Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pope Calls Gay Marriage Part of 'Ideology of Evil'
Reuters ^ | Feb, 22, 2005 | Philip Pullella

Posted on 02/22/2005 12:46:48 PM PST by Clint N. Suhks

ROME (Reuters) - Homosexual marriages are part of "a new ideology of evil" that is insidiously threatening society, Pope John Paul says in a new book published Tuesday.

In "Memory and Identity," the Pope also calls abortion a "legal extermination" comparable to attempts to wipe out Jews and other groups in the 20th century.

He also reveals that he is convinced the Turkish gunman who shot him in 1981 did not act alone and suggests that the former Communist Bloc may have been behind the plot to kill him.

The 84-year-old Pontiff's book, a highly philosophical and intricate work on the nature of good and evil, is based on conversations with philosopher friends in 1993 and later with some of his aides.

In one section about the role of lawmakers, the Pope takes another swipe at gay marriages when he refers to "pressures" on the European Parliament to allow them.

"It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man," he writes.

The Pope's fifth book for mass circulation, issued by Italian publisher Rizzoli, sparked controversy in Germany and elsewhere after Jewish groups protested against leaked excerpts comparing the Holocaust to abortion.

In at least two sections of the book, the Pope talks about the Nazi attempt to exterminate Jews and the wholesale slaughter of political opponents by Communist regimes after World War II.

"LEGAL EXTERMINATION"

In following paragraphs he says that legally elected parliaments in formerly totalitarian countries were today allowing what he called new forms of evil and new exterminations.

"There is still, however a legal extermination of human beings who have been conceived but not yet born," he writes.

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.myway.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: catholicchurch; deviants; evil; fags; goodjohnpaul2; homosexualagenda; itsforthechildren; johnpaulii; perverts; queers; saintlyeye4queerguy; samesexmarriage; sin; vatican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420421-436 next last
To: Dominick

"I have shown the opposite, and even explained the quotes you made, easily. It seems you won't even admit an error, "This man" meant men, instead of "This man" meaning Christ."

When have I suggested otherwise? It is you who implied that the phrase "This man" referred to Jesus when it doesn't. It refers to all men. That is what makes the passage sound so heterodox. Man is not the "primary route" the Church must travel. Man must follow the Church which follows Christ. JPII has got it exactly backwards!


401 posted on 02/24/2005 1:03:32 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]

To: Dominick

No, your reply was in answer to my objection and as such it made no sense at all! When the Pope speaks of every single person being connected "in some way" to Christ--he's talking about everybody, not just Christians. But when you say he mentions the sacraments--the Eucharist and Baptism--you cite a passage that refers exclusively to Christians. This doesn't answer to the problem I posed at all. What I want to know is how are all men can be redeemed unless they cooperate in some way with grace, either through baptism or by some other means. The Pope doesn't bother with this. He just states all are redeemed.


402 posted on 02/24/2005 1:09:07 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: Dominick

"You have a conclusion that you read out of a SSPX pamphlet or tabloid, and by God you are not going to let the facts interfere."

The only one reading out of pamphlets is yourself. I'm citing the Pope himself and asking appropriate questions. If what this pope says is true--who needs the Catholic Church? Let's all just follow Man--wherever he leads us. The heck with Baptism--we're born connected to Christ, according to this Pope.


403 posted on 02/24/2005 1:12:20 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Man is not the "primary route" the Church must travel. Man must follow the Church which follows Christ. JPII has got it exactly backwards!

We wish to look towards him-because there is salvation in no one else but him, the Son of God-

I dont see the word primary route. He never said it.
404 posted on 02/24/2005 1:14:14 PM PST by Dominick ("Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." - JP II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: Dominick

Sure he said it.

"THIS MAN IS THE PRIMARY ROUTE THAT THE CHURCH MUST TRAVEL in fulfilling her mission..."

"This man", meaning Mankind, not Christ. The way traced out is through our humanity in all its aspects, according to JPII. That is not the traditional teaching of the Church. The Church is not leading here, it is following!


405 posted on 02/24/2005 1:25:10 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: Dominick

Once again, let me ask you, if the Church follows man and not the other way around, and if all men are connected to Christ at birth whether they know it or not, then why do we have to belong to the Church? What did Jesus mean when he said that unless we were baptized with water and the Holy Spirit we could not be saved? How does this encyclical do anything but make the Catholic doctrine of redemption ultimately unnecessary? And where does Original Sin fit in all of this? Inquiring minds want to know--especially if they're traditionalist.


