Pope's stance on gays 'like Hitler'

[batteddy]

Abortion is worse than the holocaust, at least in the number of people killed, but the Vatican has warned us against making that analogy because there are important differences (though I feel ADL-type jews had a hand in silencing the comparison too…)

Remember, in the Holocaust the government did not merely allow murder, it actively carried it out. Maybe in China they are doing this with abortion, but in America, it is merely tolerated (which is still horrible.)

And in the holocaust, people were not just allowed to be killed out of convenience, but a group was specifically targetted. Although fetuses are allowed to be killed when they are unwanted, I don’t think there is a campaign to exterminate the entire fetal race.

 

[frommi]

Ace86:

While I understand your remark, what about this analogy?:

Many Americans are just as ignorant and in denial about abortion as the many Germans were with the death camps a few miles from their towns in World War II.

I’ve had a debate about “holocaustal” imagery in other threads…

I’ll just say that we have to be careful not to take a horrible moment in human history like the holocaust and use it as imagery that makes it impossible to solve the issues of the present day.

I think the point about abortion can be made without referring to it as a holocaust.

 

[Libero]

bones_IV:

take what hitler, stalin, Osama bin-laden and Hussein did, all rolled up into a ball it doesn’t even compare to the evils America promotes, with abortion at the pinnacle of all of them.

Well I don’t think that is quite true, and I am including the war on Iraq as well.

 

[Libero]

BlindSheep:

Yes, abortion is actually much worse. Since Roe, 45 million innocent human beings have been slaughtered by abortion, while only about 10 million were killed in the holocaust.

On topic, the article said:

I wonder why he doesn’t compare the belief that adultery is “objectively evil”, or the belief that schizophrenia is “intrinsically disordered” with Hitler’s ideology?
Another example of the inability of certain people to understand that these phrases refer to actions, not to people. That is the consequence, though, of the tendency among liberals not to believe in free will - people are not seen as choosing their actions, but as being their actions. Not a very healthy or hopeful way of looking at human behavior, or so it seems to me. If I didn’t choose my actions, I cannot act differently in the future - how depressing.
Actually, there is some truth to it, in that concupisence wounds our free will, but there is also hope, because of God’s grace, that we can overcome it. Maybe, then, that’s why we seem harsh to secularists - we are treating people as though they could control themselves, when lacking God’s grace, they really can’t.
I begin to think more and more that the secular worldview is hopeless, and that there is no point in trying to reason with secularists on their own terms, since this means ignoring what we know to be true. Perhaps our energy would be better spent on trying to promote the Catholic faith as a whole, instead of arguing about issues from a secular perspective.

But you see the problem is with the church. Us Laypeople can claim that all of the harsh words of the Vatican do not refer to the person - but nobody in the Vatican explains this!! The Pope nevers comes across all friendly and tries to explain the complex language in simple terms…

What on earth is “objectively disordered” meant to mean - it is a useless and undefined term… it is also unecessarilly harsh. Whilst the church can claim all it wants that is really does care about the homosexual person, they actually need to show this… that is where it is all going wrong…

 

[Digger71]

Ace86:

John Paul (in Brazil) said that abortion was the most UNJUST execution of ALL. (my emphasis).

Think of it this way: Inmates get food, a chance to repent, and shelter. Aborted babies don’t even get to see the Sun.

It’s a matter of when ensoulment occurs.

 

[Ace86]

Libero:

But you see the problem is with the church. Us Laypeople can claim that all of the harsh words of the Vatican do not refer to the person - but nobody in the Vatican explains this!! The Pope nevers comes across all friendly and tries to explain the complex language in simple terms…

What on earth is “objectively disordered” meant to mean - it is a useless and undefined term… it is also unecessarilly harsh. Whilst the church can claim all it wants that is really does care about the homosexual person, they actually need to show this… that is where it is all going wrong…

Think of it this way: Every homosexual living on this earth right now has/had a mother and a father.

 

[Ace86]

Digger71:

It’s a matter of when ensoulment occurs.

Do you mind expanding on that a little? Contraception is wrong, so is abortion.

 

[Digger71]

Ace86:

Do you mind expanding on that a little? Contraception is wrong, so is abortion.

Do I need to?

 

[BlindSheep]

Libero:

But you see the problem is with the church. Us Laypeople can claim that all of the harsh words of the Vatican do not refer to the person - but nobody in the Vatican explains this!! The Pope nevers comes across all friendly and tries to explain the complex language in simple terms…

What on earth is “objectively disordered” meant to mean - it is a useless and undefined term… it is also unecessarilly harsh. Whilst the church can claim all it wants that is really does care about the homosexual person, they actually need to show this… that is where it is all going wrong…

Actually, I think the catechism made it pretty clear (emphasis mine):
2357
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”

2358
[Men and women who have homosexual tendencies] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided

2359
[Homosexual persons] can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

 

[Digger71]

Libero:

But you see the problem is with the church. Us Laypeople can claim that all of the harsh words of the Vatican do not refer to the person - but nobody in the Vatican explains this!! The Pope nevers comes across all friendly and tries to explain the complex language in simple terms…

What on earth is “objectively disordered” meant to mean - it is a useless and undefined term… it is also unecessarilly harsh. Whilst the church can claim all it wants that is really does care about the homosexual person, they actually need to show this… that is where it is all going wrong…

The Church needs to start offering specific examples of how to love the siner and hate the sin.

 

[Digger71]

BlindSheep:

Actually, I think the catechism made it pretty clear (emphasis mine):
2357
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”

2358
[Men and women who have homosexual tendencies] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided

2359
[Homosexual persons] can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Lets not do this.

