Pope reiterates church's moral positions

[emad]

By FRANCES D'EMILIO
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER


VATICAN CITY -- Pope John Paul II on Monday called for more opposition to laws he sees as threatening families based on traditional marriage, urged a vast mobilization of the public worldwide to combat hunger and restated the Catholic church's ban on embryo stem cell use.
................

John Paul asserted that the Church's opposition, "supported by reason and science," to abortion, assisted procreation and scientific research on human embryonic stem cells was clear.

In an obvious reference to laws in several countries or localities permitting marriage between homosexuals or equating the social rights of unwed couples to married ones, John Paul said that in some countries, the family's "natural structure" is challenged.

Families, he said, "must necessarily be that of a union between a man and a woman founded on marriage."
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apeurope_story.asp?category=1103&slug=Vatican%20Pope%20Diplomats

[BlueEyedSon]

1. "a union between a man and a woman"... or a priest and a boy.

Disgusting medieval-minded hypocrites!

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

18. another gem from your vast tank of enlightened thought

:thumbsup:

[VegasWolf]

27. What? Is he lying? n/t

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

30. Mmmm

good question

[patcox2]

2. "Latest Breaking News About How Evil The Catholic Church Is."

Should that be the new name?

Keep those stories coming. They sure do contribute to the strength of the democratic party by uniting us all. And they are of course very relevant to the discussion on democratic unity in opposing Bush's initiatives and strengthening the party to come back from this last election, the closest election ever involving an incumbent president.

There were 27 million catholic voters in the 2004 election; 48% voted for Kerry (exactly the same breakdown as in the public at large). That makes over 13 million catholic democratic votes.

But what the fuck, lets just keep criticizing their faith, just say "fuck the catholics, we don't need them." Thats smart.

No wonder this party loses.

[emad]

3. Given the religious/moral/ethical debate of the November 2004

WH election, citing the Poitiff's newsitems is relevant to the Democratic discussion.

Those who voice their cynicism have cited other newsitems concerning the Church which have been filling the headlines for some time.

[placton]

6. I never criticized the Church

until their clergy became largely an arm of the GOP. Please provide me with information to the contrary, if it exists.

[patcox2]

8. Thats simply not true.

The catholic clergy are about as split as the US public at large, with some supporting Bush and some virulently opposed to him. There were exaggerated reports of a few US Bishops stating that catholics could not vote for pro-life candidates, and the generally pro-republican US press publicized the shit out of these few renegades, who clearly overstepped their bounds. But the press made little mention of the fact that these statements were refuted both by the US Bishops as a whole and by the vatican, even right-winger Ratzinger said they were wrong.

Your description of the catholic clergy as lock-step supporters of republicans and Bush is not correct.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

19. That's bullshit. No one in my parish is a right arm of the GOP

Believe what you want to believe but that is a very smal and uninformed view

[GOPBasher]

12. Vast majorities are for stem-cell research.

Highlighting our differences with Republicans on stem cell research is not only important, but politically beneficial. The vast majority of Americans are for it, as well as the vast majority of Catholics in particular.

[Bridget Burke]

14. But how can somebody who's not even in the USA....

Speak for the Democratic Party?

[davidinalameda]

32. maybe we should start trying to get the fundies aboard while we're at it

let's just say the hell with gay rights, abortion rights, etc and become the Republican Party Part 2

that will get those other 52% of Catholics who voted for Bush

and while we're at it, let's just disband the Democratic Party

we don't need it--we'll become a one party state

even better, let's become a Christian theocracy

get rid of everyone who doesn't hold the same beliefs


:grr:

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CountAllVotes]

34. you sure as hell

got that right!

Kicking themselves in their own arses IMO for what it is worth!

:grr:

[placton]

4. Ah, the popester

keeping the RC Church on the side of fascists. Let us consider how often Jesus himself spoke of the MOST VITAL ISSUES (according to the popester, or whoever is writing this dying delusional man's addresses):

times Jesus condemned
homosexuals = 0
abortion = 0
assisted procreation = 0
scientific research on human embryonic stem cells = 0
permitting marriage between homosexuals = 0
equating the social rights of unwed couples to married ones = 0

Apparently, the popester thinks that all these issues are more important than poverty (Jesus spoke on that often), mercy (ditto Jesus), hypocrisy (ditto Jesus, in spades), helping people, etc.