406 posted on 02/24/2005 1:28:48 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: Dominick

"because with man-with each man without any exception whatever-Christ is in a way united, even when man is unaware of it..."

How is each man united with Christ if he is born into the world with Original Sin? How are Buddhists united? Sikhs? Muslims? If Baptism doesn't matter, if the sacraments don't matter--what's


407 posted on 02/24/2005 5:20:26 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: Dominick

Just to complete my thought which was inadvertantly self-interrupted: if all men--each and every one--is "in some way" connected with Christ, then how can they be born in Original Sin? What is the point of Baptism?


408 posted on 02/24/2005 5:29:36 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: TheTruthess

"If the Pope decided tomorrow that homosexuality and abortion was fine, would Catholics accept it as truth from God?"

No. Modernist heretics might, but not those who cleave to the teachings of the Church.

"how would Catholics dispute it? Would they use scripture?"

Why not? Scripture is the first and final authority in the Catholic Church.

"how would it's members dispute what the Church says about scriptural issues?"

Why would a Catholic dispute what the Church says about scriptural issues? Of course, that's a different matter from disputing a cleric who deviates from what the Church says about spiritual issues, which is the nature of your hypothetical.

"If the Pope is God Himself"

Who in the world every said such a thing? No Catholic, certainly.

"and the Vicar of Christ, he has the right to rule however he wants."

No, as the Vicar of Christ he only has the right to rule corrrectly.

"He is infallible and therefore, if he says something is true - it must be true - right?"

That's not a correct understanding of infallibility. Firstly, as has been repeated on FR as many times as there are stars in the sky, he is only infallible under narrow, clearly defined circumstances.

Secondly, the nature of infallibility is not to confer validity on whatever he says, but to assert that he won't choose to say anything false (under those narrow, clearly defined circumstances).

"Just wondering."

I guess you don't read much of the discussion among Catholics here.


409 posted on 02/24/2005 6:20:33 PM PST by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: TheTruthess

"If the Catholic Church is the only entity that can interpret scripture properly (not saying I believe this by the way)"

Nobody does believe that.

However, the Catholic Church is the only entity which, through the Grace of God, interprets all of scripture correctly all the time.

And even that is not to say that every Catholic, or even every priest, gets it right all the time. Many err through lack of education, others because they are infected with the Modernist Heresy.

However, if you consult sources not corrupted by heresy, such as the Doctors of the Church, for instance, you will always find the correct interpretation.


410 posted on 02/24/2005 6:35:38 PM PST by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: saradippity
"Ninenot is a very nice way provides some food for serious reflection on the part of those who hyper-focus on incidentals or asides rather than issues and big pictures."

I'm glad he's been of help to you.

411 posted on 02/25/2005 1:34:53 AM PST by pascendi (Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
You can't read, you don't read and you are way off topic.

I think my point is made abundantly, without spamming and propagandizing what is written in black and white. I respond once and you stutter step replied five and six times, searching in vain for something that sticks.

The problem it that you don't care what the documents says, just what you want it to say, and you will lie misquote and bend semantics to make it say what you want it to to support your schismatic view of the Church.
412 posted on 02/25/2005 3:09:09 AM PST by Dominick ("Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." - JP II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: Dominick

No, once again you are being dishonest. The truth is you can't answer my challenge--which I've made in about five or six different ways. I'll make it again. It is this--if all men--each and every one--are "in some way" connected with Christ, then how can they be born in Original Sin? What is the point of Baptism? Why bother with Christianity?

If you can't see how opposed to Catholic doctrine this notion of being connected "in some way" is, then you are hopeless. It's all very fine to talk about "redemption" and "incarnation" and to sprinkle an encyclical with traditional-sounding platitudes--but the bottom line is that the Pope is teaching that all men, each and every man, animists and atheists, Buddhists and Sikhs, are somehow connected with Christ even if they are unaware of it. This is a novel and heterodox notion since it is Catholic doctrine that all men are born into Original Sin and are thus separated from Christ and in need of Baptism. If all are united with Christ anyway--what is the point of Baptism--or of the Church, for that matter?


