Ratzinger on homosexuality

dictatorcat

Well he's started his papacy with a bang! And people said he'd prove us wrong...ha :mad:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4473001.stm

New Pope condemns Spain gay bill

The vote was welcomed by Spanish gay rights campaigners
Pope Benedict XVI has responded firmly to the first challenge of his papacy by condemning a Spanish government bill allowing marriage between homosexuals.
The bill, passed by parliament's Socialist-dominated lower house, also allows gay couples to adopt.

A senior Vatican official described the bill - which is likely to become law within a few months - as iniquitous.

He said Roman Catholic officials should be prepared to lose their jobs rather than co-operate with the law.

The bill would make Spain the first European country to allow homosexual people to marry and adopt children.

Belgium and the Netherlands only allow same-sex marriages. It is also a dramatic step in the rapid secularisation of what was once one of the most devoutly Roman Catholic countries in Europe.

The head of the Vatican's Pontifical Council on the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, denounced the legislation as profoundly iniquitous.

Interviewed in the Italian newspaper, Corriere de la Serra, Cardinal Lopez Trujillo said the Church was making an urgent call for freedom of conscience for Roman Catholics and appealing to them to resist the law.

He said every profession linked with implementing homosexual marriages should oppose it, even if it meant losing their jobs.

The cardinal insisted that just because something was made law it did not make it right.

Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero took office a year ago making it clear he intended to remove what he called the church's undeniable advantages and make Spain a secular state.

There are likely to be further tensions with Pope Benedict XVI. Mr Zapatero has made it clear that he intends to streamline divorce law and even to relax the conditions placed on abortion.

Stark

Pope John Paul II would have done the exact same thing.

dictatorcat

dictatorcat wrote:

Well he's started his papacy with a bang! And people said he'd prove us wrong...ha :mad:

I don't think you should even bother to get too concerned over that.
The writings been on the wall for the last decade or more as regards the Catholic Churches influence on laws.

I mean,you get a divorce legally in this state and you sleep with your next wife who according to the state, you are legally married to,and the Catholic church will condemn you as committing a mortal sin...
Thats papal infallability for you,its basically invalidatable and irrelevant.

A friend of mine got married at 19, his wife had an affair and last year they got an annullment from the catholic church and he is now at 27 remarried...
They had no kids.
Daniel o' Donnells wife was married before she met him and also got an annullment iirc even though she had a family with her ex husband.(or in the strict sense of an annulmment the man she wasnt married to)
Then there are the protestant ministers who turned catholic and were allowed become practising priests saying mass etc etc and going home to their wives every night to give them a good rodgering, all with the blessing of Rome

So they are showing us, that, they are even flouting their own teachings when it suits them

Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero took office a year ago making it clear he intended to remove what he called the church's undeniable advantages and make Spain a secular state.

There are likely to be further tensions with Pope Benedict XVI. Mr Zapatero has made it clear that he intends to streamline divorce law and even to relax the conditions placed on abortion.

And theres not a thing really that Benny can do about it.
The other thing to remember is that,once a right is given it is likely to be much more difficult to take it away, than it was to get the right passed in the first place.

Hmm_Messiah

they are not flouting their own rules in the examples given:

such as protestant ministers becoming catholic priests with wives: the eastern church IN Communion with Roman allows married priests, its a rule not a law/dogma, just something decided on that can be changedAnnulments are given because of the degree of precise meaning RC gives to marriage and its meaning as a sacrament.

I doubt somwhow that "hypocrital" is something that this Pope will be accused of.
Anyways I think w're acknowledged his election enough don't ya think ?

padser

correct me if im wrong but you people are constantly going on about 'tolerance'. The church has a view which it is quite legitimately entitled to air, in fact it has an obligation to its followers to inform them of Gods message. It seems to me to be quite a contradiction that you can not accept or tolerate the Churchs view when this is constantly what you ask for from the rest of us.

dictatorcat

padser wrote:

you people

We're not a different species,please don't refer to us as "you people", it's like me refering to you as "him" when you're in the same room.

padser wrote:

are constantly going on about 'tolerance'. The church has a view which it is quite legitimately entitled to air, in fact it has an obligation to its followers to inform them of Gods message.

"tolerance", hatred, especially that which is bread from ignorance, should never be tolerated. I accept that the church has it's opinion on our way of life, but it is an opinion, and opinions can be changed if challanged.

