New Evangelization: Legalize homosexuality, promote civil partnerships
#1
From the President of the Pontifical Council for the Family, appointed by this Holy Father, and a member, appointed by this Holy Father, of the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization:

"..the Catholic Church opposes legal sanctions against homosexuality and favors legal protections for unmarried people living together.."If a country outlawed homosexuality, I would work to overturn it,"...Archbishop Paglia also called for greater efforts to ensure legal protection and inheritance rights for people who are living together, but not married."

"But do not call it marriage," he said.

Good to know we shouldn't call it marriage though. Many thanks to Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia for exercising that teaching magisterium.

"Democracy needs solid and stable families," he said. The sharing, caring and sacrificing people learn in their families are what spurs them to extend their defense of the rights of others to the social and political realm, and to protect and care for weaker members of society."

It is also good to know that family can be of some use to liberal democracy.

Apologies if this has already been posted in another thread.

http://www.uscatholic.org/news/201302/de...says-26850
Reply
#2
Who compels you to twist the words ? He did not say legalize homosexuality. He said we, as all, including homosexuals are children of God with equal dignity. The Father of Lies is Satan, and now you know why many wonder about trads like you.

tim
Reply
#3
I'm sorry you took that impression from my post Tim.

This seemed pretty plain to me, but I'll restate the quote:

"If a country outlawed homosexuality, I would work to overturn it," he [Archbishop Paglia] said, adding that he believed there are still "20 or 25 countries" that define homosexuality as a crime."

Check the link, but he states in a direct quote taken from the Catholic News Service that he recommends that those who live in countries where homosexuality is outlawed should work to overturn the ban.

Edited: to forestall misapprehensions and fruitless derailing, I clarify that I fully accept that men and women who find they have homosexual temptations are equally dignified children of God. I additionally believe that the majority of them had no 'choice' in the matter, and all those who find themselves with those desires deserve help to live according to the Gospel, and admire the work of Courage in particular on the matter. I also believe that the legalization and cultural normalization of acts and "lifestyles" has been a terrible crime as we are seeing in the West today.
Reply
#4
He is trying to defend the Church from the charge that our opposition to same-sex marriage is due to homophobia.  He is trying to show that we are not out to get people engaged in homosexual activity but defending the value of marriage.  Most of the speech was good stuff about the meaning of marriage.  Given the situation, that is a reasonable approach.
Reply
#5
Homosexuality is not the same as homosexual action.

In other words, he is just defending the human dignity of those people who happen to find themselves as SSA. He is in no way saying acting on that desire or self-identification is OK.

There are some countries where just the ID'ing of self as a homosexual can result in death. This is no different than a straight man saying, "I'm prefer X fetish"" in a sense and being killed for it.

In muslim countries, cohabitating couples, straight or gay, can be killed. He is addressing that extreme. He isn't saying Johnny and Susie should shack up and get health insurance for being fornicators.
Reply
#6
I read the link, and think that the thinking behind the statements is misguided.  The response to the charge of homophobia is simple:  "Yes, we are homophobic.  We fear that sodomy can result in the soul spending eternity in absolute torment, which terrifies us.  Unrepentent homosexual behavior looks like dancing on the edge of a cliff, to us."

The second response is similarly blunt:  "When have Catholics ever prevented an individual from engaging in an act of sodomy?"  Catholics have preached against it, begged people to desist, withheld their approval of the conduct.  But there has never been a secret police over all Christendom.  There have never been "sodomy drones" circling above to crash down on the suspected sinner. 

The idea that the Church can cut a deal with modern government is incorrect.  The individuals who run these governments, and who own the governments, do not believe what we believe.  In fact, it is the opposite:  they look at the things we like, and they dislike them.  This "children of  God" metaphor is not apt.  The people who frame modern government and direct the operation of society are children of Belial.  They are like the corrupt priestly caste of 32 AD.  They have their agenda, and it is unalterably to the aims of the Church.  The article indicates that the Church advocates nothing less than the exaltation of the sinner over the righteous.  That is the very definition of injustice.

It's time to take a cold shower in the history of the early Church. 

 
Reply
#7
(02-06-2013, 09:09 AM)JayneK Wrote: He is trying to defend the Church from the charge that our opposition to same-sex marriage is due to homophobia.  He is trying to show that we are not out to get people engaged in homosexual activity but defending the value of marriage.  Most of the speech was good stuff about the meaning of marriage.  Given the situation, that is a reasonable approach.

I just wanted to make clear that the use of the term "homophobia" 90% of the times is unjustified, and just rethoric manipulation to pathologize those who are critics or sceptics about the homosexual ideology. A phobia is an irrational and pathologic fear and aversion, and people who use and abuse the term know that most of their opponents are not really phobics, nor "haters". I know from experience that no matter how reasoned and well informed our opinions are, liberals will not cease accusing us of phobias until we accept all their modern liberal sexuality. I see what this priest is saying exactly as a step towards that end.
Reply
#8
(02-06-2013, 02:19 PM)Non liquet Wrote:
(02-06-2013, 09:09 AM)JayneK Wrote: He is trying to defend the Church from the charge that our opposition to same-sex marriage is due to homophobia.  He is trying to show that we are not out to get people engaged in homosexual activity but defending the value of marriage.  Most of the speech was good stuff about the meaning of marriage.  Given the situation, that is a reasonable approach.

I just wanted to make clear that the use of the term "homophobia" 90% of the times is unjustified, and just rethoric manipulation to pathologize those who are critics or sceptics about the homosexual ideology. A phobia is an irrational and pathologic fear and aversion, and people who use and abuse the term know that most of their opponents are not really phobics, nor "haters". I know from experience that no matter how reasoned and well informed our opinions are, liberals will not cease accusing us of phobias until we accept all their modern liberal sexuality. I see what this priest is saying exactly as a step towards that end.

I agree with your assessment of the use of the term "homophobia".  I am not sure what the best response to it is.  I have no trouble believing that the priest was well-intentioned.
Reply
#9
(02-06-2013, 08:30 AM)Cordobes Wrote: From the President of the Pontifical Council for the Family, appointed by this Holy Father, and a member, appointed by this Holy Father, of the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization:

...Archbishop Paglia also called for greater efforts to ensure legal protection and inheritance rights for people who are living together, but not married."

"But do not call it marriage," he said.

http://www.uscatholic.org/news/201302/de...says-26850

Inheritance?  What other legal rights?  Be included together on employer-provided family health insurance policies?  Standing to file loss of consortium claims?  Does this deformed notion of "dignity" apply to unmarried heterosexual couples living together?
Reply
#10
While I don’t disagree with the statements in the article per se, they do however appear ambiguous in an attempt to appeal or maybe even compromise with a modern world and it’s enlightened way of thinking.  I would have preferred a more straight forward concrete approach.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)