As the late Maureen Reagan said in a Playboy interview: "Those Republicans I met are not anti-abortion, they're anti-sex" (paraphrase)

Oops I forgot! How about selling off just SOME of the Church's billions to combat world hunger?

And of course, where is the popester condemning our leaders who murder innocents? mark him "absent"

[patcox2]

7. The Pope speaks more often about 2 subject, poverty and peace.

The pope speaks about poverty more often than anything, next to peace. But this is downplayed because nowadays in america noone likes to hear that you have a moral obligation to help the poor (and the pope does not just call for private charity, just as he calls for laws on the gay marriage issue, he calls for laws promoting the dignity of workers and welfare for the poor). The american press likes to put the spotlight on his statements about these contentious social issues, because whats more dramatic than a fight, and there is a fight going on, so the press tries to whip it up. Its all sports reporting now, I guess.

[placton]

16. I think you make a good point

if correct. I will make it a point to search out that information.
Gee, I must be a stinkin' liberal, to think I might be mistaken, or that there are 2 sides to an issue!

[Mithras61]

5. I'm sorry, but the Church's position on marriage, family structure...

and abortion would hold a great deal more water for me if they were actually players in the game. Until Catholic Priests, Bishops, Cardinals, etc. start having families, getting pregnant and having to actually make a living and a life in our world, their opinions on these subjects are fundamentally suspect.

Also, since marriage is a SECULAR rite, that has been extended to the church (as in "the community recognizes these rites when performed by the church"), the church doesn't have much say in who or what configuration can be recognized. Marriage has ALWAYS been a secular convention designed to simplify the raising of children and the inheritance of property, and existed LONG before the church decided it wanted to be a player in the game...

I get so tired of the church's meddling in political affairs. When are we going to start demanding that they either shut up or give up their tax-free status?

[Massachusetts]

11. Praise Gee Sus

Someone with common sense.:thumbsup:

[KittyWampus]

17. Marriage Is ABSOLUTELY NOT JUST SECULAR. You Are Incorrect

Where did you get such a unfounded idea?

As a cultural anthropologist, I can assure you that Marriage has ALWAYS been a matter of Religion.

For the vast majority of human experience... people gained their rights and privledges by belonging to a Tribe/Group and that Tribe/Group existed as an expression of a specific World View.

The World View/Philosophy/Religion of each group DICTATES the social norms.

Having A SOCIAL Contract and SECULAR Rule of Law are relatively new inventions.

Now, Marriage is a SACRED INSTITUTION, always has been and always will be.

Therefore, Marriages should ONLY be carried out by Religious Institutions.

Furthermore, the STATE has no business whatsoever in marrying people.

The State should have in its power only the ability to allow two people to join together in a CIVIL UNION... if two people desire to join their fortunes & households.

Finally, if two people want to get Married, it's up to each particular Church to decide of that couple live up to the Churches standards of behavior.

This is totally in accord with the notion of seperation of Church and State.

The reason the overwhelming majority of people believe Marriage is a Sacred Institution is because historically it is.

What the Left needs to do is open its eyes and understand that fact and get busy promoting the idea of Civil Unions being the onlyoption offered by the State and Marriages being offered soley by the variuos Churches, Temples, Mosques.

Such a simple solution.

[Mithras61]

20. Re: unfounded idea of marriage as secular...

"The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32)."

...

"There appeared to be many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony in the 1500's. The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, that they decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses."

http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm

Marriage was historically a contract between two people on how to divde property and the responsibilities related to child rearing.

[KittyWampus]

21. You've Ignored My Comments On Marriage In Almost All Cultures

throughout history. And these are comments based on the historical, anthropological record.

And your comments about St. Paul just proves my point.

St. Paul= Marriage as Sacred.
Council of Trent= Reinforcing St. Paul's position.

