Pope Benedict criticizes homosexual behavior

[RobertLGarrett]

What you don’t openly declare (such as the necessity to love the homosexual) you denounce by its mere absence from important declarations in a public forum.

This perpetuates violence and hatred as the alternative reaction toward homosexuals.

That is completely illogical. There were a lot of things he didn’t openly declare in his speech. He didn’t openly declare that interracial marriage was okay, does that mean he is against it? He didn’t openly declare that polygamy is a problem, does that mean he is for it?

You are reading way too much into his statement. All he basically said is that homosexual relationships being equated to heterosexual relationships is a danger to society. This is true.

 

[caoindealbhan]

That is completely illogical. There were a lot of things he didn’t openly declare in his speech. He didn’t openly declare that interracial marriage was okay, does that mean he is against it? He didn’t openly declare that polygamy is a problem, does that mean he is for it?

You are reading way too much into his statement. All he basically said is that homosexual relationships being equated to heterosexual relationships is a danger to society. This is true.

Especially using words that incite such as “danger to society” you have a responsibility to again and again draw lines for reactionary people that see this as a license to “protect” themselves from the “danger”.

 

[RosaryGirl_777]

The Pope did a good thing by affirming the Catholic Church’s view of homosexual acts. Even though we will probably catch hekk from the pro-gay groups. Look at all the trouble Christians in California went through with the passing of prop 8

The Pope is visiting Israel is May, Isn’t gay pride day in May?
That might not be a good idea

 

[RobertLGarrett]

Especially using words that incite such as “danger to society” you have a responsibility to again and again draw lines for reactionary people that see this as a license to “protect” themselves from the “danger”.

The “danger” is not the individual, struggling with his/her disordered desires. The “danger” is in the voter, judge, etc. who perverts the meaning of marriage and causes an erosion in our society.

 

[wanner47]

Never, never, NEVER trust the secular media to get a Pope’s message even halfway right.

This is what Benedict XVI *actually *said:

Since faith in the Creator is an essential part of the Christian Creed, the Church cannot and should not limit itself to transmitting to its faithful only the message of salvation. She has a responsibility for Creation, and it should validate this responsibility in public.

In so doing, it should defend not just the earth, water and air as gifts of Creation that belong to everyone. She should also protect man from destroying himself.

It is necessary to have something like an ecology of man, understood in the right sense. It is not outdated metaphysics when the Church speaks of the nature of the human being as man and woman, and asks that this natural order be respected.

This has to do with faith in the Creator and listening to the language of creation, which, if disregarded, would be man’s self-destruction and therefore a destruction of God’s work itself.

That which has come to be expressed and understood with the term ‘gender’ effectively results in man’s self-emancipation from Creation (nature) and from the Creator. Man wants to do everything by himself and to decide always and exclusively about anything that concerns him personally. But this is to live against truth, to live against the Spirit Creator.

The tropical rain forests deserve our protection, yes, but man does not deserve it less as a Creature of the Spirit himself, in whom is inscribed a message that does not mean a contradiction of human freedom but its
condition.

The great theologians of Scholasticism described matrimony - which is the lifelong bond between a man and a woman - as a sacrament of Creation, that the Creator himself instituted, and that Christ, without changing the message of Creation, welcomed in the story of his alliance with men.

Part of the announcement that the Church should bring to men is a testimonial for the Spirit Creator present in all of nature, but specially in the nature of man, who was created in the image of God.

One must reread the encyclical Humanae vitae with this perspective: the intention of Pope Paul VI was to defend love against consumer sex, the future against the exclusive claim of the moment, and human nature against manipulation.

 

[caoindealbhan]

Interracial marriages and polygamy were not topical.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

Interracial marriages and polygamy were not topical.

They are related to the institution of marriage, which is what the Pope was discussing. All I am trying to say is that your point was ridiculous. There is nothing the Pope said that would give someone cause to hate anyone.

 

[caoindealbhan]

Thanks Jo Ana, the speech was beautiful.

Unfortunately, you know as well as I, that taken out of context a beautiful speech can be seen as a license to act “self-righteously”. I will pray that no backlash occurs. His Holy Father meant well. I hope he doesn’t l;ive to regret not spelling out clearly what the expectations of the Catholic in the pew is in regards to loving his neighbor, the homosexual.

 

[JReducation]

Never, never, NEVER trust the secular media to get a Pope’s message even halfway right.

This is what Benedict XVI *actually *said:

The talk doesn’t actually mention the term homosexual acts. It alludes to everything that is not consistent with nature. The press is reading into it.

My concern is that there are Catholics out there who will also read into it what they want to read. Many Catholics can’t tell the difference between a homosexual and a homosexual act. The Church does not condemn homosexuality. It condemns homosexual acts, but no less than it condemns heterosexual acts that are outside of marriage.

Some people think that there is greater license for heterosexuals than homosexuals, which is wrong. That is not it at all.

The Creator intended for creation to exist in pairs of male and female, but those pairs were to be in a covenant relationship, not one night stands or other arrangements.

This talk is a little vague, though beautiful, but we do need to drive the point home to homosexuals that they are part of our Christian family and that we love and understand them. We also need to drive the point home to heterosexual bigots that homosexuals are not the pariah of humanity and all signs of discrimination and injustice against them or humour at their expense is a violation of what we should hold sacred as Christians, the human person.

