Vatican Starts Campaign Vs. Gay Marriage
 

From: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...n_gay_marriage

Vatican Starts Campaign Vs. Gay Marriage
2 hours, 56 minutes ago

By NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press Writer

VATICAN CITY - The Vatican (news - web sites) launched a global campaign against gay marriages Thursday, warning Catholic politicians that support of same-sex unions was "gravely immoral" and urging non-Catholics to join the offensive.

The Vatican's orthodoxy watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a 12-page set of guidelines with the approval of Pope John Paul (news - web sites) II in a bid to stem the increase in laws granting legal rights to homosexual unions in Europe and North America.

"There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family," the document said. "Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law."

The Associated Press was first to report on the outline of the plan in a story Monday.

The issue is particularly charged in the United States, where some in Congress have proposed a constitutional ban on gay marriage to counter state laws granting legal recognition to same-sex unions.

President Bush (news - web sites) said Wednesday that marriage was defined strictly as a union between a man and a woman and said he wants to "codify that one way or the other."

The Vatican document, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons," sets out a plan for politicians when confronted with proposed legislation granting homosexual couples the same rights as married heterosexuals.

It also comes out strongly against allowing gay couples to adopt, saying children raised by same-sex parents face developmental "obstacles" because they are deprived of having either a mother or a father.

"Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children," it said.

It said gay adoptions contradicted the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which holds that the best interests of the child are paramount.

The document also says Catholic politicians have a "moral duty" to publicly oppose laws granting recognition to homosexual unions and to vote against them.

If the laws are already on the books, politicians must speak out against them and work to repeal them. "To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral," the document said.

The Vatican said its guidelines were not only intended for Catholic lawmakers but for non-Christians and everyone "committed to promoting and defending the common good of society" since the issue concerned natural moral law, not just Church doctrine.

The document comes after an appeals court in Canada ruled in June that the country's definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman is unconstitutional, paving the way for legalized gay unions.

Vermont and some European nations — including Germany, France, Sweden and Denmark — have "civil union" laws giving same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities of marriage.

The document doesn't contain any new Church teachings on the issue, repeating much of the Vatican's previous comments on homosexuality and marriage, which it defines as a sacred union between man and woman designed to create new human life.

It said homosexuals shouldn't be discriminated against, but said denying gay couples the rights afforded in traditional marriages isn't discrimination.

Monsignor Angel Rodriguez Luno, a professor at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, noted in a statement released by the Vatican that homosexual relationships, like other human relationships, need not be legally recognized.

Basic friendship, for example, isn't defined legally because it is a private relationship, he said.

In a footnote, the Vatican document noted that there was a danger that laws legalizing same-sex unions could actually encourage someone with a homosexual orientation to seek out a partner to "exploit the provisions of the law."

On Thursday, a small group of demonstrators from Italy's Radical Party held up banners at the edge of St. Peter's Square to protest the document. The banners read "No Vatican, No Taliban," and "Democracy Yes, Theocracy No."

Other opposition to the document came from the Green Party in predominantly Catholic Austria. Ulrike Lunacek, a party spokeswoman, said Catholic politicians should follow human rights conventions, "not the old-fashioned views of the Vatican."

"This hierarchy, which also rules on other issues like forbidding the use of condoms to avoid AIDS (news - web sites), is far from reality," she said in a statement.

Volker Beck, a lawmaker from Germany's Greens party, which led the drive for the same-sex civil union legislation, described the Vatican guidelines as "a document of narrow-minded fanaticism."

A leading conservative politician and a Catholic, Wolfgang Bosbach, gave it a warmer reception: "I assume every Catholic lawmaker will take account of the Holy Father's words in making his decision."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I guess the pope has never heard of separation of church and state. :rolleyes:

So, any comments?

Re: Vatican Starts Campaign Vs. Gay Marriage
 

The Congegration of the Doctrine of the Faith has just as much right to lobby our government as any other organization...that's the beauty of the democratic system.

(I'm not taking sides on the actual issue...)

are u freakin' kidding me? I am sooo tired of people who have such a huge problem with other people's sex lifes. Please ask me again why anyone else's sex life is the business of anyone but those engaged? I mean I think it is absolutely ridiculous that the vatican feels the need to make such a stand that hurts gay people everywhere. I hate any government that even thinks about meddling in the sex life of any people, saying that just because they want to have sex with someone of the opposite sex that everyone in the world should as well. That, IMO is unnacceptable because it is NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS. That the pope would ENCOURAGE politicians to behave in manner is INNAPPROPRIATE...this situation is no different. I am so tired of religious fanatics/officials trying to make everyone else behave in the same way that they do. I generally respect the pope even though I'm not catholic, but today I have lost any respect for him that I had ever had.