Marriage, in the WESTERN TRADITION has been that way for about two thousand years.

[Mithras61]

23. I cited those as evidence of the earliest linking of marriage

and the "sacred vows" of marriage in our culture. Since Western Civilization goes back much further than the Christian bible, I posited that you would agree that it is a relatively recent introduction (alert: history doesn't begin with Jesus or the Bible!). Further, the link provided also makes reference to many other forms of marriage that are not of the "one man, one woman" variety, and were/have been practised in many cultures around the world, including our own. Marriages have historically included such interesting variations as polygamy and polyandry that the Pope has conveniently ignored.

I took 2000 years as a recent phenonmenon, since our culture has roots going back well over 2000 years, and is actually based on many other cultures (such as the Roman, Greek, Babylonian, Egyptian, Indian, etc), and therefore 2000 years is indeed a "recent happening" not something out of the annals of time itself.

So by your standards, marriage in the modern, western tradition (at least since the late 1800s) has been one man, one woman, and accepted by many as "sacred," but the foundations of marriage are far, far older than that, and are fundamentally a social contract, not a sacred ritual.

[KittyWampus]

33. Ancient Judaism Certainly Saw Marriage As Sacred & Ancient Rome

also had Wedding Ceremonies presided over by priests with attendant rituals.

In fact, several of our modern Marriage Customs descend directly from Roman Weddings... white dress for bride and wedding ring on left hand.

Have there been common-law marriages throughout history?

Yes, but our collective memory centers around Marriage as a Sacred Institution since for so many thousands of years they've been either officated by priests or involved some kind of ritual.

Just because SOME couples throughout history have lived within a Common-Law Marriage doesn't mean ALL or even MOST were.

And just as importantly, it also doesn't mean the Cultural IDEAL was
Common-Law Marriage.

[Mithras61]

36. You might want to do a bit more research...

Actually, ancient Judaism saw marriage as a family affair...

http://ks.essortment.com/historyofmarri_rimr.htm

Marriage customs like wedding dresses and rings are irrelevant. They have nothing to do with marriage as being sacred or not. On the other hand, Roman marriage practices were fairly open... " Romans who were very wealthy who would sign documents consisting of listing property rights and letting all know that they wanted this union to be legalized and not to be thought of as a common law marriage. Thus this began the official recording of marriages as we do today. Roman men could dissolve the marriage any time as it was a male privilege, not one accorded to females." (from the same page).

Further from the same page: "In A.D. 527-565 during the rein of Justinian lawyers drew up laws called the Justinian Code and this was a regulation of their daily life including marriage. Up until the time of the Justinian Code just saying you were married was enough.

Until the ninth century marriages were not church involved. Up until the twelfth century there were blessings and prayers during the ceremony and the couple would offer their own prayers. Then priests asked that an agreement be made in their presence. Then religion was added to the ceremony." (so marriage was a civil, or secular, thing)

Lots more links available, if you want to keep on (about 41,000 on Google alone).

[davhill]

22. I Agree completely

The only reason the state even got involved in the marriage business in the first place was to insure orderly transfer of inheritance. It also provided some financial guarantees to those who exited the workforce to care for children. We have other methods of doing both now. Marriage should be reserved for religion alone.

[Az]

24. Agree with caveats

The vast bulk of history marriage has been a religious institution. Although our species has always been inclined to take life mates the process of recognition likely did originate in some form of recognition of sacred expression.

Things change though. With the advent of Post Modern thinking the notion of marriage necissarily being a religious/sacred rite is no longer true. It is available to any and all thinking. It has become a social rite rather than a sacred right.

Unfortunately not all in society progress at the same rate. Thus many cling to the notion that it is only the sacred that can define a marriage.

I do agree with your solution though. The institution of marriage is too entwined with religion for Government to properly deal with. For legal purposes the Government should govern over civil unions. A couples personal sense of sacred and social decorum should govern over forms of marriage.

[Bridget Burke]

26. Marriage was made a sacrament at the Council of Trent.

In the middle of the 16th Century. Before that, clergy often blessed unions, but their presence at a marriage was not necessary. In old Ireland--before Christianity--numerous types of marriage & divorce existed. They were governed by law & custom, not religion.

