Vatican Strikes Out: You're A Bunch of Perverts

ixoy

Return of the ignorant homphobic Catholic church in today's Irish Independent

A BELGIAN cardinal who is a personal protege of Pope John Paul II denounced gays and lesbians as "sexual perverts" yesterday and appeared to ridicule the principle of one man, one vote, causing deep embarrassment to the Catholic Church.

"I am prepared to sign here in my blood that of all those who say they are lesbian or gay, at most five to 10pc are effectively lesbian or gay. All the rest are sexual perverts," said Cardinal Gustaaf Joos.

"I demand you write this down. If they come to protest on my doorstep, I don't care. I'm just speaking out on what thousands of people are thinking but never get a chance to say," he told the Belgian soft-porn 'P-Magazine'.

"Real homosexuals don't wander in the streets in colourful suits. Those are people who have a serious problem and have to live with that. And if they err, they will be forgiven," he said.

He expressed contempt for Belgian politicians who had pushed through some of the world's most avant-garde laws on gay marriages, euthanasia, and abortion.

"Politics, democracy. Don't make me laugh. The right to vote, what is that all about? I find it strange that a snot-nosed, 18-year-old has the same vote as a father of seven. One has no responsibilities whatsoever, the other provides tomorrow's citizens," he said.

It is the first time a leading cleric has endorsed calls by right-wing Catholics for an end to the principle of one person, one vote.

Belgium's bishops' conference tried to calm the furore as the country's media seized on the comments, saying the cardinal's personal views did not reflect Church policy.

The Episcopal hierarchy has no power to sanction Cardinal Joos (80), a parish priest who was plucked from obscurity in October by the Pope to celebrate the 25th anniversary of his pontificate.

The two men bunked together in Rome just after the end of the Second World War. (© Daily Telegraph, London)

Well thanks for informing the Catholic laity! How does it feel everyone to be a pervert? Sitting here, typing in your colorful suit - do you feel your skin crawl at yourself, and the fires of Hell singing the hairs on your head?
:rolleyes:
Any chance the Church is going to ever become more enlightened? I mean the Protestant branch is far more socialy advanced, so how come our young, hip, and happening Bishops aren't? Goddamn the oligarchy of the Vatican

Beruthiel

A BELGIAN cardinal who is a personal protege of Pope John Paul II denounced gays and lesbians as "sexual perverts"

lol
sorry, I can only find this funny when you consider the things that some clergy have gotten up

Havelock

Very true Anna, but we don't want to sink to their layers (The Clergy's) by branding them all as sexual perverts, there are some great priests. They can't all be blamed for the views of one Right wing priest.

Imposter

Using his conditions he wouldn't have a vote himself (unless he has some illegit childers) so it's best to ignore him as his voice doesn't matter.

Typedef

Originally posted by ixoy

Any chance the Church is going to ever become more enlightened? I mean the Protestant branch is far more socialy advanced, so how come our young, hip, and happening Bishops aren't? Goddamn the oligarchy of the Vatican

The Church will not become 'more enlightened' as you put it, since apparently homosexuality is derided in the Bible.


Eh, also, Protestants are more tolerant of homosexuals?

Tell that to the good ol Southern boys in the USA, who in the 60s along with hanging black people and burning crosses around the place used to regularly go 'fag-bashing', same good-ol Southern boys, who don't have alot of tolerance for non-Protestant religions FYI.

I think for you to expect tolerance, you have to give the same in kind and as far as that bishop is concerned, the Bible forbids homosexuality and unfortunately not everybody fits into the classical mold of being tolerant and PC. To be honest if you were tolerant, you'd understand that your beliefs/sexuality is your own and that this bishop 'can never' (because of the interpertation of the Bible) 'never' approve of homosexuality.

Some religions, circumcise boys, some believe that there is a huge wheel inside of people, Christians (ostensibly) have one belief (one of many) that homosexuality is against gods will. You should learn to respect a difference of opinion.

I think it's pretty unreasonable to expect the Christians to lay down this tennent in their religion and accuse them of intolerance at the same time.... sounds a little intolerant of their religous beliefs tbh.

Thorbar

Belgian soft-porn 'P-Magazine'.

What the fuck is he doing talk to a soft core mag in the first place? The man's 80 years of age I'm guessing he's not the full ton.

yellum

Originally posted by Thorbar
The man's 80 years of age I'm guessing he's not the full ton.

And yet he is closer to god than us.

ixoy

Originally posted by Typedef
I think it's pretty unreasonable to expect the Christians to lay down this tennent in their religion and accuse them of intolerance at the same time.... sounds a little intolerant of their religous beliefs tbh.

Do we have to print that letter again? The Bible condones and proposes MANY things - any which could be ascribed as being central tenents. There's passages that say selling your child into slavery - circumstances permitting - is A OK. Women are most certainly subjugated to the man and should never speak until spoken to. The text is LITTERED with items that have, subsequently, been changed by the Catholic Church. The condemnation of homosexuality is limited to about 13 references in the entire text. If they can pick-and-choose other elements of the Bible, why are they so willing to enforce this one when, by all accounts, its practiced by a high proportion of their clergy and - in essence - promotes concepts of love which is central to God's teaching?

dictatorcat

it's best to ignore him as his voice doesn't matter.

