Pope Urges Maximum Protection of Marriage, Unborn

[emad]

Snip

Fri Jun 18, 2004 09:39 AM ET

By Shasta Darlington
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope John Paul Friday urged "maximum protection" of heterosexual marriage and defended the rights of the unborn as battles over gay marriage and abortion dominate the presidential race in the United States.

"The family, the central and fundamental nucleus of all of society...deserves the maximum protection and help to carry out its mission," the pontiff said.

He said we "cannot give in to certain voices that seem to confuse marriage with other forms of union that are completely different when not contrary to it."

After Massachusetts in May became the first state in America to permit gay marriages, the issue has been hotly debated ahead of presidential elections.

More:
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5458011

[truthspeaker]

1. once they're born, it's OK to let priests sexually abuse them

Thanks for your input, Johnnie. Now go back to sleep.

[sniffa]

2. he's stiLL aLive?

i think we shouLd pre-emptiveLy invade the vatican. i wanna see what's inside the secret vauLts of the vatican.

[gWbush is Mabus]

3. die already you old foolish hate-monger

[smirkymonkey]

38. That's what I was thinking,

but was too much of a coward to say so.

[HereSince1628]

4. Gee, I had no idea gay marriage and abortion dominated

the presidential race. Mentioned, sure.

Rovian forces cherry-picked these issues to appeal to their base and deflect from failures in Iraq and the polarizing economic recovery.

[DarkPhenyx]

5. As well he should.

Why are we surprised, or even upset, about this? It's his religion, his morals. Isn't he supposed to stick by his convictions?

[xchrom]

10. let's consider that it's 2004 and no longer is it ok

by any stretch of the imagination or religous conviction to preach and disseminate superstitious bigotry and hate.
pope or no pope -- the view of the individual is vastly different today and the church needs to get a grip.

[DarkPhenyx]

11. Actually it is.

I thin it's called Freedom of Speech and Religion. I think they wrote about it in one document or another. I'll have to see if I can look it up for you.

[truthspeaker]

14. Yes, and we have freedom of speech too.

And we're using it.

[DarkPhenyx]

16. So. What's your point?

Or did you simply want to point out that you can speak?

[truthspeaker]

13. Not if his convictions are vile and bigoted.

Hitler stuck by his convictions. Does that mean we can't judge him?

George Bush is standing by his convictions.

[DarkPhenyx]

17. It's your opinion that they are vile and bigoted.

His opinion would be that you are going to hell. His opinion would also be that only God can judge.

[Tyler Durden]

18. Free speech is not protected if it incites an illegal action.

This is a well accepted part of the SCOTUS under Frankfurter (1920's) decision.

The moment it violates law (such as making a restriction on voting), they have violated the laws regarding political campaigning by non-profits.

The solution?

1. SHUT THE FUCK UP.
2. PAY TAXES.
3. THERE IS NO THIRD THING.

[DarkPhenyx]

19. So please point out where...

...teh Pontiff's word are intentionally, and by design, inciting illegal acts. You are obviously seeing something I'm not.

[Tyler Durden]

21. By the numbers:

1. the Pope is considered to be the head of a non-profit organization (the Catholic Church)
2. non-profits are restrained by law from making specific constraints on political freedom (don't vote for Gay Marriage/Choice Supporters, and if you do, you're going to Hell).

Ergo, if they incite a position that violates the law, then they are no longer entitled to Tax Free Status. Therefore they may:

1. STOP or
2. Pay taxes.

There's no third path. I can cite the language of the SCOTUS decision if you want, but it's easy to look up. Feel free, it's quite specific, and certain Hate Groups have already had Tax Free status revoked using it.

[DarkPhenyx]

25. It isn't against the law...

...to advocate against Gay Marriage as it is currently against the law for gays to marry in most of the US. Ergo he isn't in violation of the law. Even if it were legal he would be no more in violation of the law than someone advocating for the repeal of Marijuana laws.

[Tyler Durden]

26. You are missing the point:

Which is, they are advocating against Political candidates and parties in violation of the laws regarding non-profit organizations.

If you could be a non-profit and a political advocate, Democratic Underground woud be a non-profit.

In the case of Schenk vs United States (249 U.S. 47 {1919}), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in writing for the UNANIMOUS court, said:

"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

Congress made the laws regarding non-profits.
Ergo, if the actions of the Pope and the Catholic Church through their exercise of free speech and freedom of religion act to compel action against an action that Congress can and has legislated, then they are in violation of THE LAWS GOVERNING NON-PROFITS.

They can SAY and DO whatever they want: they just can't violate the law and retain their tax free status.

I told you to look it up.

[DarkPhenyx]

28. He isn't a non profit though.

He is a world leader. Big difference that. yes, yes...I know. "But, but..he's the leader of the Church!" So what. He isn't even an American citizen. Now, when the Bishops in America start saying teh same thing then you have a leg to stand on. Till then you don't. I think that would be the point you are missing.

What substantive evil are you talking about? Reguardless of which one it is I think most of Congress would disagree with you I think. Gay marriage is not a popular subject among our elected leaders.

[Tyler Durden]

30. The Bishops of Colorado and Massachusetts are WAY ahead of you.

And the substansive evil is VIOLATION OF THE NON-PROFIT LAW, AND DESCRIMINATION.

And you either have your head in the sand, or you are arguing for the sake of argument.

[DarkPhenyx]

32. That wouldn't be a substantive evil.

Unless your perception of evil is more out of whack than Bush's anyway.

Now, as for the Bishops you mentioned they got their hands slapped and have stopped I believe. Problem solved.

[Tyler Durden]

34. WRONGO!

They got vatican support, and do I REALLY have to go and get you the legal definition of "substantive evil" or will you settle for the paraphrase, which is any act not in the public interest due to illegality?

WHY are you picking nits? This is utter horseshit. Enjoy your meaningless nitpicking, and do have a nice day.

Dominus vobiscum.

[DarkPhenyx]

36. I win!

Thanks. I needed another notch on my belt. *scribbling "Tyler Durden" next to the new notch, then smiling*

[Forkboy]

49. lol

:crazy:

[smirkymonkey]

41. His opinion has no place in US politics...

period.

[DarkPhenyx]

47. Why?

You mean everyone isn't allwoed to have an opinion? I'm guessing you feel the same about Mexico, Israel...France...Germany...Russia.

[smirkymonkey]

48. He is a religious figure, not a world leader.

Our nation is not a theocracy and we are not beholden to the moral views of Opus Dei. Besides, he's senile.

[DarkPhenyx]

60. He is also a world leader.

I know you are going to hate having to admit that, but it is true.

[Malva Zebrina]

54. Of course he is allowed to have an opinion

Of course he is allowed to have and opinion--the point is that he, or his bishops, cannot use political venues to try to persuade or cajole those persons who are bound to that church/religion to vote according to his opinion or they lose tax exempt status--

I think that Pat Robertson's organisation did have the tax exempt status removed for issuing his voter cards in churches.

Apparently, not too many people pay attention to what the Pope says. He could not even get Bush to see his papal entourage, who wanted to try to persuade Bush not to go to war before Bush invaded.

Certainly the Pope should consider the ethics also and the implications of his arm twisting of the flock.

No one elected him.

Popes seldom, it seems, understand democracy.

[DarkPhenyx]

61. The pope is elected.

The conclave of bishops or something is the voting body for it I believe. Could be wrong, but I do believe that is how it works.

The Pope isn't using a political venue. He's using a religious venue to remind his followers of what their moral base should be according to the guide book they use. He, at least, isn't being hypocritical about his beliefs.

[Malva Zebrina]

64. -who elects the bishops?

not the people that is for certain. Are they not appointed by the Pope?
The church is not a democracy.
There is no doubt about it.

No need to get defensive because those are simply the facts.


The poor old Pope will never understand democracy because he got where he is, in that postion of power, by other means and not by the consent of the people. It is a concept that is alien to the church. and not only the Catholic church. Most religions are not democratic in their structure.

[DarkPhenyx]

65. Who's defensive?

It was said the Pope wasn't elected. Which was a completely wrong statement. I simply corrected the poor mistaken soul.

It dosen't matter that the Church isn't a democracy. Churches period, no matter the mythology the subscribe to, do not tend to be democratic. I can think of only one example of a "democratic religion" and I can't even remember the name of it.

[Malva Zebrina]

66. Oh excuse me

the spin that the Pope is indeed elected, translates to:

the Catholic Church is a democracy.

Yup, it sure is because dammit, the Pope is elected by the Bishops amd the Cardinals, who, as we all know, are elected by the people in that religion.

LOL NOT.

The people have not one iota of input into the process at all.

and that is why I say thje Pope will not, and cannot understand what a democracy is.

Come on-- I strongly suspect that you know that by any and no means of the imagination, no way can the Catholic religion be considered a democracy.

It is NOT, DarkPhenix

Stubborn refusal to admit to the obvioua facts I have pointed out simply looks like spin and denial and makes me wonder why you find it necessary to do so.














we have had enough of that for the past three years.

It, the Catholic church, is plainly NOT a democratic institution and if it were to embrace a more democratic approachj, it would lose it's power in almost an instant.

Plainly , it is not and to claim otherwise is simply desperate lies and spin in order to defend one's religious beliefs.
That of course, to those who can think, is not productive and seems to me to be more unproductive.

You cannot spin and lie in order to defend your faith because all you are doing, in that case, is making a case for the falsity of your faith.

In this case, spin fails because the facts are out there plainly

[DarkPhenyx]

67. PLease point out where I said it was a democracy.

You can't, but it will be amusing to see you try.

<on e3dit>

BTW, it isn't my faith. I'm a Pagan, not a Catholic. This would make you wrong on two points about me in your last post.

[Malva Zebrina]

68. I said it was not a democracy--I began the debate with that propostiion

you answered my proposition that being: the Catholic church is NOT a democracy and no one votes for the Pope--you said the bishops vote for the Pope and I asked you who votes for the Bishops. You did not answer.



Since you are throwing up this straw man, asserting or tacitly accusing me of attributing false statements to you, ie. that you did NOT say the church is a democracy, something which I never said you did.

I assume that means that you recognize the truth of my premise, The church is not a democracy. No one votes for the Pope, meaning no one of the flock, of course, as in, you know, a democracy, and no one votes for anyone in those positions of great authority over the little people who try to "obey" or else they are doomed to sin and to hell or something.

Pagans don't have faith? I did not realize that.

[DarkPhenyx]

70. I refuted your statement...

...which was completely wrong. I didn't say they were a Democracy. Do you wish to retract your comment or continue to claim things which are false?

You have only half a truth in your statement. There are people who vote for the Pope. Do you wish to conceed that point as well? You have already admited as much.

Please point out my straw man. What construct did I build specifically so I could tear it down. If you can't show that I would appreciate you retracting that statement as well.

Nice attempted bait and switch with the Pagan comment, BTW. Please try and stay on topic though.

[ElectroPrincess]

23. It's my religion also ...

The Pope is being selective and did not invoke divine authority. That means he's expressing his opinion, not necessarily God's. We have every right to evaluate this as "cherry picking."

"Thou shall not kill" as interpreted by many, if not most in the catholic faith means both anti-abortion and anti-death penalty. The two combined means *pro-life*. I respect the Catholics who are true to the definition, however, the Pope IMHO needs to be even-handed and not just bring out two of scores of separately "amoral" behaviors.

[DarkPhenyx]

29. I don't respect Catholics.

That is pretty much beside the point though.

[ElectroPrincess]

44. It's on point DP ... smack dab on the fact that

not even the Pope can pick and choose a "mortal sin" of the season. ;)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

40. Yes, he is. How much did he slam Reagan for divorcing and remarrying? (nt)

[Mandate My Ass]

6. Bush and JPII sure love their unfunded mandates

and institutionalized gay hatred.

[saigon68]

15. HOMOPHOBIA

Murder of children in Oily wars.

[xultar]

7. In the Pope's eyes, would the abortion of a gay or lesbian fetus be ok?

Just wanna know....

[DarkPhenyx]

12. Not surprisingly the answer would be no. n/t

[truthspeaker]

22. You have to wait until they are adults to burn them at the stake.

Maybe he'll bring back that tradition too.

[DarkPhenyx]

24. Now you are being an extremist.

Too bad about that too.

[truthspeaker]

27. Sure, because the Catholic church has never advocated burning people

<sarcasm>

[DarkPhenyx]

31. Of course they did.

They still do in fact, in some places. My people BTW. So what's your point?

[truthspeaker]

33. My point is the pope is an evil misogynist fuck.

I thought that was clear.

[DarkPhenyx]

35. I disagree.

He is a true believer in his religion. Nothing more. This is a good thing. I think more people should be more willing to follow the actual tenants of their faith. It would beat the hell out of the hyporcitical believers that most people tend to be.

[truthspeaker]

37. his religion teaches misogyny and anti-gay bigotry

And no, that is not a good thing.

Osama bin Laden is a true believer in his religion, and that sure as hell isn't a good thing.

[DarkPhenyx]

39. So basically you see the Judeo/Christian/Islamic mythology

as a world wide evil. OK, fair enough. Just so long as you realize what you are saying I have no issue with that.

[smirkymonkey]

42. True believer? Now you are being naive!

Talk about hypocritical "believers". He's a neo-con in a dress.

