European Parliament Votes on Report to Condemn Catholic Church

Date: 2002-03-13

Parliament OKs Controversial Report on Women and Fundamentalism

STRASBOURG, France, MARCH 13, 2002 (Zenit.org).- The European Parliament narrowly approved a report that purports to underline the violations suffered by women because of religious extremism.

The report "Women and Fundamentalism," presented by Spanish Socialist deputy María Izquierdo, was approved by a vote of 242-240. There were 42 abstentions.

Europarliamentarians either modified or eliminated some of the more controversial points of the report, such as the request to religious leaders, including John Paul II and Eastern patriarchs, to change their views on lesbianism.

The "right to control one´s own body," regarded by some groups as a justification of abortion, was also eliminated from the text. Vatican Radio described the text as "controversial" and of "secular stamp."

European bishops sent a letter to the European Socialists´ Party, which supported the report, saying the document is "contradictory and inadequate," because, in part, it does not differentiate "between religious fundamentalism and the normal practice of religion."

Very well said. I don't think the EU will last very long, either. I think that Europeans are running just as fast and hard as they can from their past, their history, their culture, and their religion, and it's a big mistake.

My mother-in-law was in Spain on vacation last year (including during 9-11) and she was so disappointed and disgusted with the way they are denying who they are that she decided to become an American citizen. She's lived here for over 30 years, and she loves the U.S., but she never considered changing her citizenship...until now.

"Do you split atoms as well as hairs?"

Could you perceive the difference?

"Are you asking me to show your use of the word condemned? A rather silly request if so. If not, if you just want to point to the action, your very first quote:

Stop him from doing what? Giving lip service? is example enough. That was hardly an evaluation, that was an expression of strong disapproval, one of the dictionary definitions of condemn."

Perception is reality to the emotion-driven.

Apparently your knee-jerk reaction wasn't conducive to allowing you to notice that I made NO STATEMENTS whatsoever.

Your bias blinds you. In order to "condemn" (damn) something, one would have to make a declaratory statement or pronouncement of condemnation just as any judge would do.

Please re-read what I wrote. You will see that I asked two questions, one of which revealed my evaluation of the situation based upon what I thought were merely two good examples of the evidence. I posted that evidence so that others could evaluate it for themselves.

What is your honest evaluation of that "we report, you decide" evidence? What is your perception of what constitutes "lip service"? Are you able to see any evidence of it in what I posted?

Have you ever made an evaluation about Clinton based upon the abundant evidence of the lip-service for which he is famous, and then cast a vote?

"Do you split atoms as well as hairs?"
Could you perceive the difference?

Not without the proper scientific equipment, which I don’t have handy. FYI: Atom splitting isn't usually visible to the naked eye.

"Are you asking me to show your use of the word condemned? A rather silly request if so. If not, if you just want to point to the action, your very first quote:
Stop him from doing what? Giving lip service?
is example enough. That was hardly an evaluation, that was an expression of strong disapproval, one of the dictionary definitions of condemn."
Perception is reality to the emotion-driven.

So I take it you are calling me emotion-driven. Given that I relied on a dictionary definition and quoted your words, this seems a bit silly, but if you want to spew insults at me as well, go ahead. I’m sure it makes your argument more convincing somehow.

Apparently your knee-jerk reaction wasn't conducive to allowing you to notice that I made NO STATEMENTS whatsoever.

Did you or did you not type and post the words I quoted? If the answer is yes, please explain how it was not a statement?

Your bias blinds you. In order to "condemn" (damn) something, one would have to make a declaratory statement or pronouncement of condemnation just as any judge would do.

LOL. To pronounce a judgment or sentence in a legal sense is only one definition of the word condemn. Another is to express strong disapproval, as I quoted above. You certainly did that. I guess we can add dictionary definition splitting to your list of talents as well.

What is your honest evaluation of that "we report, you decide" evidence? What is your perception of what constitutes "lip service"? Are you able to see any evidence of it in what I posted?

I think the evidence is silly. It’s a bunch of whining by schismatic and semi-schismatic Catholics and ex-Catholics who think JPII isn’t conservative enough unless he personally flies to South Africa to beat this auxiliary Bishop into a pulp and throw him out. It betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how power is divided in the Catholic Church. The Pope generally leaves the control of an auxiliary Bishop like Cawcutt to the Ordinary for the diocese. Small minds can’t understand that, and thus can’t fathom why the Pope doesn’t hop on a plane and take care of the situation. Of course they think the should do that for every Bishop and every priest in every diocese as well, though how he could possibly get that done they don’t say.

Have you ever made an evaluation about Clinton based upon the abundant evidence of the lip-service for which he is famous, and then cast a vote?

Yes, I have evaluated Clinton, and just as you condemn this Pope, I condemn him. You are still splitting hairs.

Thanks for bumping the article though. Cheers,

patent +AMDG

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.