Finally, we need to drive home the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[caoindealbhan]

Dear JREducation,
You have a future in public speech writing for pontiffs!! Beautifully executed !:thumbsup:

 

[JReducation]

Don’t get so excited folks. The Holy Father made no such condemnation. He made a speech in which he referred to all of creation, including man. In that speech he spoke about the sanctity of marriage. He NEVER used the term homosexual behaviour.

Aside from that, the Church is not interested in how people become homosexuals, since homosexuality is not a sin. The Church is interested in homosexual activity.

Add to this that this is not a license for heterosexuals activity outside of marriage. The bottom line is that the Church and the Pope’s statement protects and proclaims that sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.

Whether a person is gay by genetics or development is not a moral problem. Just as it’s not a moral problem to be heterosexual.

The moral problem is the disordered sexual activity of either group. Homosexuality is getting more attention today, because you can speak about it openly. Several hundred years ago spiritual masters spent years writing about heterosexual impurity.

Let’s keep things in balance and treat the Pope’s statement with honesty. Most of all, let’s use it honestly. For more information on the Church’s position see the CCC.

Here is a link to the Holy Father’s complete speech.

ncrcafe.org/node/2342

The alleged condemnation is part of the speech that he gave on the environment.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[JReducation]

My concern is that the Church would change the criteria of procreation capability and poof, there goes the defense against homosexual marriage. Also, it understand the recent news about the Vatican saying that states should not pass laws against homosexuality. Isn’t the ACTION a grave matter? Isn’t murder also a grave matter? Can states not ban murder???

The Vatican’s concern is that the State does not know how to regulate moral matters. Benedict XVI saw millions of gay people slaughtered by Hitler. They had committed not crime, except being gay. That is morally unacceptable.

The State cannot have the power over people, because of their sexual preference. Sexual preference is not a sin. The sin is impurity or sins against chastity. These are committed by homosexual and heterosexual people. Therefore the State would have to control everyone’s sexual behavior to be fair.

Can the State be trusted to be that fair? History has proven that it cannot. Chances are the heterosexual violators of the moral code will get away with it, while homosexual violators will be punished. That’s are repetition of Nazi Germany and other societies such as Muslim societies and some Communist societies.

The Church cannot stand by and allow the State to violate justice.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[JReducation]

Dear JREducation,

                          You have a future in public speech writing for pontiffs!!  Beautifully executed !:thumbsup:

All of those years studying under German theologians are paying off. We finally have a pope whom I understand.

JR

 

[eichenb2]

since homosexuality is not a sin. The Church is interested in homosexual activity.

What does this mean? For that matter, what is Homosexuality, as opposed to Homosexual activity?

Whether a person is gay by genetics or development is not a moral problem.

 

[Kevin42]

JReducation;4585242:

since homosexuality is not a sin. The Church is interested in homosexual activity.

What does this mean? For that matter, what is Homosexuality, as opposed to Homosexual activity?

Whether a person is gay by genetics or development is not a moral problem.

I think what JReduction was saying (and may he please correct me if I am mistaken!) is that being “homosexual” (attracted to the same sex) is not sinful in itself. Simply having a sexual draw to a certain sex is not sinful, although it is disordered for homosexuals. However, what is sinful is when homosexuals act on there desires and engage in sexual activity or lust.

Hopefully that answered your question?

 

[JReducation]

JReducation;4585242:

since homosexuality is not a sin. The Church is interested in homosexual activity.

What does this mean? For that matter, what is Homosexuality, as opposed to Homosexual activity?

Whether a person is gay by genetics or development is not a moral problem.

Homosexuality is sexual attraction to a member of your own sex. This is not a sin.

Homosexual activity is sex with a member of your own gender. This is a sin.

The Church makes this very important distinction in her moral framework. See the CCC under homosexuality.

The cause of homosexuality is still unknown; however, the Church is not as interested in this question, because the fact that a person is attracted to the same sex is not a moral problem. The moral problem is the sexual intercourse.

Sexual intercourse outside of marriage is a moral problem for both groups, homosexuals and heterosexuals.

In any case, the Pope’s speech was not a criticism of homosexuals. It was a defence of nature.

I hope this is clearer.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[joshuag]

Just for all those to mentioned Prop 8… It was overturned by the Californian supreme court. An amendment will be voted on in August of 09’ to ban it indefinately.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

Just for all those to mentioned Prop 8… It was overturned by the Californian supreme court. An amendment will be voted on in August of 09’ to ban it indefinately.

I didn’t read about this. I thought the vote in November was a constitutional amendment. It wasn’t? If it was, how did the courts overturn it?

EDIT ADD: I did a Google News search and all I see is the Attorney General’s statements urging the courts to overturn it…did they do it already???

 

[JReducation]

I didn’t read about this. I thought the vote in November was a constitutional amendment. It wasn’t? If it was, how did the courts overturn it?

It all depends on the power that the State Constitution gives to the Court. In my state the State Supreme Court can overturn a proposed amendment if it deems that said amendment is in conflict with the State Constitution or with the Constitution of the United States.

The amendment is sent back with the observations of the Court and it must be rewritten.

JR

 

[eichenb2]

eichenb2;4585281:

person is attracted to the same sex is not a moral problem.

It seems that it should be, as it is against clear biblical principles. Whereas, a man’s attraction for a woman who is not his wife is wrong, but at least it is inline with the natural order of things.