What is Gods message? Jesus told us to do two things, love god and love our neighbours. He did not say "love thy neighbour..oh unless they're gay, divorced, of a different faith, a prostitute, have children out of wedlock etc." You might disagree with me, but i do not believe that the church is teaching the true message of Jesus.

padser wrote:

It seems to me to be quite a contradiction that you can not accept or tolerate the Churchs view when this is constantly what you ask for from the rest of us

Please discard this "them and us" attitude. You're brother, sister, best friend might be gay, "we" are all human beings who share society together. Perhaps if you walked a mile in our shoes you would see that we do not want to be "tolerated", we want to be accepted for who we are.

Hmm_Messiah

correct me if im wrong but you people are constantly going on about 'tolerance'. The church has a view which it is quite legitimately entitled to air, in fact it has an obligation to its followers to inform them of Gods message. It seems to me to be quite a contradiction that you can not accept or tolerate the Churchs view when this is constantly what you ask for from the rest of us.

Please don't include me in "you people" ; the way you've used it seems derogatory.
And your argument is naive to be polite, childish and really missing the point.

I would personally encourage tolerance, sure.
I would personally encourage the right to opinion, sure.
I would personally encourage the right to speak, sure.

However when that option, and the voicing of that opinion, is erroneous, but more so an offense to basic human rights, and a source of hatred and predjudice then no I don't have to tolerate it .

Should I tolerate people voicing their belief that the Holocaust never happened? or that non-whites are less than human? or that women are unequal to men?

You also seem to have missed the point of some posts here that saying homosexuality is dis-ordered is far removed from "God's message". I fear the nuances are beyond you so not much point explaining further.

BTW I don't really see my sexuality as something that should be "tolerated".

damien

padser wrote:

you people are constantly going on about 'tolerance'.

Bliss.

padser

dictorcat: the churches and indeed other people opinions of homosexual activity is not necessarily 'hatred' nor is it necessarily bread from ignorance. Not liking something, and indeed being opposed to it, and thinking that it is morally wrong does not constitute 'hatred'.
Challange the churches opinion if you wish but the church has being spreading its message for millenia and are unlikely to change its views on what it has always considered a sin. Also it is not an 'opinion' in the sense that what i believe in is an opinion or what you believe in is an opinion, the churches 'opinion' is a definative judgement on an issue within the sphere of the RC church. Therefore if you would consider yourself a catholic then you should stop challenging its teaching and i would suggest go to confession.
If you dont believe the churches teaching then you are not catholic? Catholosism is not an 'a la carte' menu. You either accept it in its entirety or are not catholic.
I think you misconstrue my use of the words 'us' and indeed 'you'. In talking about any group for example it is generally acceptable to refer to them as 'you' and i fail to see why this would cause you offence?
Also i am glad not to find myself in your shoes, i fully accept its a difficult position to be in and dont envy you but that doesnt change the fact i think to act on it is immoral.

HMMM Messiah, condesending comments such as 'I fear the nuances are beyond you so not much point explaining further' not only fail to move on a debate in any meaningful way, they are a great way to deride people who have a contrary viewpoint to your own without having to actually argue a point with them

dictatorcat

padser wrote:

dictorcat: the churches and indeed other people opinions of homosexual activity is not necessarily 'hatred' nor is it necessarily bread from ignorance. Not liking something, and indeed being opposed to it, and thinking that it is morally wrong does not constitute 'hatred'.

Tell that to the chuch who's 2002 document on homosexuality was banned in Ireland because it was seen as "incitement to hatred", it basically said we deserve to be beaten up because we bring hatred on ourselves by being gay. Go tell that to the guy lying in hospital that was gay-bashed last week-end.

padser wrote:

Challange the churches opinion if you wish but the church has being spreading its message for millenia and are unlikely to change its views on what it has always considered a sin. Also it is not an 'opinion' in the sense that what i believe in is an opinion or what you believe in is an opinion, the churches 'opinion' is a definative judgement on an issue within the sphere of the RC church.

I hate this assumption that the church has never changes. *newsflash* Jesus was not born on the winter solstice, priests used to be allowed to marry (this was before the schism and is why eastern orthodox catholic priests can marry), there used to be two popes, which one was infallable? mary was not assumed into heaven until the last centurary, there were originally far more than 4 gospels, once upon a time limbo existed (how do you just wish away a whole plane of existance?) etc. etc. The church has always changed (Vatican II being the most recent changes), it has only existed for millenia due to it's ability to change.

padser wrote:

Therefore if you would consider yourself a catholic then you should stop challenging its teaching and i would suggest go to confession.
If you dont believe the churches teaching then you are not catholic? Catholosism is not an 'a la carte' menu. You either accept it in its entirety or are not catholic.

Casting the first stone are we?

padser wrote:

I think you misconstrue my use of the words 'us' and indeed 'you'. In talking about any group for example it is generally acceptable to refer to them as 'you' and i fail to see why this would cause you offence?
Also i am glad not to find myself in your shoes, i fully accept its a difficult position to be in and dont envy you but that doesnt change the fact i think to act on it is immoral.

That is your opinion, i'm not going to live in misery and shame all my life so you can enjoy your "morals". Look into your heart and tell me what you see? So far all i can see is someone who judges those he hasn't even bothered to get to know.

padser

dictatorcat wrote:

Tell that to the chuch who's 2002 document on homosexuality was banned in Ireland because it was seen as "incitement to hatred", it basically said we deserve to be beaten up because we bring hatred on ourselves by being gay. Go tell that to the guy lying in hospital that was gay-bashed last week-end.

are u honestly saying here that someone went out gay bashing on foot of a document issued by the church?

dictatorcat wrote:

I hate this assumption that the church has never changes. *newsflash* Jesus was not born on the winter solstice, priests used to be allowed to marry (this was before the schism and is why eastern orthodox catholic priests can marry), there used to be two popes, which one was infallable? mary was not assumed into heaven until the last centurary, there were originally far more than 4 gospels, once upon a time limbo existed (how do you just wish away a whole plane of existance?) etc. etc. The church has always changed (Vatican II being the most recent changes), it has only existed for millenia due to it's ability to change.

I think someone has been taking the de vinchy code just a tad seriously. Im not 100% but im almost certain the either the new or old testament condems sodemy? So regardless of wether or not the church wants to change it is bound by its own rules.

dictatorcat wrote:

Casting the first stone are we?.

fully accept im not a RC. dont believe in all of it, do try and avoid basic immorality where i can thoough

dictatorcat wrote:

That is your opinion, i'm not going to live in misery and shame all my life so you can enjoy your "morals". Look into your heart and tell me what you see? So far all i can see is someone who judges those he hasn't even bothered to get to know.

I havnt judged you, iv judged one facet of your character. I dont have to get to know thieves individually to know i dont like one aspect of the character (dont take that analogy to mean im comparing you to a criminal- im simply making the point that knowing one fact about someone is enough to make a judgeone about that aspect of them)

Boston

padser wrote:

are u honestly saying here that someone went out gay bashing on foot of a document issued by the church?

I've no intention of reading or replying to the rest of this thread as I dislike the religious stuff, but on the above point i had to comment. Yes, there are many people that hold bigoted and homophobic views as a result of what the church has said. These people feel that they are right to hold such views because the church says so, and as a result these backwards ignorant opinions are never challanged and are passed down from generation to generation. It has been proven that bigotry and hatred often lead to violence so yes, it does.

Hmm_Messiah

HMMM Messiah, condesending comments such as 'I fear the nuances are beyond you so not much point explaining further' not only fail to move on a debate in any meaningful way, they are a great way to deride people who have a contrary viewpoint to your own without having to actually argue a point with them

Your responses through the thread suggest what i said was correct. And instead of offering argument I simply gave simple examples of the consequences of extending your logic/argument. You did seem to find anything to comment on there. Was it not simple enough?

"Im not 100% but im almost certain the either the new or old testament condems sodemy?

"

Concentrate now... the word sodomy comes from an incident in the Old Testament in the town of Sodom. It relates to tribal cultural laws. Has NOTHING to do with DOGMA etc etc. Also in its original context it was referring to deliberate perversion of sexual norms; i.e. straight men having anal sex.

All of this has been dealt with in this an other threads; maybe you shold bother to read what you decide to contribute to.

the churches 'opinion' is a definative judgement on an issue within the sphere of the RC church.

Definitive? God but your understanding of what you are defending is so weak its difficult to know where to start. The Church (RC) is organic in it's nature, thats the understanding from the "Early Church". Outside of the essential truth of the Christ Event of course it has to grow/change with the community as it evolves. The Church is also both an institution and human, and only too open to fault and mistakes.

Therefore if you would consider yourself a catholic then you should stop challenging its teaching and i would suggest go to confession.
If you dont believe the churches teaching then you are not catholic? Catholosism is not an 'a la carte' menu. You either accept it in its entirety or are not catholic

You should apply for the position of Press Secretary for Joseph Ratzinger. You either accept it in its entirety or are not catholic? I doubt a majority of the Hierachy accept it in entirety let alone a majority of the 1 billion people in it.

You seem to have no understanding of concepts like objective or subjective morality, the nature of Sin, impediments to Sin, the Redemptive role of christ etc, so yea I still think its a waste of time continuing.

And challenging the teaching of any belief system can only be a good thing. Its what we did every day when I studied theology.

Oops !! I studied theology, morality, church history. Maybe I do know what Ia m talking about after all.

Pax Vobiscum

padser

Notsob: My question was do you really believe that the type of people who hold a particular belief simply because the church says so are the type of people who go out 'gay bashing'. The church has been and can be blamed for many things in society but violence is not normally among them.

Quote from Messia: However when that option....... is erroneorous.

fine i will reply to your examples, calling someones (i presume you meant) opinions 'erroneous' is a very conceited thing to do. For millenia the church has been regarded by most people as the ultimate authority on all things moral. To dismiss their opinion, and the opinion of a large portion of society as 'erroneous' would seem to suggest that you have very closed mind and are not open to possibility that maybe you are wrong. What gives you the right to tell me my opinion is 'erroneous'?

on the holocast point personally i believe it happened but i cant be certain although the evidence would seem to be overwhelming. IF someone believes it didnt happen or didnt happen on the scale we are lead to belief well i dont see how I personally (someone who wasnt there and who had no first hand experience of it) can be in a position where i cant 'tolerate' this.

I will accept that if you have studied theology then you obviosly have a massive headstart on me in church matters. However it would seem to me that for all the studying that you have dont seem to have formed the same opinion as the last two popes (who are the only two i have lived through). And if they are infalible when speaking on religious matters, well at least im in good company in my ignorance.

Maybe im coming off slightly strongly on the religous aspect of the discussion. My stance is taken from personal morals rather then religious beliefs. And i dont feel im in a minority in society, lets not forget its only just over 20 yrs since the Irish Supreme Court rejected a consititutional challenge to legisation criminalising homosexual activity. In general peoples beliefs are unlikely to have changed so drastically since then

I understand thats you are obviosly never going to agree with my views. And dont misunderstand me, i dont 'hate' homesexuals, i dont condone 'gay bashing' i just disagree wit homosexuality from a moral standpoint. My main point is that if you ask for tolerance of your way of life from everyone else then you should in return tolerate the views of the section of society that disagree with you.

Hmm_Messiah

Notsob: My question was do you really believe that the type of people who hold a particular belief simply because the church says so are the type of people who go out 'gay bashing'. The church has been and can be blamed for many things in society but violence is not normally among them.

I believe there is a film out soon about the Crusades ? You ever heard of them? I know its along time ago, but apparently the Church never changes.

And as for being conceited to imagine some ones opinion might be "wrong"; what planet are you on?

For millenia the church has been regarded by most people as the ultimate authority on all things moral.

Most People ? Do you mean the 20% (which is less than a majority = less than "most") who are members of the Church nominally, or the much smaller figure who participate in Church, or accept every dictate of the Church?

Work is better than this. my heads hurting from trying to dumb down.

I will though acknowledge that you don't see your stance as being "personal" against gay people, or hateful.

Also glad you're willing to believe the Holocaust probably might of maybe to some degree happened.

Zulu

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

Work is better than this. my heads hurting from trying to dumb down.

Comments like that serve no purpose other than weaken your own argument.

Also glad you're willing to believe the Holocaust probably might of maybe to some degree happened.

Interesting - (s)he asked you to entertain a possiability (however farical) and you attempt to imply it's a belief of his/her.

Tolerant indeed.

damien

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

I believe there is a film out soon about the Crusades ? You ever heard of them? I know its along time ago, but apparently the Church never changes.

So the church's involvement in the Crusades is the same as gay-bashing ?

damien

LGBT Hate Crimes increase directly linked to rise in anti-gay messages from US.

padser

Im sorry if its troublesome having to dumb down your arguement for those ppl who havnt studied theology, church history or morality. please continue to use mono syllabic words so i can follow you.