As a Cultural Anthropologist, I'm sure that you can list examples to prove YOUR point.

I'm firmly in favor of Civil Unions for those who want legal reinforcement of their living arrangements. Given today's divorce rate, calling marriage a "Sacred Institution" only invites loud guffaws.

[VegasWolf]

28. Not true. Marriage was originally for nobles to keep track of wealth

and land. Commoners were not permitted to marry. Hence,
Common Law marriage. When commoners began holding lands
dedded to them for whatever reasons, they began legally marrying
also.

My marriage is certainly secular, we were married by Elvis. My
reason for marriage was to protect my wife if anything happens to me.

[LibertyLover]

31. Marriage and religion

Not all cultures. In ancient Egypt marriage was purely a civil matter. No religious text has ever been found with any type of marriage ceremony on it, nor do any temple reliefs that I am aware of, depict a marriage ceremony in the temple. There may have been some sort of private ceremony at the family shrine, but there is nothing in the archeological record to confirm that.

[saltpoint]

54. If marriage is the exclusive domain of religions --

-- then it needs to be under new management.

Roughly half of marriages fail. If roughly half of airplanes crashed, I doubt many people would get on one.

[Orsino]

67. As a married man, I can assure you...

...that marriage is *not* "always...a matter of religion." My wife and I got married without benefit of clergy.

*No* US state requires that *any* church or religion be involved.

[arwalden]

9. I wasn't aware that the Pope was opposed to IV fertilization. Hmmm.

Am I understanding that correctly? Or is the church opposed to "donor" sperm and "donor" eggs?

Frankly, I think that the church needs to get over its fetus-fetish and just go ahead and say that birth control is OK. Just think... it could ameliorate the suffering of literally MILLIONS, perhaps BILLIONS of people around the world.

The Pope has the power, by uttering one sentence, to make the biggest humanitarian improvement the world has ever seen, but does not do so. And instead focuses his efforts on saving stem cell "babies", and in demonizing gays and lesbians.

[emad]

59. I think all the trouble started way back in the days of the colonies

with all that emphasis on the "missionary position".

Not much has changed since then.

[Az]

10. Last Vestiges or Last Straw?

Authoratative Dogmatic Rule was pushed off its pedestal some 500 years ago. It still exists but only as an echo of its former power. In its place we raised the idea of humans deciding morality for humans.

In choosing this path we discovered that things we once took to be immoral were perhaps open to consideration. And in this way our rights and freedoms increased. But the institutions of authoratative beliefs objected. They were dragged kicking and screaming into the modern era. And they fight to this day.

We now come to a time when it seems as if calls for the return of such authority are in the air. Fundamentalists call for God's rule to reign. The Pope having to stand by the concept of Papal infallibility has dug in his heals regarding reproductive rights. Are these the last vestiges of such things before they are swept into the pages of history? Or are they the last straw that sends us into a conflict that drags us all back into the dark ages?

[patcox2]

13. John Paul on Peace and International Law (refutes Bush).

Here is something different; the actual words the Pope issued, instead of someone's characterization of them:



Teaching peace

4. In my Message for the World Day of Peace on 1 January 1979 I made this appeal: To Reach Peace, Teach Peace. Today that appeal is more urgent than ever, because men and women, in the face of the tragedies which continue to afflict humanity, are tempted to yield to fatalism, as if peace were an unattainable ideal.

The Church, on the other hand, has always taught and continues today to teach a very simple axiom: peace is possible. Indeed, the Church does not tire of repeating that peace is a duty. It must be built on the four pillars indicated by Blessed John XXIII in his Encyclical Pacem in Terris: truth, justice, love and freedom. A duty is thus imposed upon all those who love peace: that of teaching these ideals to new generations, in order to prepare a better future for all mankind.

Teaching legality

5. In this task of teaching peace, there is a particularly urgent need to lead individuals and peoples to respect the international order and to respect the commitments assumed by the Authorities which legitimately represent them. Peace and international law are closely linked to each another: law favours peace.

