Hell for eating them...mmm...lobster. I bet they have wicked luaus and clambakes down in Hell.

Lev. 19:27 speaks of men not getting the hair around their temples trimmed or marring the corners of your beard. Now I have sideburns but no beard, will I still go to hell?

If so, I'm comin' down with ya.

I can go on if you'd like. I'm sorry but the Bible especially Leviticus is full of laws that don't make sence today. Now are these man's laws or God's laws? I have a hard time believing God would create such laws. I have hard time believing God would judge someone who's doing nothing harmful to anyone except loving another person.

They are, if the Bible is to be believed, totally God's laws, 100%. Although why God would concern himself with beards and clams is beyond me. I personally think that those laws are made up by humans to keep the people in line and make them concern themselves with petty things so that they don't notice the big shit going down around them. Kinda like today!

But I do remember 2 laws that do make sence today. Love thy neighbor as thyself and judge not lest he be judged.

If only they were followed.

 

[HeartlandGirl]

and i wonder why i am thinking about leaving the Catholic church.

You're not the only one. Reading about the pope's edict this morning, I pretty much decided that this is the last straw. I've had it with the Catholic Church. Even my friend who is devoutly Catholic was outraged (she has two gay siblings).

And yes, go melon, although I do like a lot of the things Augustine wrote.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Hey, since we seem to have gotten on to the subject of Old Testament law, I found some interesting material that I will start a new thread on.