[bagnana]

43. A true believer would have rooted out the sexual predators

working in his church and prevented them from getting anywhere near another child again. This morning I heard a story on NPR that made me sick: the church has been transferring predators, some even convicted predators, all over the world and most of them are still acting as priests. How can you let this happen and then get on a high horse and preach to people about what they should be doing and how they should be living their lives? Disgusting.

[LiberalFighter]

50. Wouldn't have to wait until adult to condemn them to hell

If they are not baptized before they die then they are not saved... right?

But if they decided that they are gay or lesbian at birth then they are confirming that it is beyond the control of the individuals.

[2Design]

8. a very sick old man.....may God forgive him and his bishops for

abuse of God's people....

[SheepyMcSheepster]

9. they have certanily been vigilante about protecting kids from molestation.

/sarcasm

[ElectroPrincess]

20. I wish ...

I sure wish the Pope would refocus on the moral sin of unjust wars and illegal invasions. We (all Americans) all have blood on our hands because our fearless leader has invaded Iraq and allowed his selective storm troopers to hide POWs and torture at will.

I'm offering to drive folks to the polls this upcoming November. If Bush is re-elected, there may not be too many tomorrows.

Let's pray for our religious leaders to put their priorities in order.

[Karenina]

62. Maybe he could slap

the *misanthropadministration upside the head with a placard that reads:
UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE! :silly:

[xchrom]

45. the pope is a knowing bigot and liar

his speech promotes hatred and violence in others -- that's been part of the history of the pulpit he speaks from.
and he is acting on others superstitous fears. acting in another historical footpath.
there is nothing sincere about him.

[DaveSZ]

46. It's funny he mentions Massachusetts

Most of its citizens are Catholic.

[Bo]

51. tomas aquinas......

thepossibilty.....

[Tight_rope]

52. Just bless the people, water and bread and then shut up!

Not that I believe that what the media reports are comments or statements that actually came out of his mouth...Hell he can bearly hold his fucking head up. So I know he can go to be bathroom by himself or make such vile comments about what's going on in life today. Hell! he's one foot in the grave already.

[hyphenate]

53. The pope can go sit on it

for all I care. He's an ass, just like so many others in the Catholic church, who is as hypocritical as they come. I think that the Vatican weighing in on our presidential election is akin to a mosquito pestering someone at a picnic. Time to swat the sucker and kill it.

When will the Catholic church, and all those other hypocritical bastards in the religious right learn that the fundamental civil rights of this country exist to help provide ALL of us with the right to choose whatever we want to believe in, not kowtow or bow down to those meglomaniac assholes?

[GinaMaria]

55. Gina urges maximum protection of children

Too bad the pope doesn't.

[truthisfreedom]

56. uhh, excuse me? mr. pope, sir? what about the living? any protection

for them?

[Seabiscuit]

57. This pope must be senile

interfering in an American election year. He should keep his yap shut.

"rights of the unborn"???? That's a direct political attack on our Consititution - Roe vs. Wade.

Since when is "the family" threatened by equal rights to gays???

He should confine his remarks to criminal corruption in Italy and within the Catholic Church (i.e.. child-molesting priests and the Church's routine cover-ups over decades/centuries).

:spank:

[ElectroPrincess]

58. It's a sad truism ...

It's tragic that when cronyism and corruption is uncovered - the root cause can always be traced to the elements of money and/or power.

[PATRICK]

59. maximum protection

Personally I don't see anyone except the Log Cabin neocons as being anything like a threat much less to marriage. The main threat to heterosexual marriage isn't even divorce or the decision by one partner not to have children.

The ideal as eventually defined by the Church is resting on the Bible and teachings collated by Aquinas for his own particular, thriving age of feudal success. Nor was Aquinas any more particular gifted on the deep side than his fellow encyclopedist and model predecessor Aristotle.
This is the primacy of order and orderliness, at least in defining the ideal(Plato?) according to something called natural law which for millions of years innocent humans or pre-humans never practiced.

In fact, skip natural law for a moment. The one woman one man thing evolved among the Jews themselves anyway. The spiritual model then sealed the accumulated values of one man one woman and made each element integral and sacred(in the negative, and often wrong way of looking at it, making all imperfections sinful). That included procreation as the first goal or at least a close second to unitive love. Intending to have children(which many gay couples do intend and they won't let biology stop them as would be permissible for straight good catholic couples) is a plus. In an overpopulated world it hardly seems threatening in a natural way.