From the very dawn of civilization, developing human communities sought to establish agreements and pacts which would avoid the arbitrary use of force and enable them to seek a peaceful solution of any controversies which might arise. Alongside the legal systems of the individual peoples there progressively grew up another set of norms which came to be known as ius gentium (the law of the nations). With the passage of time, this body of law gradually expanded and was refined in the light of the historical experiences of the different peoples.

This process was greatly accelerated with the birth of modern States. From the sixteenth century on, jurists, philosophers and theologians were engaged in developing the various headings of international law and in grounding it in the fundamental postulates of the natural law. This process led with increasing force to the formulation of universal principles which are prior to and superior to the internal law of States, and which take into account the unity and the common vocation of the human family.

Central among all these is surely the principle that pacta sunt servanda: accords freely signed must be honoured. This is the pivotal and exceptionless presupposition of every relationship between responsible contracting parties. The violation of this principle necessarily leads to a situation of illegality and consequently to friction and disputes which would not fail to have lasting negative repercussions. It is appropriate to recall this fundamental rule, especially at times when there is a temptation to appeal to the law of force rather than to the force of law.

One of these moments was surely the drama which humanity experienced during the Second World War: an abyss of violence, destruction and death unlike anything previously known.

Respect for law

6. That war, with the horrors and the appalling violations of human dignity which it occasioned, led to a profound renewal of the international legal order. The defence and promotion of peace were set at the centre of a broadly modernized system of norms and institutions. The task of watching over global peace and security and with encouraging the efforts of States to preserve and guarantee these fundamental goods of humanity was entrusted by Governments to an organization established for this purpose – the United Nations Organization – with a Security Council invested with broad discretionary power. Pivotal to the system was the prohibition of the use of force. This prohibition, according to the well-known Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, makes provision for only two exceptions. The first confirms the natural right to legitimate defence, to be exercised in specific ways and in the context of the United Nations: and consequently also within the traditional limits of necessity and proportionality.

The other exception is represented by the system of collective security, which gives the Security Council competence and responsibility for the preservation of peace, with power of decision and ample discretion.

The system developed with the United Nations Charter was meant “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind”.(4) In the decades which followed, however, the division of the international community into opposing blocs, the cold war in one part of the world, the outbreak of violent conflicts in other areas and the phenomenon of terrorism produced a growing break with the ideas and expectations of the immediate post-war period.

[patcox2]

15. US Bishops statement on poverty (and the right to collective bargaining)

Here's the official position of the US council of Bishops on the Church's "social teaching." Note the commmitment to the right to collective bargaining for workers. Later in this piece there is also a note on the role of government welfare and economic equality programs; the church teaches that the role of government is to do collectively what we cannot do as individuals to help the poor, completely, diametrically the opposite of the most fundamental republican dogma:


"Catholic Social Teaching
Applying the Scriptures to human history has been the task of saints, church leaders, and ordinary believers through the centuries. The social doctrine of the Church provides principles for reflection, criteria for judgment, and guidelines for the choices we make every day.23

In the early years of the Church, Christian communities cared for their weakest members by sharing what they had.24 According to St. Ambrose, "You are not making a gift of your possessions to the poor person. You are handing over to him what is his. For what has been given in common for the use of all, you have arrogated to yourself. The world is given to all, and not only to the rich."25

Catholic teaching about human dignity and economic justice has been a special focus of many papal encyclicals and statements of our bishops' conference, offering key themes and principles and applying them to the issues of the day. (See "A Catholic Framework for Economic Life.")

Pope John Paul II insists that the unequivocal words of the Gospel remind us that there is a special presence of Christ in the poor. This presence requires the Church to make a preferential option for those who are poor and vulnerable.26 The principle of solidarity reminds us that as members of one human family, we see every "other" as our neighbor, who must share in the "banquet of life to which all are equally invited by God."27 Solidarity calls us to care for our neighbors in need who are nearby and for those who are far away and to see all those who suffer as sisters and brothers.28

Catholic teaching affirms that all persons, even those on the margins of society, have basic human rights: the right to life and to those things that are necessary to the proper development of life, including faith and family, work and education, housing and health care. Work is the key to the social question (cf. Pope John Paul II, On Human Work). Work should not leave people poor but should provide wages sufficient to achieve a standard of living that is in keeping with human dignity.29 Workers have both an obligation and a right to work,30 as well as a right to participation, association, and economic initiative. This includes the right to choose to join a union and to bargain collectively.