Edited to add: And what bothers me further is that this decree does nothing but make it even harder for homosexuals to have any sort of peace at all. After all, so many people I know have had to deal with coming out of the closet and all the pain it causes them...why would anyone want to make it even harder for them to live a happy, settled lifestyle with someone they love? I think that's just screwed up

Re: Re: Vatican Starts Campaign Vs. Gay Marriage
 

Hijack/
It's actually a republic, not a democratic system
/Hijack

Also not taking sides. Although I think the government should not be involved in people's private issues. That's another topic.

BTW, Watching T3 tommorow when it open. Yipee.

I totally understand your point but I guess (and this is just a guess I'm not a catholic and honestly don't know) that the reason why they are saying this is b/c of where it says in Leviticus that man shall not lie with man and that basically its wrong. So I guess that = gay marriage wrong. Honestly, I can't make up my mind how I feel on the issue of homosexuality in general. I go back and forth...:confused:

edited to add: above all I believe that God is love and he loves us all...

I feel as if the Vatican should have other priorities. Consensual sex between two adults should be the least of their concerns.

I also don't believe that heterosexual marriage is so weak that allowing gay marriage would chip away at an almost ancient institution. But that's just me...

Exactly...I mean hello?!! huge scandal right now involving priests all over america! please issue more statements and do more at finding quality priests!!

It (The Bible) also says that women should be stoned (to death) for committing adultry.

I have a great respect for all religions, including Catholic, however perhaps they should really clean up their own house before they tell others what to do in theirs.

I agree, the Vatican ought to stay out of the bedroom, but the fact is they won't.

I also found it interesting that they made strong statements against gay couples adopting children. Supposedly it's not in the "best interests of the child" to have two fathers and no mother, or two mothers and no father. So let's see... if there are kids up for adoption in a given area, there are no heterosexual couples around who are willing to adopt, but there are homosexual couples who want to adopt, it's actually preferable that the kids should sit around in an orphanage or in foster care rather than be adopted by two loving parents who just happen to be of the same sex???

I maybe wrong but I also think it says something in that book about women having to leave the town during their monthly visitor! I'm all for that! A vacation to some place grand for a week once a month! Where do I sign up! LOL :D :D :D

The gay community will have a strong lobby representing their viewpoint. This lobby is sure to include gay church leaders. There is nothing wrong with a religious leader presenting his opinion on any topic. Agree or disagree, this is more a freedom of speech issue than a separation issue. There is no church/state violation here. Besides, the Pope is in no way restricted by the American idea of church/state separation. To many, this is an issue of morality, and though it is often inept and hypocritical when it comes to such issues, in the eyes of many, the church should address morality.

This issue has gotten icky! I also feel as if W is going to lose a lot of votes for some of the things he said. Personally, yes I agree that it's a sin. So are lots of other things that everyone does. Hate the sin, love the sinner. And don't give them hell about it. I think that a "constitutional ban" on gay marriage is just one more way the government is trying to babysit us, and I, as a Libertarian, don't agree with that philosophy. As long as both partners are of the age of consent and not harming anyone else, I don't see how our government has any right to intervene. I don't see Alabama or Mississippi allowing gay marriage anytime soon. That's their right. Vermont has a climate much more open to diversity and so allowing gay marriage is something right for them. Homosexuality has been going on since the beginning of time and I seriously doubt any legislation will end it. Just my $.02

To play Devil's Advocate...

If we're talking marriage, it's not a bedroom issue. To call it such is to ignore probably around 90% of what marriage is in our society.

Marriage means the combination of assets, paying taxes differently, insurance rates as job benefits applied to spouse, even divorce.

Supporting other peoples' marriages (and divorces) costs us all money. Insurance premiums will be effected (as more individuals will be placed on the "family" roster), court rooms will be crowded even more than they are now as gay people will want divorces as often as straight people. Calling it a "bedroom issue" and invoking the 9th amendment doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.

There's a school of thought out there that says public officials are elected by supporters that want them because of their values, moral stands and goals for society. While many might not see this as a moral issue, many others do.

For the Vatican to encourage public officials to vote according to their own values is definitely appropriate! It's just as appropriate as the gay rights activists lobbying their folks to vote their way.

It's America -- both sides have a right to exist and have equal right to be heard. In the end, one or even both will get what they want.

:eek: :eek: :eek: Are you freaking kidding me??? How in the world is that VIOLENCE?? So you're basically saying that a child living with a cracked out mother who has a string of skeezy boyfriends is a better living environment than a happy household where both parents just happen to be of the same gender? Please.