The worrying thing is that while his voice doesn't matter Cardinal Ratzinger (or however the evil nazi B'stards name is spelt) thinks pretty much along the same lines and he's the popes right hand man, even tipped to be the next pope!

BuffyBot

Originally posted by yellum
And yet he is closer to god than us.

Yay!

Typedef

Originally posted by ixoy
Do we have to print that letter again? The Bible condones and proposes MANY things - any which could be ascribed as being central tenents. There's passages that say selling your child into slavery - circumstances permitting - is A OK. Women are most certainly subjugated to the man and should never speak until spoken to. The text is LITTERED with items that have, subsequently, been changed by the Catholic Church. The condemnation of homosexuality is limited to about 13 references in the entire text. If they can pick-and-choose other elements of the Bible, why are they so willing to enforce this one when, by all accounts, its practiced by a high proportion of their clergy and - in essence - promotes concepts of love which is central to God's teaching?

That's a fair point I suppose, however, since belief in god is completely based on non-provable and essentially subjective evidence anyway, it's probably better not to try and convert people over to, what amounts to your own political ethos (tm).

Basically, that's what you're putting forward... a religous ethos, to some extent anyway.

ixoy

Originally posted by Typedef
That's a fair point I suppose, however, since belief in god is completely based on non-provable and essentially subjective evidence anyway, it's probably better not to try and convert people over to, what amounts to your own political ethos (tm).

Basically, that's what you're putting forward... a religous ethos, to some extent anyway.

Well sure, it's a belief system based on my standards and values. However, I'd like to see how the Catholic Church condone their pick'n'mix interpretation of the Bible. I'm sure a lot of it is ratifications from councils over the years (e.g. the current version of the Bible is not the original and passages are now missing) rather than direct word-of-mouth from God. You've got to recall that even the passages on Jesus' word are written well after the fact and the writers could, easily, have subjcted us to their own twist on Jesus' teaching.
I find it hard to believe in a system that with one hand preaches love but the other smacks the face of those who try to express it. It's beyond paradoxical and ventures into the realm of stupdity.

Zombrex

The right to vote, what is that all about?

When was Dougal promoted to a cardinal??

"What's that all about Ted?"

fozzle

Hmmm, does this mean the vatican have finally recogised lesbians? I thought gay women didn't actually exist as far as they were concerned? :rolleyes:

woosaysdan

Originally posted by Typedef
The Church will not become 'more enlightened' as you put it, since apparently homosexuality is derided in the Bible.

so is incest(SP??? having sex with your family thingie) but if you look at it this way God put adam and eve onto the planet and they had children called kane and able who also had children but who was their mother??? eve!!! so therefore we are all inbred!!! and incest occured in the bible and yet is looked down upon

sceptre

Originally posted by woosaysdan
so is incest(SP??? having sex with your family thingie) but if you look at it this way God put adam and eve onto the planet and they had children called kane and able who also had children but who was their mother???

I'll field that one Ted.

Adam and Eve gave birth to Cain and Abel. Or at least Adam and Eve gave birth to Abel. Eve had Cain "with the help of the Lord" (can you blame him - she was the only woman there was and self-abuse makes you blind) so you could make the case that Eve kept schtum and pretended to Adam that Cain was his child. Would you believe it if someone came up to you and said God was the father? Didn't think so. Eve wouldn't have had to endure childbirth and er, menstruation if she hadn't tempted Adam and become involved with the schemes of that slinky snake, kinky fecker that he was. Cain killed Abel (er, because he was able) and out of shame (and presumably a lack of any other chicks) went east of Eden, got a tattoo (the "mark") and married a woman from the land of Nod (no, I'm not making this up, go check) (or at least he was in Nod when he "knew" his wife so I suppose she could have been his sister or rib or something).

Cain and his unnamed wife had a child named Enoch, by which time he had magically found enough followers to help him found a city. Being the nice sort, Cain named his new housing project after his son. Abel didn't have any kids whatever (because he was dead, see). Meanwhile, Eve later popped out a third child called Seth. Adam lived another 800 years after the birth of Seth and probably had lots of kids in the meantime, while Seth was busy having a single son called Enosh. Someone gave birth to Methusalah who lived a long time and to Jubal who kicked off rock'n'roll by inventing the harp. And, er, the rest of humanity arrived. Probably from the shower of hotties in the land of Nod who presumably wore bikinis all the time and had their navels pierced in some cute way. Hooray!

And then with the whold flood thing, leaving just Noah (600 years old and mostly drunk), his wife and his three sons Ham Shem and Japheth and their (as is traditional) totally unnamed wives, presumably the whole thing began again. I hope Nod was somewhere on top of a mountain.

Totally by coincidence there's a similarity between the Jewish tale of Abel and his big brother and the Egyptian story of Seth killing his brother Osiris, cutting off his penis and dropping him into the Nile. Also the Sumerian story of Enkimdu and Dumuzi, (like Cain and Abel one was a herdsman and the other a farmer) where they argued over who got to marry Inanna.

This whole thing came up in the famous Scopes trial (the evolution case) in Tennessee in 1925. Clarence Darrow had fun asking William Jennings Bryan exactly who Cain's wife might have been.