In the Catholic tradition, concern for the poor is advanced by individual and common action, works of charity, efforts to achieve a more just social order, the practice of virtue, and the pursuit of justice in our own lives. It requires action to confront structures of injustice that leave people poor. Individual believers are called to be generous in sharing what we have with those in need and to promote justice through the choices we make in our families, schools, and workplaces, and through our participation in social and economic life.31

Our social doctrine is expressed and enriched by the Church's broad experience. Across the globe, our Church puts faith into action by feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, educating the young, caring for the sick, welcoming the stranger, providing access for persons with disabilities, and working for greater justice and peace. The Catholic Church is the largest non-governmental provider of education, health care, and human services in our nation. We are helping families and communities to combat hunger and homelessness, overcome poverty and dependency, build housing, resist crime, and seek greater justice. Catholic schools are among the best anti-poverty programs, offering first-rate education, moral truth, and discipline in communities across our nation. We welcome and resettle many refugees fleeing conflict and repression. We offer relief and development in more than eighty countries. (See "National Catholic Efforts to Overcome Poverty.")

Our Church's commitment to find a place at the table for all God's children is expressed in every part of our country and in the poorest places on earth. All across the globe, the Church carries this forward because of who we are and what we believe about God and the human person. Our faith gives us the strength, identity, and principles we need to sustain this work."

[JerseygirlCT]

38. I understand and admire the RCC position

on poverty. But THAT wasn't the big campaign issue this time, was it?

All we heard about were petitions against Dem. candidates, petitions against gay marriage, bishops speaking against pro-choice candidates.

When the plight of the born is given at least equal weight with the unborn, I'll feel a whole lot better about it.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VegasWolf]

29. He's not really evil, just missed living in his appropriate century.

[zulchzulu]

35. Thanks for reassuring me why the Catholic Church is full of sh*t

Hey, I USED to be a Catholic.

Then I realized that the 21st Century is where my head's at, not the Middle Ages. And the worst part is all the damn money changer crap that Jesus warned about...

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bridget Burke]

41. No, not really.

Even one case of pedophilia is too much, but quite a few churchmen & women are not involved.

[Crowdance]

39. "opposition to laws...threatening families" is the problem

For the Catholic Pope to issue directives affecting the way Catholics behave is perfectly fine. For the Catholic Pope to rouse his troops for the purpose of legislating Catholic morality, though we are not all Catholic, is POLITICS. The Pope needs to keep his thoughts to his flock, and leave the rest of us, who choose to not belong, alone.

[Bridget Burke]

40. I don't believe the Pope posted this link at DU.....

Blame somebody else for forcing you to read this. Other comments omitted from the original post:

John Paul, who had vigorously opposed what the United States called "preventive war," said in his speech that "arrogance of power must be countered with reason, force with dialogue, pointed weapons with outstretched hands, evil with good.".....

More must be done about the world's hungry, including millions of children dying from malnutrition, the pontiff said.

He urged a "vast moral mobilization of public opinion" and said political leaders should also take up the call, especially those in well-off countries.

Crazy talk. Aren't you glad you're above it all?

[Crowdance]

43. Having to read it isn't at issue

I'm glad it's posted. I like to know who is threatening civil rights in our country, and I appreciate emad's dedication to the task. And no, the Pope's moral position on war and hunger doesn't negate his immoral positions on women and homosexuals. (I did read it, btw. Pretty offensive that you'd choose to make insulting assumptions about non-catholics. Oh, that's bigotry isn't it?! Kind of non-Catholic bashing. I guess what goes around, comes around.)