Sorry, I get worked up over situations like this. Please don't flame me. It just hits close to home because my ex-boyfriend's brother (who I loved with all my heart) is gay and he and his partner are engaged and trying to find a way around the law so they can marry.

arggh...."W"...........I'm going to keep quiet now, so i don't offend anyone!!

anywho, swissmiss, I'm going to PM you in a moment!

Re: Vatican Starts Campaign Vs. Gay Marriage
 

WHOA!!! Something must not be right because me and Pres. Bush actually agree on something! :D :eek:

Re: Vatican Starts Campaign Vs. Gay Marriage
 

Let's understand that this is a "global campaign."

Also, the Constitution protects religion from government -- not the other way around. Seperation of Church and State isn't at issue here. If a church can manage to gain control of a political party through numbers and vote in it's candidates -- so be it. However, unless they can vote in a President and majority of both houses of Congress, they don't really control anything. Even if they did, they'd have the Courts to contend with.

Bottom line, at least in this country, it's not totally a governmental issue (even though some pressure is being put on politicians), but rather a moral one.

George Bush is an elected government official and may suffer some consequences over his stand. While the Pope is also a head of state, he wasn't elected by the public -- and is also a spiritual leader for people in most parts of the world.

There are vast differences.

Although there is a lot of precedent in the past, it still strikes me as strange that the Catholic Church would come out with this pronouncement at this particular time.

It's interesting that we start looking at this as a government vs. church issue. It really isn't. It is a "global" moral issue. The Pope and his Church talk to a lot more people than just us in the United States.

I think its time for another memo...
 

MEMORANDUM

To: Pope John Paul II

From: lifesaver

Date: July 30, 2003

RE: Ya just dont get it
______________________________________________

It has come to my attention that you are still not getting it. Maybe its cause you're about 300 years old, really sick, or beginnign to just loose it, but you gotta cut this holier than thou routene if you wanna have more than 3 peopel left in your denomination by the end of the 21 century.

Dotn get me wrong, I actually admire many of the steps you have taken on peaceful issues. Holla. However, you fail to see that you are driving away hundreds of thousands of faithful in America and the world becasue you continue to let politics get in the way of spirituality. Your stance on divorce, women in the church, safe sex, and now gay marrage and adoption have proved that your papacy is out of touch with many of your faithful. Amercians have long considered themselves "a la cart" catholics and pick and choose the idologies and policies they choose to follow. What kind of membership is forced to act this way? A membership who no longer feels connected to the mother church.

You need to adapt the beliefs and policies of the church, and fast. The rapid rise of non-denominational churches and a move away from organized religion is proof that there is indeed a crisis in your church. Its only a matter of time.

Adapt and survive, or resist and perish.

You're close to becoming about as relevant as a polio shot.

The Vatican is calling gay marriages "immoral".

hmmmm....

This is coming from the same people who have attempted to sweep priest molestation charges under the rug. That, to me, is immoral.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

Newsflash!!!


Canadian society has just imploded on itself due to the recent legalization of same sex marriages in BC and Ontario


:rolleyes:

Re: I think its time for another memo...
 

A couple of problems with your logic:

1) The pope can not change "beliefs and policies". He can emphasize, expound upon, reinforce, or coin a new term if necessary, but he does not have the authority to change the moral theology of the church.

2) The latest scandal isn't even close to being the first one the church has faced in 2000 years. I would wager it's not even the largest. You want to talk about scandals in the priesthood? Start with the 12 apostles: Judas sold Jesus out to his enemies and Peter denied knowing him a all. By your description the church (and all of Christianity) should have died right there. It didn't.

Going back into the background on this one...
Adrienne (PNAM-2003)

I like the idea of gay marrige. If two people love each other enough to be like "I don't want any one else" then that is them and of no concern to me. I'll still invite them to neighborhood cook outs. Just as long as they don't beat their kids or spouse or spill anything on my carpet. Other than that, its not really my business.

Re: Re: I think its time for another memo...
 

True, but I never said it was the first or largest scandal in the churches history. The point I was trying to make was that recently, its been scandal upon divisive issue for the church and at times they have been unwilling to adapt. The difference is NOW its costing them membership in droves, especially in the us. Hold to your beliefs for all I care, but its gonna come at a cost.

Also, regardign the Apostles, I think its a stretch to consider them the early catholic church. THey considered themselves a faction of judiasm. Most of the rest of the near world did too. It wasnt till later that Christianity emerged as a seperate religion/philosophy from judiasm. I would say the reformation and the scientific revelations of the middle ages were much more of a scandal than what the church is facing today. Of course, back then youd have different factions of christians fighting wars supporting/opposing the pope. Im glad things have simmered down a bit.