IF you actually read my thread i didnt say i dont believe in the holocaust i simply said if someone else doesnt there is no reason why i cant tolerate that belief while argueing against it without resorting to insult and degredation.

You called someones opinion 'erroneorous' (and you said is rather might be) and im simply posing the quesiton 'who are you to dictate or pronounce judgement the validity of someones opinion. Challenge it if you want but dont denounce it flat out. If you close your mind to someone elses view it damages your own credibility.

Hmm_Messiah

on the holocast point personally i believe it happened but i cant be certain

IF you actually read my thread i didnt say i dont believe in the holocaust ..

you said you can't be certain !!!!!!!!

Damien.m :So the church's involvement in the Crusades is the same as gay-bashing ?

Erm nope.......I was answering his point that

The church has been and can be blamed for many things in society but violence is not normally among them.

, regarding violence.

Comments like that serve no purpose other than weaken your own argument

.

Maybe true Zulu, but I'd given up on arguing , if that's what i was ever doing, with some one who didn't seem to have any grasp on the "whys" of people disagreeing with him. And nope, it didn't really hurt my head , I was just getting out of there before i got drawn in and ended up signing up for Opus Dei.

Interesting - (s)he asked you to entertain a possiability (however farical) and you attempt to imply it's a belief of his/her. Tolerant indeed."

You used the word yourself; what he said was farcical, I simple replied in the same vein. And to be serious, nope I've no inclination to tolerate such ignorant belief (and I mean ignorant in its proper sense so please don't suggest I've now resorted to name calling). I acknowledged I thought something that was important to him; that he not be seen as "hating" gays.

He doesn't seem to understand how what the Pope/Church says can have a negative impact on gay people. And because its from witha religious entity he doesn't believe it can be wrong. Such thinking/belief can lead to any number of moral wrongs against gay people, women, etc etc and I see no need for me to be tolerant of that.
I fully approve of dialogue, and regarding suggestions of my mind being closed, I am defending possibilities within a Church I don't belong to, my earlier posts were emphasising the "Good News" within Christianity; I don't see how that demonstated anything other than an open mind. And hopefully an informed one.

If my response to what I saw as farcical tended towards offending Padser, then I apologise. I just find it sad, deeply sad that people give so much concern to the morality of sex when there is so much injustice in the world.

The call, of Benedict, echoing John 23rd, was to OPEN the doors to christ (or something similar) It's my "opinion" that the jesus I've read and studied would open his door and heart to every human without even a nanosecond's consideration of his sexuality or his sexual activity.

And finally, I seriously didn't mean to prolong the thread but when some one makes a reference to me I tend to respond.

Boston

padser wrote:

Notsob: My question was do you really believe that the type of people who hold a particular belief simply because the church says so are the type of people who go out 'gay bashing'. The church has been and can be blamed for many things in society but violence is not normally among them.

It makes them feel jusified in what their doing, it makes them feel they are right, and that attacking gay people is somehow acceptable. The church however is not responsible for someone elses actions. It's the same crap that made the nazi's feel that it was right and acceptable to enslave and murder jews. I'm not saying they wouldn't have anyway, but sometimes thats not the point.

Hmm_Messiah

It makes them feel jusified in what their doing, it makes them feel they are right, and that attacking gay people is somehow acceptable. The church however is not responsible for someone elses actions.

Isn't the concept of Incitement (to hatred etc), and laws regarding same, though based on the belief that in fact you CAN BE responsible for some ones else's actions ? Or at least have some responsibility.

Boston

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

Isn't the concept of Incitement (to hatred etc), and laws regarding same, though based on the belief that in fact you CAN BE responsible for some ones else's actions ? Or at least have some responsibility.

No incitement is incitement, It's not taking responsiblity for someone elses actions. Otherwise there would be no needs for incitement laws, since you could charge people with aiding and abetting. Free will is ultimately what it coems down to.

Hmm_Messiah

I think I know what you mean, but then maybe we are using words differently. To me the fact there are incitement laws are to recognise that the incitor must take some responsibility?
Though I don't in any way mean that people who do evil deeds aren't responsible.

The problem will free will is many people can't free their mind from the values/predjudices the learn in their home/community/society. That's the sad reality a person can be unreasonable homopphobic yet a good , even tolerant person in many other ways.

I can't help but think that this Jesus guy (I'm pagan not xian) must be pained to see what people do in his name.

PAX