 

[Digger71]

[Men and women who have homosexual tendencies]
must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided

The weasel word, because as we know people claim that is is ‘just’ to treat our homosexual brothers and sisters badly. They sin against god…

So, when the church actually drops this ‘unjust’ it will actually be saying something as opposed to paying lip-service.

arrgh. No Digger, stop it! Stop stating what SHOULD be obvious to everyone!

 

[BlindSheep]

Digger71:

The weasel word, because as we know people claim that is is ‘just’ to treat our homosexual brothers and sisters badly. They sin against god…

So, when the church actually drops this ‘unjust’ it will actually be saying something as opposed to paying lip-service.

arrgh. No Digger, stop it! Stop stating what SHOULD be obvious to everyone!

It will be saying something nonsensical, since “discrimination” by iteself, though used as though it carries the implication of “unjust”, actually refers to making any distinction whatsoever - any acknowledgement of differences at all is “discrimination”. To tell black people they need vitamin D supplements in the winter, and white people they need sunblock in the summer, is discrimination. The Pope uses the word “unjust”, not as a loophole, but because this is precisely what he means. If someone is confused about what is just and what is unjust according to the Church, they can reseach it further. As far as treating people “badly”, you should specify what you mean. I’m aware that you consider the refusal to call their relationships “marriages” to be an instance of “treating badly”. I don’t see a lot of confustion among faithful Catholics about the meaning of the word “unjust” here, only the dissatisfaction of people such as yourself that the Church does not agree with your belief that all discrimination is unjust.

 

[fix]

Digger71:

The weasel word, because as we know people claim that is is ‘just’ to treat our homosexual brothers and sisters badly. They sin against god…

So, when the church actually drops this ‘unjust’ it will actually be saying something as opposed to paying lip-service.

arrgh. No Digger, stop it! Stop stating what SHOULD be obvious to everyone!

How absurd. You never discriminate? How is it possible to lead a virtuous life is one never discriminates?

 

[bones_IV]

Digger71:

Lets not do this.

Your kidding right? And use the Catechism as an ordinary disclaimer? Your argument holds no ground. Are you just simply here to trash my thread?

 

[bones_IV]

frommi:

I’ve had a debate about “holocaustal” imagery in other threads…

I’ll just say that we have to be careful not to take a horrible moment in human history like the holocaust and use it as imagery that makes it impossible to solve the issues of the present day.

I think the point about abortion can be made without referring to it as a holocaust.

That’s all sophistic reasoning.

 

[fix]

Libero:

What on earth is “objectively disordered” meant to mean - it is a useless and undefined term… it is also unecessarilly harsh.

It means the inclination is not ordered toward the good. It is very meaningful, it is just that folks have to take the time to learn the truth and be open minded.

 

[fix]

frommi:

I still contend that any use of World War II era imagery…lest it be an allegory of being a “hitler” or something being the “holocaust”, is wholly in bad taste and totally inappropriate. I don’t care what side of the debate you are on.

I think it is a bad idea for us to think Hitler and his supporters were outside of reality. They were human. They did evil things. It has happend before and can, and does, happen now

 

[Libero]

BlindSheep:

Actually, I think the catechism made it pretty clear (emphasis mine):
2357
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”

2358
[Men and women who have homosexual tendencies] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided

2359
[Homosexual persons] can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Yes but you see the problem is that no body actually cares about this bit of the catechism. The church has written it, and it has proven fantastic for Catholics to use in order to condemn homosexuality - but there is a huge double standard.

So often I see the term “objectively disordered” cropping up and “good” Catholics do their very best to promote and defend this message, but then I see these same Catholics skipping right over the entire bit of 2358.

I also think the church itself does this - how very rarely I actually see “compassion” and “sensitivity” in church documents - in fact it is quite the opposite… I recall before the ban on homosexuals was made, Bishop Clarke made an article to gays in ministry, where he actually practised this “sensitivity” and “compassion” - and he recieved a real grilling for that on these forums…

Now whilst I expect an onsluaght of replies telling me how wrong I am - I ask others before they do that to please look at bishops comments - such as Cardinal O’Connor or Cardinal Arinze, and see if they truly are sensitive (not just a warped idea of this)…

To those who tell me they are, well, I feel a little bit concerned, as one good thing about living in Britain, means that whilst I get to see a very weak CBC - you also get to see real sensitivity and compassion from our bishops.

 

[fix]

Libero:

Yes but you see the problem is that no body actually cares about this bit of the catechism. The church has written it, and it has proven fantastic for Catholics to use in order to condemn homosexuality - but there is a huge double standard.

So often I see the term “objectively disordered” cropping up and “good” Catholics do their very best to promote and defend this message, but then I see these same Catholics skipping right over the entire bit of 2358.

I also think the church itself does this - how very rarely I actually see “compassion” and “sensitivity” in church documents - in fact it is quite the opposite… I recall before the ban on homosexuals was made, Bishop Clarke made an article to gays in ministry, where he actually practised this “sensitivity” and “compassion” - and he recieved a real grilling for that on these forums…

Now whilst I expect an onsluaght of replies telling me how wrong I am - I ask others before they do that to please look at bishops comments - such as Cardinal O’Connor or Cardinal Arinze, and see if they truly are sensitive (not just a warped idea of this)…

To those who tell me they are, well, I feel a little bit concerned, as one good thing about living in Britain, means that whilst I get to see a very weak CBC - you also get to see real sensitivity and compassion from our bishops.

Why do you place “sensitivity” at odds with truth? It is both.