413 posted on 02/25/2005 6:35:18 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

Well If an American leader said such things it would be called Hate Speech. Oh well discrimination is the only way for a society to survive.


414 posted on 02/25/2005 6:50:40 AM PST by Ibredd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Was Christ not there at the creation of the World? Is Christ not part of the Trinity from the beginning? Are all men connected to God who is their creator? Sin separates us from God, including Original Sin, but that doesn't interrupt the Divine Love of God, Baptism is our cooperation, and our lives are testimony to this Love. Our Crowns (of grace and talents) are not ours but were given to us by God.

This is Catholic doctrine. God is the author of life, no matter what the individual believes. The encyclical said it, I quoted it and you refuse to believe it. The Pope explained the whole of Baptism being essential to our Salvation.

If you can't even find the mention of sacraments in the Redemptor encyclical, then what good comes from me quoting the source documents or posting to you? You ignore the quotes, like the refutation wasn't there?
415 posted on 02/25/2005 7:19:42 AM PST by Dominick ("Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." - JP II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: Dominick

So your answer to the dilemma I posed is that God is connected to all men by His divine love because He is their Creator? By that same logic He is connected to trees and rocks and zebras--but that's not saying much. A little more than merely being created is necessary for us to achieve salvation. There is a proclivity to evil that needs to be erased, a predisposition, according to Traditional Catholic doctrine. Sure JPII mentions Baptism--but he never mentions the sacramental life except when talking about Christians per se. He does not discuss the delicate issue of all men being born into sin, or of being bound by sin throughout life because of a disposition to evil. But the Catholic Church has always taught that "Original Sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam." It is not anything one DOES, it is accrued by generation. This is why Jesus insisted on Baptism, something not so easily dismissed by the claim that God loves everybody. The real reason the Church is necessary is to go forth to all nations and to baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. But if you hold prayer meetings at Assisi and teach that God loves everybody and all people are "in some way" already united with Christ--then who needs the Church for anything, let alone Baptism?


416 posted on 02/25/2005 8:52:32 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio

Can you explain the Church's position on invincible ignorance? Seems it might shed some light on some of this .


417 posted on 02/25/2005 9:40:22 AM PST by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: Dominick; ultima ratio
"I have not attended an SSPX Mass, but, I have seen transcripts of the writings and the writings of the Bishops. Most have what Ratzinger referred to as the schismatic mentality." - Dominick

"Oh, really? More falsehood from you. Cite a passage from these bishops--just one."- UR

Better yet Dominick, please provide the official Church definition of "schismatic mentality" (and the source), and the official Church penalties for having such a "mentality". Then, demonstrate how the bishops of SSPX, or any representative of SSPX is guilty of possessing such a "mentality".

418 posted on 02/25/2005 10:16:05 AM PST by murphE ("I ain't no physicist, but I know what matters." - Popeye)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: saradippity

Pius XII wrote, "those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church . . . by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer" (Mystici Corporis).

But it is one thing to concede that SOME men by extraordinary means can be saved by Baptism of Desire, and another to say that ALL MEN, each and every one, are somehow united to Christ. This would do away with any need for Baptism at all--even Baptism of Desire. It is the UNIVERSALIST nature of JPII's statement that is so novel.

"because man-every man without any exception whatever-has been redeemed by Christ, and because with man-with each man without any exception whatever-Christ is in a way united, even when man is unaware of it..."


419 posted on 02/25/2005 11:21:35 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: saradippity; Dominick

By the way, the passage I just quoted by JPII is a good example of what I meant by his fuzziness of style. Look at how he takes the concept of Christ's redemption of mankind and glides it into another idea--that every individual is therefore united with Christ. He puts redemption in the passive mode so that everybody "has been redeemed"--which is certainly true for all mankind, but certainly not true for the individual who still has got to cooperate with that redemptive act. The Pope skips over this. He elides the genus mankind with each and every individual and leaves the impression that everybody is redeemed already. This is what I mean by his extraordinary lack of clarity. It is all very pious-sounding--but highly ambiguous, seeming more Teilhardian than orthodox.

"because man-every man without any exception whatever-has been redeemed by Christ, and because with man-with each man without any exception whatever-Christ is in a way united, even when man is unaware of it..."



420 posted on 02/25/2005 12:10:31 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420421-436 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson