Posted on 11/17/2004 4:35:17 PM PST by AskStPhilomena
The Catholic Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin has indicated his approval for giving legal rights to gay couples.
He is the first senior religious figure in Ireland to have made a statement of this kind.
It followed comments from Taoiseach Bertie Ahern that extending tax and inheritance rights to gay couples would be the "fairest" and "most Christian" way to deal with the issue.
Guess who's next in line to become an Irish cardinal?
Of course, even if the pope does decide to honor this dissident as on numerous previous occasions, it probably won't be as bad as the elevation of German abortion-rights activist Lehmann to the sacred college of cardinals.
PC Ping
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
Say it ain't so. Why, why are Catholic officials kowtowing to the "gay" agenda? Why?
Here's why: http://www.goodbyegoodmen.com/ which I have yet to read.
Very sad. If only deviant priests and other higher-ups would be kicked out asap. Maybe if more and more "regular" Catholics start fighting.
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
=== Why, why are Catholic officials kowtowing to the "gay" agenda? Why?
Same reason the secular elite is.
Riddled through with queens.
Should that happen it will be indisputable evidence of the demonic padlock on what had been the home of the Latin Roman Catholic Church.
Thanks for the ping.
You are correct in stating that Ireland has become very anti-Catholic.........and in less then a dozen years. There was a saying some time back that TV ruined Ireland. I would say that its is MTV which ruined the morals of the young there.
But the rot had set in long ago. The land of saints is now an isle of pagans and public sinners. Very few of the young go to mass.......many of them want nothing to do with the Catholic church, religion in general, nor JPII in particular. They hate him - and will tell you so if asked! Why? Because he "stands in the way of human freedom".
Freedom.......to sin as you please? Perhaps that is at the root of it.
But Ireland had problems before. Sadly its Catholicism was only skin deep - cultural, not deeply spiritual. Yes there were many saintly humble people there. But they are either dead now, or represent only a tiny minority.
The Gay issue? Sadly for Ireland.......corrupted by paganistic modern music and its messages, all too many young Irish are coming out of the closet. 20-30 years ago too many of them went into the seminaries.....and hence they have the sex abuse crisis. Or more accurately the gay priest syndrome, which has corrupted all areas of the Church universal where it is to be found.
Some on this thread have asked why......why do we have a gay priest crisis. Because the Church has experienced a hostile corporate takeover. First by Marxist minded seminarians in the 40s and 50s. Then they recruited homosexuals.....who in turn recruited more homosexuals. We are overrun with them. They have been at the key positions of power for some 30 years.
So of course, they are not going to purge their own kind.
But as others have indicated, the answer lies with the people. They must rise up and protest. Refuse to give a penny in the plate to support corrupt pastors & Bishops.
Why has this not happened? Ever tried to get somebody up off their sofa and spur them to action?
More to the point, most Catholics are either blissfully unaware......have been lulled to sleep both intellectually and spiritually. Most of those who do genuinely care, have left the Novus Ordo church. Most of the ones who have stayed within it are fast asleep.
Doing a little on Sodano off a vector off Lehman and ... I'm in shock ...
John I's reign lasted only 33 days?
I never realized they'd left the Masonic equivalent of a fish wrapped in newspaper!
Satan is bold these days.
Actually, I believe he was specifically not made a cardinal in the last consistory, possibly because the Holy See might have a little bit more concern for orthodoxy than you would ever give it credit for. The Pope has been very vocal in speaking out against the sinfulness of homosexual activity and against "same sex marriage". In fact he has been excoriated by the secularist left precisely for doing so. But of course that means nothing to you because your agenda requires you to turn everything into something to beat up the Holy Father, undermine his legitimate authority and justify your unjustifiable rebellion against the Catholic Church and promotion of schismatic parallel structures.
Lehmann was wrong to be disobedient to the Pope (actually I thought that would be something you would praise Lehmann for, since you think nothing of being disobedient to lawful authority yourself) in not shutting down the Catholic consultation centers on abortion, but that doesn't make him an abortion-rights activist. he might have sincerely believed that the centers might have convinced some people not to have abortions.
disgusting!
=== he might have sincerely believed that the centers might have convinced some people not to have abortions.
But the only thing he could possiblyt know for CERTAIN is that each certificate was a Death Warrant.
I feel so ignorant and naive this evening ...
I had NO IDEA the Novus Ordo church was renovating sanctuaries so as to model them on Masonic temple rooms! Just took a virtual tour at the House of the Temple site. Shazam!
I still like to think there's Some Difference, Somehow, between the Blacks and the Reds where the chessboard's concerned, but it's increasingly difficult to tell how, exactly, those loyalties differ.
"he might have sincerely believed that the centers might have convinced some people not to have abortions."
These "Catholic" centers were happily handing out certificates so that German women could qualify for state-sponsored abortions. Sorry, there's no way to defend this callous complicity in the massacre of babies.
If it was just Lehmann, the pope's poor judgement could easily be overlooked, but unfortunately nearly every one of the new cardinals of the last 40 years are flakes.
It was a rhetorical question, unfortunately.
I'm not justifying it. I am merely objecting to your characterization of Lehmann as an "abortion activist". It is no evidence of any such thing. As usual you are using immoderate and inaccurate language. Lehmann might have been stupid and misguided and yet not be an "abortion advocate".
=== It was a rhetorical question, unfortunately.
Don't kid yourself.
It's one of the more critical Pressing Questions a person could ask these days.
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.