[patcox2]

46. Glad to know what you are doing, vigilant watchdogs for freedom!

And here I thought it was just religious bigotry, but now I find that its actually a noble, heroic endeavor, brave, noble knights errant of the internet, patriots indeed, ever-vigilant, never sleeping, surfing the internet without pause to keep us safe from the from the creeping catholicization of america.

[Crowdance]

55. Actually, I was praising emad's work, but if you want to

give me some of the credit......nah, I haven't earned it.

[Bridget Burke]

56. Arf!

You neglected their efforts against the gun-running paedophiles of the IRA! And the Duchess of Windsor's secret daughter fits in somehow. The book will be out any day now...

[emad]

60. Sarcasm = lowest form of twit.

I understand David Lean is negotiating the film rights to the biography.

[Bridget Burke]

62. I'm Impressed!

David Lean, the director who gave us Lawrence of Arabia, The Bridge on the River Kwai? Who put Pygmalion & Major Barbara on film? (I'm quite fond of Shaw.)

The David Lean who died in 1991?

That David Lean?

[emad]

63. THAT David Lean was SIR David Lean. None of his namesakes

in the talented Lean family has been knighted to my certain knowledge.

[Bridget Burke]

72. Then, which David Lean did you have in mind?

IMDB.COM mentions another David Lean--he's a Winnipeg-born rock guitarist who had an uncredited role in "Wonder Boys". So, I doubt he's related to Sir David Lean.

Please, give us mere mortals a link!

[emad]

73. Will post when I have more info on if it's Sir D's grandson/nephew/

great nephew.

Expecting more details on the website and biography anon.

[0007]

69. Very well said! Indirectly the Pope is supporting the Gop strongly

while mildly scolding junior's little war, and bonding church and state.

[sonicx]

42. According to some here...

if someone uses religion to attack gay people, we are suppose to cross our fingers and smile so not to offend potential voters. All righty then...

[patcox2]

45. According to me, you can't write off a diverse group because of the Pope.

Most catholics don't listen to the pope. Catholics are a very diverse group, the majority in fact disagree with official doctrine on divorce and birth control and on gay marriage, they pretty much mirror the rest of society.

So, if catholic liberals have mastered the art of paying no attention to the pope, (its not that hard) why can't the rest of the liberals?

But no, you probably feel its okay to make broad statements about all catholics and offend them by unecessarily attacking their beliefs and drive them out of the party, because, hey, they only make up about 20 to 30% of the party anyway. And the party will be ever so perfect once purged of all the suspect groups and there are only 30 people left in it, thats the way to win an election.

[sonicx]

48. who said anything about purging?

And where did I say it's OK to attack Catholics?

I do believe in attacking the belief that gays shouldn't get married, no matter who has it (Christian or Not). Why shouldn't I?

[noonwitch]

57. Our family had catholic friends who were liberals, as was their priest

They went to confession, cathecism, etc. They also practiced birth control and their priest taught classes for married couples about sexuality and relationships.

He was a good priest, too, not some kind of weird pedophile. He attended many family parties at our house, as did our protestant minister. Priests are good conversationalists, on the whole, because they are very well educated. He's the first person who got us listening to Dylan when we were teens, and he thought "Life of Brian" was funny.

[Az]

47. Perhaps the correct path

Is to discern that within varying belief systems there are a miriad of ways of expressing belief. The larger religious structures can have a very wide array of factions represented. You can have everything from Voltaire to Jim Jones under a wide enough tent. Its probably better to narrow your focus when taking on a particular ill found in a particular group of people.

[Stepup2]

49. What about single parent families or

families comprising two loving and well adjusted individual that poses such a threat to this tradition?

The church would be well served to make a little room for modern life, or advocate for social conditions that place women on par with men in all things. This effort would be a better bolster to families everywhere regardless of the sex of the individuals in the union.

I know many of my fiends would go back to the church, with our dollars in hand, if we could walk thru the front door....

Why not look for ways to bolster the well being of ALL people in general.

If he/they want into politics, pay taxes like I do.

I am tired of MY tax dollars getting used to find ways to make me and my family public enemy number one.

[Stepup2]

58. oops! oh well, what's a few fiends among friends....