WOW!! I acutally agree with Bush and the Pope! Hell just froze over!!!




*This happy former Catholic thought that there was no shot in hell where she would agree with Bush or the Pope so agreeing with both at them at this time has made her dizzy.

Response
 

I have been a long time reader. I never post but I feel as though I've got to give my 2 cents on this subject.

lifesaver: Are you even Catholic? You keep stating that the church is losing many members in the US because of the church's inability to adapt. Do you even have evidence to back this up? Membership in the Catholic church in the US has actually risen in the past 10 years. (Yes I actually do have the numbers on that). Besides only 20% of the US population are actually Catholic so I have a hard time understanding why non Catholics even care about the well being of the church.

I'm responding, because reading from the threads I feel as though there's animosity towards the Pope and church. I take particular offense to what some of you are saying. The church is not perfect and I have yet to actually meet any Catholic who actually agrees with everything the church teaches. There is no such thing as a "Perfect Catholic". For example, even before the priest molestation scandal broke out, I never agreed with the notion that priests should be single and celibate. Also there's no denying the fact that the church definetly needs to clean up its act.

As for the stance on gay marriage. I grew up Catholic and went to Catholic schools all my life. I don't believe in gay marriage but does that make me homophobic? Am I a bigot? No. I have a good friend who is a lesbian and is like a sister to me. She knows my views. She doesn't agree but she respects it and vice versa. You've got to understand that people will not always agree with you.

As for my personal view, I believe that gays should not be discriminated against. They should have many rights but the one thing I don't agree on is marriage. Why? Marriage has always been a moral as well as legal issue. For thousands of years it's always been man and woman. Then all of a sudden, society has become so liberal within the past 30-40 years that people who don't accept certain beliefs like gay marriage such as myself are close-minded? and that we're not "with the times"? I know that homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time but those are my personal beliefs and they are not necessarily influenced by my faith.

Keep in mind however, that the Catholic church is not the only christian church to oppose gay marriage. Baptists are just as vocal against gay marriage and I know that this has become a very hot button issue in the Jewish community as well.

Polls show that Americans are pretty much split on the gay marriage issue. The reasons for disliking gay marriage is just as numerous as those supporting it.

Good post PhiDeltAlum.

This bothers me about the ban on gay adoptions in a lot of states (like my home state of Florida). A wanted child is a loved child. If two men or two women who have been in a long-lasting stable relationship, have the desire to raise a child, and have the financial wherewithal to afford the expensive adoption process want a child, what's the problem? One of my best friends would make an amazing father--does the fact that he's gay negate any potential as a stable father figure?

I'm a little confused about some stuff. Everyone's been saying that the Pope doesn't have the authority to change beliefs and doctrines. What was Vatican II all about, then? Wasn't that an era of major reform and change within the church, which impacted Catholic (and to some extent) and world society? Is it time for Vatican III to address te issues of child molestation, contraception to prevent the very real, very scary spread of AIDS, and other issues? :confused:

I'm probably going deeper in to an answer to this than many people are willing to accept or listen to but here goes.

In Catholic teaching there is Tradition with a big "T" and tradition with a little "t". Big T's can not be changed. These are the fundamental moral and faith principles that the faith is founded upon.

Little t's however, are more flexible. These are disciplines, not doctrines. They are practices that are intended to reinforce and remind the faithful of what we believe and why. These can be changed. Because life and cultures and languages and the world in general changes, little t's can be modified if necessary if their relevance doesn't have the same impact. However, they do not come into conflict with the Big T's.

Vatican 2 was about "little t's". It was actually a continuation of Vatican 1 which ended prematurely when the Pope who called it died suddenly. Vatican 1 examined the relational role between the bishops/higher-up church authorities and the priests. It was supposed to continue on to examine the relationship between the local priest and the parishes: but like I said, that part didn't happen.

Vatican 2 picked that part up: re-examining the roles and relationship between the priests and parishioners and deciding what role each needed to play in evolving society. Such things as lay altar servers, the language of the Mass, etc. are all "little t's". So discussion of these (and their dissemination by the media) made it sound like a much bigger shift than it was, when taken against the backdrop of nearly two millenia of history.

Another word about councils: there's been lots of them. A problem comes up as a result of society evolving and changing, the church leadership meets about it, and decides how to respond. That's pretty much it. And this has been going on for several centuries. So "changes" and "councils" really aren't new and certainly didn't start in the late 1960s.

