Pope says Gay marriage is a threat to creation

[LadyBlaBlah]

This guy is such a homophobic idiot.

I notice he has still had nothing to say about the endemic paedophilia in the Catholic church.

uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100111/tts-uk-pope-ca02f96.html

Overpopulation is more of a threat to the environment than the possibility of marriage for all couples who love each other.

grimma - never a truer word said!

I'm a catholic.

I can confirm that most of us don't listen to the shite he says wrt sexuality, contraception, etc.

This stuff really gets in the way of the decent work the church does wrt poverty and justice. The church needs to butt out of the bedroom imo.

Threat to creation...has he checked the global populations stats recently, and does he not think peopple dying of aids because of his ignorant beliefs might affect 'creation'?

Also, does that mean he supports IVF etc for gay and lesbian couples who wish to conceive?

nickytwotimwa - if you don't pay any attention to the Pope when he speaks Ex Cathedra - as he does on sexual matters - then you aren't a Catholic.

Gay people have always existed and are a natural part of the human race (and other species)

The pope is a fool and a bigot.

Abra1d, do any of the pope's apologies for child abuse include an apology/explanation for HIS part in covering it up and helping it continue?. When exactly did he first decide that it was a bad thing?

This document explains the Catholic Church's position. There are non-Catholics who agree with it. It's a thoughtfully argued and coherent point of view, even if you don't agree with it.

Reading that document now.

Problem 1) "natural" must include homosexuality. It is not a new thing, but part of our genetic makeup.

Problem 2) Going by this definition then marrying if infertile is as 'bad' as being gay since it is not going to produce children.

Carrying on reading now.

I see it tries to wriggle out of Problem 2) by saying that even an infertile couple 'is designed to generate children' but that makes no sense if you knew you were fertile before the wedding.

Rolf - sorry, but one of the first claims that that document makes is that 'marriage is a natural institution'. It isn't. It's a social one. So the document may be coherent within its own terms, but when those terms are defined in such a bizarre way, its 'thoughtful argument' is unlikely to be persuasive to anyone not predisposed to sympathise.

Also, despite a judicious sprinkling of references to various eminent folk (such as Martha Nussbaum), the document is full of unsubstantiated assertions - opinions masquerading as statements of fact. Such as the claim that the birth of a child into a same-sex family inevitably involves inflicting deprivation, loss and injustice on the child, because they will be cut off from a relationship with their 'biological father or mother'. Just not necessarily true - only of certain ways in which same-sex couples might shape their family. And of course it overlooks Susan Golombok's major longitudinal study of lesbian families, which is showing that the outcomes for children in them are generally excellent.

I could go through the whole document picking apart the coherence and thoughtfulness of its argument like this. But I've got to go and cook dinner!

The current pope was a homophobic misogynist when he was a simple humble bishop.

I saw him speak at a World Church Day in Germany some time in the 80s and I remember finding myself standing with my mouth open at the views he expressed... at a protestant event. In front of lots of young people. In front of TV cameras.

Oh, well, I was young and naive and had not lost my faith yet.

Also it speaks of marriage being pre-political. Yes I'm quite sure it is true that people formed couples long before there were laws, but it tries to take ownership of the concept as though those were catholic church weddings and tries to say that we are not now entitled to change the rules.

Onagar - I suggest to read the word "natural" in the context of the rest of the sentence. Your second point - the submission addresses this in the final para of page 1.

Rolf, If you mean the 'designed to generate' bit I covered that above, but if you mean 'loving and committed' then gay couples can be as much or MORE committed than heterosexual ones.

I expect the writer imagined all 'good christian families' as being the perfect husband and wife (golf and women's institute) marrying as virgins and staying together for life. Whereas it pictures the gay couple as a couple of drug addicts shacking up for a while in a squat and losing interest in the union and child after a few months.

The document writer has got no time for even heterosexual people who adopt either. They can never be proper families since it is the biological match that counts. (that kind of thinking is where racism comes from)

Seeker, fine, I am not a Catholic then and nor are any of my Catholic friends.
Still go to mass on Sundays, run Childrens' Liturgy, etc, etc.
If all of us who think this is a load of shite left the church, there would be no one there to run them.

Good. That might make the Catholic Church think a bit!

Seriously, how do you get over the Ex Cathedra bit?

True, Seeker, maybe we should all leave! Thing is I believe all the God stuff and the rituals, etc. [shallow]

I have no idea what Ex Cathedra is.

My previous priest (who was FAB) basically taught us that we should act according to our conscience. Our church was packed to the gunnels in those days, full of familys of all kinds and a wonderful place to be. SInce he left and we got Fr Conservative, our congregation is in tatters.

The church needs to grow up and stop fixating on bloody sex like a teenager.

I make it a principle never to take sex advice from an 82 year old male virgin in a dress...

I don't understand why people who are not Catholic get so worked up about what the Pope does or doesn't say.

Because a significant % of the world's population are influenced by the the idiocies the Pope spouts. That's why non and ex Catholics have to be exercised by what he says!

Hmm. "That the birth of a child into a same-sex family inevitably involves inflicting deprivation, loss and injustice on the child,"

What I can say is this applies entirely where one parent is disabled. My ds has been deprived of the life he could have had with two able-bodied parents and this, genuinely, aged 4 has affected his entire experience. There has been deprivation, loss and injustice. But he has been loved. He always will be. And he understands disability as a side-bonus.

Should I not have had my son? Is it okay because we happened to be of different genders? I don't see the relevance.

What I know is that children born into special circumstances are often way more able then their parents or carers to just get the hell on with it and not even care. We are who we are, after all.

See, its comments like this which make me really enjoy videos of Pope-tackling... Pope goes down