Posted on 04/03/2007 8:56:28 PM PDT by freedomdefender
The new head of the Italian bishops conference has made political waves by asking on what basis may incest and pedophilia be denied if Italy legalizes same-sex unions and other alternatives to the family.
Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco of Genoa, who was appointed last month to lead the Italian Bishops Conference, is spearheading efforts of the Catholic Church in Italy against legislation giving unmarried unions – including same-sex ones – legal status and benefits.
“Why say 'no' to forms of legally recognised co-habitation which create alternatives to the family? Why say 'no' to incest?” the Archbishop said at a meeting of Church workers, according to the Italian journal, La Repubblica.
“Why say 'no' to the pedophile party in Holland?” Bagnasco stated, referring to the Dutch Brotherly Love, Freedom and Diversity party, which lobbies to reduce the age of consent from 16 to 12 and legalize child pornography.
Supporters of the “DICO” bill, which would grant legal recognition of opposite and same-sex civil unions and benefits, immediately objected that the Archbishop had equated the legislation with pedophilia and incest.
Environment minister Alfonso Pecoraro Scanio, a vociferous advocate of the homosexual agenda, said Archbishop Bagnasco had created a “grave, foolish comparison which offends millions of people”.
However, an editorial in Avvenire, the official newspaper of the Italian Bishops Conference, dismissed the controversy as a “storm in a teacup”, saying that Archbishop Bagnasco had merely illustrated the fact that family policy must be founded on principles other than whichever way public opinion gravitates.
“No equating DICO with incest or pedophilia, then, in his words,” the newspaper said.
In other words, the Church is emphasizing family policy must have a basis in natural law and the moral order, or else public opinion someday may justify with law destructive sexual relationships once believed inconceivable, even well beyond homosexual unions.
Italy's bishops have called on Catholic politicians to vote against the bill backed by Prime Minister Romano Prodi, warning that it undermines traditional marriage and the family, which Pope Benedict XVI has called a "pillar of humanity."
Benedict XVI has warned that projects legalizing pseudo-marriage arrangements are “dangerous and counterproductive” to the health of society by “weakening and destabilizing the legitimate family based on marriage."
"Only the foundation of complete and irrevocable love between man and woman is capable of forming the basis of a society that becomes the home of all men.”
I've often used the counterfeiting analogy in reply to the cry "what we do in our bedrooms is nobody's business!"
Particularly when the participants then go on to tender dread disease and infirmity to the larger community, out of their carelessness and perversity.
Very good question. And don't forget polygamy and bestiality.
And so, both 'gay marriage' and counterfeiting of money must be kept illegal.
>>>And so, both ‘gay marriage’ and counterfeiting of money must be kept illegal.<<<
Unquestionably.
There was an entry for bigamy: Having one wife too many. (see marriage)
Then you look down, and there was an entry for marriage: Having one wife too many. (see bigamy)
Hey, I just read 'em, I don't make 'em!
CA....
Why not pedophilia? The Church has been saying that for decades.
If I were to set up my very own counterfeit $100 bill making machine and pass them off as real currency, the FBI and every other law enforcement agency would storm my house, shut down the presses, and frog-march me away to the big-house, pronto. And rightfully so. That is because counterfeit money dilutes (harms)the value of real money....It cheapens bona fide currency.
Likewise, ‘gay’ marriage dilutes real marriage...you said ‘debases’ and I agree. As a society, anything that dilutes or debases bona fide marriage should be declared illegal. (And please don’t get me started on the state of anti-Family Law in this country, which is the subject of an entirely different rant)
Sincerely,
RD
Ping!
It IS Biblical, but without Biblical authority it’s just jibberish.
Which is all your post is.
OK. I’ll type slowly so you can understand my opinion.
Without the context of OBEDIENCE and FAITH in
God’s Word, moral, noble and yes even Scripturally
accurate sentiments carry no weight. It is all moral
relativism. As in what is right to one person may
not be right to another person.
“All the good from the Saviour of the world is communicated through this Book; but for the Book we could not know right from wrong... “ (Abraham Lincoln)
“The Bible is the one supreme source of revelation of the meaning of life, the nature of God and spiritual nature and need of men. It is the only guide of life which really leads the spirit in the way of peace and salvation.” (Woodrow Wilson)
I certainly hope the Bishop can quote Scripture.
He’s a good guy. Wish he’s stay out of politics.
[... Only the foundation of complete and irrevocable love between man and woman is capable of forming the basis of a society that becomes the home of all men...]
STARTING FROM ANOTHER POSITION
I agree the Bishop’s remarks are Biblicaly based.
However, if the flock is essentially secular, they
have no reason to be obedient to this concept.
Revival, repentance and reverance for God and His
Word are first required.
“Actually, I don’t think the government should be giving subsidies and tax deductions for ANY marriage. Get the government - and tax code - out of the marriage business entirely.”
DD, I think this is exactly right. The gubberment should never have been given this power—given its inherent nature. We should not be put in the position of recognizing a marriage because government says so, because eventually it will try to put forth an impossibility like “gay marriage”, or another combination of words that can’t make sense.
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.