You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
cymonk
Guest
Interesting.
Z
Zoe_Brain
Guest
Such situations cause Theological difficulties: so much so that many of sincere and strongly held religious persuasions not only would prefer that such people not exist, they take concrete steps to that end.
Where dogma and fact apparently collide, there are several ways of dealing with the situation:
To grant their humanity, to give them human rights, could be too dangerous to the whole of society, and indeed creation itself:
Homosexuality strikes at the biological boundary between the sexes. It is thus disordered, and should be anathematised. But the mere existence of people like these strikes a far more dangerous blow, does it not?
There appears to be three solutions to the problem.
First, we could suppress the dangerous knowledge that such people exist, in order to limit the damage, while still treating them humanely in secret.
Secondly, we could say that the termination of their existence is a regrettable necessity in order to protect the ecology of creation, the Natural Order.
Third, we could anathematise them as inherently evil, and see their extermination not as a regrettable necessity, but a Crusade.
Historically, the first option has been pursued. But it appears His Holiness is in favour of the third one. I could be wrong on that, but I see no other explanation that doesn’t involve severe casuistry.
Where dogma and fact apparently collide, there are several ways of dealing with the situation:
- To elaborate on the dogma to show that the collision is only apparent, not real. This can lead to some tying themselves into intellectual knots, in an attempt to prove that black is actually a form of white when viewed from the right perspective.
- To abandon the dogma, an intellectual construct sometimes many centuries old, an the product of some of the finest minds on the planet, the foundations on which much is based, throwing all into doubt and confusion.
- To demonise - sometimes quite literally - the intellectual opposition.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_RX1kCTDHtt8/S4eXzyVZpLI/AAAAAAAAAMI/qz_T4K_AZqc/s400/satan.PNG
I believe that intersex/transgender people are the offspring of human females that have had sex with demons or Satan himself.
I do not think we should allow into the church as once you invite them in they can come in anytime and corrupt the House of the Lord.
- To get rid of the problem by burying inconvenient facts - and inconvenient people.
“[The church] must defend not only the earth, water and air as gifts of creation that belong to all,” he said. “It must also defend the human person against its own destruction. What’s needed is something like a ‘human ecology,’ understood in the right sense. It’s not simply an outdated metaphysics if the church speaks of the nature of the human person as man and woman, and asks that this order of creation be respected.”
“Here it’s a question of faith in creation, in listening to the language of creation, disregard of which would mean self-destruction of the human person and hence destruction of the very work of God,” the pope said. “That which is often expressed and understood by the term ‘gender’ in the end amounts to the self-emancipation of the human person from creation and from the Creator. Human beings want to do everything by themselves, and to control exclusively everything that regards them. But in this way, the human person lives against the truth, against the Creator Spirit.”
- National Catholic Reporter on UDIENZA DEL SANTO PADRE ALLA CURIA ROMANA IN OCCASIONE DELLA PRESENTAZIONE DEGLI AUGURI NATALIZI , 22.12.2008
To grant their humanity, to give them human rights, could be too dangerous to the whole of society, and indeed creation itself:
ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI TO THE MEMBERS OF THE DIPLOMATIC CORPS FOR THE TRADITIONAL EXCHANGE OF NEW YEAR GREETINGSTo carry our reflection further, we must remember that the problem of the environment is complex; one might compare it to a multifaceted prism. Creatures differ from one another and can be protected, or endangered, in different ways, as we know from daily experience. One such attack comes from laws or proposals which, in the name of fighting discrimination, strike at the biological basis of the difference between the sexes. I am thinking, for example, of certain countries in Europe or North and South America.
Homosexuality strikes at the biological boundary between the sexes. It is thus disordered, and should be anathematised. But the mere existence of people like these strikes a far more dangerous blow, does it not?
There appears to be three solutions to the problem.
First, we could suppress the dangerous knowledge that such people exist, in order to limit the damage, while still treating them humanely in secret.
Secondly, we could say that the termination of their existence is a regrettable necessity in order to protect the ecology of creation, the Natural Order.
Third, we could anathematise them as inherently evil, and see their extermination not as a regrettable necessity, but a Crusade.
Historically, the first option has been pursued. But it appears His Holiness is in favour of the third one. I could be wrong on that, but I see no other explanation that doesn’t involve severe casuistry.
M
momor
Guest
Please provide the date of the address and a link to this quote. I could not find an address online that contained this quote.ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI TO THE MEMBERS OF THE DIPLOMATIC CORPS FOR THE TRADITIONAL EXCHANGE OF NEW YEAR GREETINGS
Homosexuality strikes at the biological boundary between the sexes. It is thus disordered, and should be anathematised. But the mere existence of people like these strikes a far more dangerous blow, does it not?
Z
Zoe_Brain
Guest
M
momor
Guest
Zoe Brain;6420117 said:Homosexuality strikes at the biological boundary between the sexes. It is thus disordered, and should be anathematised. But the mere existence of people like these strikes a far more dangerous blow, does it not?
There appears to be three solutions to the problem.
First, we could suppress the dangerous knowledge that such people exist, in order to limit the damage, while still treating them humanely in secret.
Secondly, we could say that the termination of their existence is a regrettable necessity in order to protect the ecology of creation, the Natural Order.
Third, we could anathematise them as inherently evil, and see their extermination not as a regrettable necessity, but a Crusade.
Historically, the first option has been pursued. But it appears His Holiness is in favour of the third one. I could be wrong on that, but I see no other explanation that doesn’t involve severe casuistry.
You appear to be trying to put your words into the Pope’s mouth.
Z
Zoe_Brain
Guest
That’s why I gave the exact wording, and the URLs, to avoid such an error. If you think a different interpretation is likely, given the circumstances, please give it.You appear to be trying to put your words into the Pope’s mouth.
The Pope in his recent visit to Uganda had plenty of opportunities to speak out against the “Gay Extermination” bill under consideration there. He kept silent, even though Priests would be forced to turn informer, or face three years imprisonment if they didn’t violate the sanctity of the confessional by reporting homosexual or related conduct - including someone being Intersexed (that’s in Section 18 of the law).
He did speak, at great length, against laws in the UK that would give Intersexed people equal rights to others though.
By all means, if there’s an alternate, likely explanation, please give it. His Holiness appears to have been completely consistent on the issue. He has stated that any blurring of the divide between men and women, be it via homosexuality or anything else, threatens Humanity’s destruction.
So what else is anyone to do but remove the danger - it’s just self-defence.
C
Christopher68
Guest
I was unaware that the Pope had visited Uganda recently. Considering how many stories were in the news about the Uganda anti-gay law, I would have thought the Pope would have spoken out against it during a visit to that country. By being silent, did he sort of gave his silent and tacit approval of the law? If anyone has any further information on the Pope’s visit to Uganda, please share.That’s why I gave the exact wording, and the URLs, to avoid such an error. If you think a different interpretation is likely, given the circumstances, please give it.
The Pope in his recent visit to Uganda had plenty of opportunities to speak out against the “Gay Extermination” bill under consideration there. He kept silent, even though Priests would be forced to turn informer, or face three years imprisonment if they didn’t violate the sanctity of the confessional by reporting homosexual or related conduct - including someone being Intersexed (that’s in Section 18 of the law).
He did speak, at great length, against laws in the UK that would give Intersexed people equal rights to others though.
By all means, if there’s an alternate, likely explanation, please give it. His Holiness appears to have been completely consistent on the issue. He has stated that any blurring of the divide between men and women, be it via homosexuality or anything else, threatens Humanity’s destruction.
So what else is anyone to do but remove the danger - it’s just self-defence.
Z
Zoe_Brain
Guest
My apologies - I should always double-check before posting. Mohammed came to the mountain instead.I was unaware that the Pope had visited Uganda recently…
That was in the news feed I was looking at, not having the full article to hand.But in his address to the bishops in Uganda last Friday, Benedict XVI made no reference to the anti-gay bill or the international outcry surrounding it.
The address to the Ugandan Bishops was NOT in Uganda though, and I should have noticed the later correction - “of” inserted for “in”.
There was also this:
But the text (which I didn’t have available in the feed) went on to sayKampala — Pope Benedict XVI has offered prayers to God for the souls of those who died in the massive landslide that hit villages in Bukalasi and Bumayoka subcounties in Bududa District.
URLs of the original articles the feed came from (Google is your friend):“I offer prayers to almighty God, the Father of all mercies that He may grant eternal rest to the souls of the deceased and give strength and hope to all who are suffering the consequences of this tragic event,” the Pope prayed before Catholic bishops from Uganda currently in the Vatican, Rome.
allafrica.com/stories/201003080158.html
politicsdaily.com/2010/03/08/pope-silent-on-ugandas-kill-the-gays-bill/
Again, my apologies. Thanks for causing me to check this. As regards His Holiness’s silence on the issue, there are many plausible reasons for it. It doesn’t disprove the hypothesis, but neither does it do much to confirm it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.