Re: artificial contraception: many people who persue these issues are not Catholic and dont' give a tinker's dam what the Pope has to say about anything. So even if "the church" changed its teaching (and it wouldn't, because you are now in the territory of Big T's) it really wouldn't have any effect on the people making the most noise on these issues. Re: AIDS--also a result of people ignoring traditional teaching on sex. You don't have to like that statement, but you'd be hard pressed to argue w/ it.

Re: child molestation: this is already a sin and has been acknowledged as such. The issue is how to handle the perpetrators. (Before anyone else continues to single out Catholics and how they handle child molestors, I'd like to point out that the "seal of confession" extends to other denominations and religions as well. They just don't have as structured "confessional" process as Catholics do. Protestants are every bit as capable of sweeping these crimes under the rug-- you just don't hear the media decrying them.)

Given the tone of most posts about Catholic anything, I have a very real belief that what I just typed is going to fall on deaf ears. Besides, there are a LOT of details that are just not going to fit in a GC thread. So this is more than likely my last explanation on GC of finer points of Catholic teaching. If anyone wants to hear more, hit the "email" button and I'll be glad to chat in private. If you email to argue or condemn or "I don't mean to be mean, but....." I'm not going there. And I can promise that if someone wants to learn something, I'll explain it but not force it--I can't change anyone's mind any more than they can change mine. ;)

Aint' tolerance a great thing??? ;)

Adrienne (PNAM-2003)

the problem is that we catholics are supposed to believe that the pope is infallible. that means what he says goes. i'm technically sinning if i don't agree with his beliefs. what's weird though is that one pope can totally contradict what another pope says. therefore, in 50 years or so the church could totally do a 180 and support abortion and nontraditional unions and it would become accepted immediately.

Are you sure?

Do you know exactly what points the Pope is infallible on?

Are you sure that a "180" is even possible? It's not quite that simple.......

its happened before
we don't follow the srtict guidelines that they did in the past...for example it used to be a sin to eat meat on any friday...then i think the order was then no meat on fridays during lent and you should fast...then the irish became exempt from that because of the potato famine...then the fasting became for those under 16 or 18 i can't remember which, PLUS the fasting was only on fridays....it may take a while but eventually the church will completely change it's views. a more recent example would be attending mass. it used to be unexcusable to miss mass on a sunday. you had to go to catholic services. now it's acceptable to go to greek orthodox or eastern orthodox as well. you used to have to have your head covered at mass...now you odn't. the services used to be in latin, now they're in spanish, english, italian...every language possible. the catholic church changes practices a lot more frequently than most realize.

Please see my earlier post on the difference between "Big T" and "little t" traditions. What you are describing falls under changeable disciplines, not the unchangeable moral authority. There's a difference. www.newadvent.org has a lot of great info if you're interested.

Adrienne (PNAM-2003)

adrienne~i did read it but i tend to regard issues such as nontraditional unions as falling under little t as well. like other little t's they are becoming more widespread and will eventually be recognized by the catholic church. not by this pope or likely the next one but they will be. the church has adjusted to the changing ways of the world for 2,000 years and it will continue to do so as civilization progresses. the only issues i think are truly big Ts are the 10 commandments and issue like child molestation as you pointed out in your post. anything that is open for debate in the world today needs to be looked at as a little t because no matter what some catholics are not going to regard little t's as a sin.

Yes, tolerance is a great thing...which is why I asked my questions about the impact of the Vatican Councils before making a broad statement. I could have chosen not too, right? I learned just a bit about Vatican II in one of my Italian history classes--just enough to make me wonder more about the impact a similar council would have today. I don't know much, but I am willing to learn. Since when does that make me intolerant? :confused:

OK, now I understand where you're coming from. Thanx for clarifying that.

You're right, people are going to define what is important and moral vs sin for themselves, and not necessarily follow what they're taught. However, I don't think that those personal opinions on faith and morality are going to sway the leadership. Just MHO.

Peace

Adrienne (PNAM-2003)

I never said you were intolerant. I never even thought it. Especially *because * you asked questions instead of assuming. I wish more people did that!

I admit, I'm more than slightly defensive in forums like this because most people assume and accuse, but don't ask. Plus, when the accusations are flying, people forget that we're just that--people! And, unlike you, other posters in the thread simply throw out insulting comments without realizing the effect they have on those of us who support the church and make it feel like we're facing a hostile mob when we come on.

I'm guilty of getting heated up too. Hence, why I said, let's take it off GC for further discussion.

I value you and your questions and comments all over GC, not just in this thread. I am sincerely sorry if I made you feel otherwise.

Peace

Adrienne (PNAM-2003)