Posted on 07/30/2004 5:58:01 AM PDT by NYer
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
You know, I have many differences with the Vatican, but it's always nice to have them on the right side of a moral issue (pun intended).
Does it touch on the "Feminism"in the Church??
Sure to get slammed for the following, but I would suggest that feminists are not trying to "erase the biological differences between men and woman", rather they are trying to erase the social differences.
This is a definite 'lead balloon' which will get more laughs than cudos. Sounds a bit like something from the Taliban. Old celibate men telling women what/how to live their lives - chutzpah cubed.
This doesn't sound like something a conservative would say. Hmmm....
Yes, unchecked moral relativism is better. It is better we each make ourselves a god and decide which sins we will celebrate and call normal.
In the same document:
"Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided".
Compare and contrast with the Taliban, who crush them under walls.
Ping.
That's a lot of liberal cliches for one post.
"This doesn't sound like something a conservative would say"
Why not? My own Mother, although not a feminist, took great pride in her career as a nurse, second only to her pride in being a loving wife and Mother. She took a lot of sh#t for being a 'working mom' long before others went that route & I guess I'm a bit touchy about anyone that appears to be taking a shot at her (maybe a tad overboard - but that's how I took the recommendation). Defending one's family against all comers is a very conservative thing to do.
"The 37-page document to be released on Saturday calls on governments to encourage women not to focus on their careers to the detriment of "their duty to the family""
When will the Vatican start practising what it preaches?Most of the crack-pots now crowding the sacred college of cardinals "focused on their careers to the detriment of their duty to the family"
We have cardinals who helped German women procure abortions (e.g. Lehmann), others who continue to promote prophylactics (e.g. Daneels), and others who knowingly shuffled predatory sodomite priests from parish to parish (eg. Law).
How much more detrimental to the family can you get?
There was a very good article about the push to get women into the workplace was, instead of pushing further radical changes in society, was ultimately used to further the interests of big-name businesses. You can read the article here
You were being sarcastic, and I agree that one should clearly and publicly defend such basic morality. But the Vatican doesn't, and hasn't. That was the controversy over Ratzinger's private letter on the subject of refusing Communion to abortionists and those publicly promoting that industry. He said one thing in the letter. And the US bishops gave him a slap across the face. He wrote back - thank you, may I have another. Ratzinger is worse the Kerry when it comes to flip-flops, if he is ever imagined, on any issue, to stand squarely for morality and Church teaching.
Sometimes, being accused of a hate crime should be considered a badge of honour.
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.