So it comes down to what the Church thinks of the gay love relationship itself. Somehow it always comes to negatives, to dangers, to reactions. In Jesus time, it was a buried topic(capital offense according to old laws) in Judaism except for universal condemnation of the pagan morals. I think at one point an example of this thinking was the "logic" of Aquinas carrying this to an extreme that masturbation was worse than rape(since the ideal possibility for children was present). Predators of any persuasion are a big problem, not every human with sexcxual desires. That religion and law should agree upon surely?

It is better to keep the focus on the decay and cruelty and negative characteristics of sex or any other appetite as type or symptom of the real vice and disorder or selfishness etc. within. All the fearless(which is beyond a social overseer like the bishop of a Church) positive approach should be is to promote value, its form of sacramental marriage(a matter of faith not civil contract)for its people, how other Christian Churches are arguing the issues(much less secular governments concerned more about property rights!)would be to promote what is good in society, decry what in their OPINION is dangerous, and settle their own house first.

Trusting a tinhorn new authoritarian, feeble heretic looney such as the minority now in power in the WH is going to solve not one moral issue, but threaten everything you concede as mutual agreement.

Maximum protection for the Christian form of marriage can only come from the maximum effort of all Christians within their faith communities. The Pope's words are certainly no protection in themselves. This Pope well knows Christians have had tougher times even in Poland in protecting their faith lives. Did he think be liberating them from atheistic totalitarianism that the new danger of amoral freedoms could be best answered by another authoritarian state, not atheistic- but worse- using religion for its own politically amoral, immoral ends?

Maximum protection is in the example and teachings of the Pope on down. Maximum protection is on the level playing field of individual freedom and equal civil law. If homosexuality is a crime that threatens the society like theft and murder then make the argument or get back to the business of saving people not creating pyramids of punishment "divinely willed" by DNA inheritance and accidental social status.

Nothing has so diluted the procreative completion of marriage as the population explosion. Nothing has become so curiously lost as the fairly new reinforced values placed of the love of the couple as the very sign of the love between Christ and His Church. Nothing is so strangely ironic as the behavior of the many homosexual clergy in the highest teaching positions- and their bishops.

So am I opposing the Pope on the issue? At least in the application of
principles to the world body politic which during all of our long sad history shows that a secular society guaranteeing basic equal rights and liberties for all is the only choice for a religion other than the always false triumph of political fear and repression. With one you(and the Spirit) are liberated to do the best in broad daylight. In the other, there is no hope for anyone, especially for the triumphant "protectors" of the faith- and there -as we see- the Spirit is most hidden and lied about. Free that from the Church's form of marriage and deeper definition and then we can move on to the CHURCH's legitimate problem: gay catholics who want to get married in the Church.

Do they think holding back religiously indifferent secular law will stave off having even to think about it in their own domain? Sadly that is the modus operandi for ALL issues, even women priests or, heaven forbid, heterosexually married priests(men only?). Hold the line- out there- so nothing happens like Vatican Council II they will have administrative cause to regret.

Far far greater problems ARE coming down the pike with regard to making children, new humans, and controlling our unruly or deficient genes. With regards to massive dying out of humanity even before then.With the greater threat of Mammon and the World threatening the gifts of peace, democracy and "catholic" universality of true globalism. People who love each other and want to share equally in the duties and benefits of society are a strength we can ill afford to tear down.

Throughout history the Church did so tear at itself and others. The targets more than likely were the powerless and the innocent. Did it ever do any good for the "preserved" values? It only cruelly, hypocritically, emptied them and shrank the very worldly influence the
Church's old "neocon" types drooled over. Or they'd rather turn a blind eye and simply bury the problem that starts such culture wars- a common response of blind tolerance practiced by many cultures. THAT indifference bred the very problems with secular indifference that has come round full circle.

There is probably an infallible argument for the fallible practice and form of human Popes and clergy in trying to speak perfectly for their God. Something does not sit right in those forms of leadership today. Nor are religions alone in their institutional shortcomings lately.

Yes anyone has the right to state their principles and preach to society. "Maximum protection" smacks of an old Church vice better left buried and unmentioned.

[lostnfound]

63. War kills unborn babies AND destroys marriage.

All those war widows and widowers..and the miscarriages..and dead pregnant women.
So that would be the greatest threat, wouldn't it, since it threatens both..?

[2Design]

69. Pope can accept the blame for all the dead cause by Bush too

[sendero]

71. I urge maximum protection..

.... of young boys and girls left in the charge of the Catholic clergy.


I'm fed to the neck with "pope" and wish he would just go away.