:silly:

[Behind the Aegis]

50. The Pope and Catholics

Let's make this point VERY clear...attacking the message of the Pope is NOT the same as attacking Catholics! Stop to belly-aching at every damn post that mentions Catholics as an attack! I have seen some comments that are "out-of-line" in my opinion, but I have had it with the constant whining about how every time someone disagrees with the Pope they hate Catholics or are trying to purge them from the Democrat party! Get a grip!

Here is the real issue for me...I appreciate when any group tries to better the world, but when they say; peace, peace, peace, then out of the other side of their mouth say; discriminate, discriminate, discriminate, I take issue with that! I know quite a few Catholics who support EQUAL rights for ALL people, not just the ones that believe like them!

I seem to recall quite a few posts here when the Pope kept saying he was against the war in Iraq and most posters here loved that message, because it was one that reflected OUR beliefs as Democrats. So, don't be surprised when his message is attacked here, when it is CONTRARY to our positions here! I firmly believe we need more people in the party, but not at the expense of gays or women! If you don't support EQUAL rights, then, I hear there are openings in the Rethug party!

We cannot TOLERATE anyone claiming we should dump the rights of others!

Keep up the good work, emad!

[sonicx]

51. This is exactly the issue...

Saying things I find positive along with things I find highly offensive isn't going to make me ignore the offensive things. That's why I don't get people who like (or use to like) McCain and others who talk out of both sides of their mouths.

[FlemingsGhost]

52. ... said the drooling 84 year old man wearing a dress.

It's gratifying to see the Catholic Church, nay, organized religion in general, fade into irrelevancy.

[IndianaGreen]

53. Athough I don't agree with the Pope on many issues, I must admit that...

the Pope was dead right when he warned Bush and Blair that if they went ahead and invaded Iraq, they would do so without G_d.

The people most hurt by the Pope's homophobic policies are my Catholic gay friends. They love their Church, and even respect the Pope, but they cannot go against their homosexual nature anymore than we can live without water.

A similar situation is illustrated in the excellent documentary "Trembling Before G_d" about gay and lesbian Orthodox Jews and the tremendous pain and isolation they feel, despite of their love and commitment to Judaism.

http://www.tremblingbeforeg-d.com/

[Bouncy Ball]

61. HOW ARE HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES WITH CHILDREN

NOT FAMILIES????

They ARE FAMILIES!!!!!

The family's natural structure is not being challenged!! We are EVOLVING into people who recognize that EVERYONE has the right to happiness and to live their lives as they see fit. They are not HARMING anyone.

Geez.

[emad]

64. Pope's words must bear consequences

TheStar.com
Jan. 11.

The Pope's criticism of gay marriage and abortion, with no palpable consequences for Catholic politicians, are empty and hollow words.

The Pope must publicly place Prime Minister Paul Martin, Senator John Kerry and all Catholic politicians who support or abet gay marriage or abortion, on notice of imminent excommunication.

To allow them to continue in the two-faced illusion that they can disagree with these policies in private life, promote them in public life and yet remain in good standing as Christians is abominable.

The Pontiff must place them in the position where they must choose in public between their commitment to the teachings of their church and their commitment to the liberal world. The two cannot coexist.
John Allan, Sarnia, Ont.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1105485012317&call_pageid=970599119419

[AngryOldDem]

65. Who is John Allan of Sarnia,Ont.?

And why should we care? I read the same tired bullshit weekly in my archdiocesan newspaper.

As many bishops have said, this matter is one between the individual Catholic and his/her confessor. Excommunication does not even enter into this picture.

[DFWJock]

66. Hey old man

Dear Pope,

When your fan club stops raping children, please share your views on homosexual marriage.

Sincerely,
A homo

[Orsino]

68. Preemptive War and Capital Punishment Conspicuously Missing

<crickets>

[AngryOldDem]

71. Perhaps because the topic was families?

And not preemptive war and capital punishment? The Church has spoken out about both many, many times.

[Orsino]

74. Topic not families...

...according to the story, which does actually mention previous antiwar stances.

However, the Pontiff feels that preventing gay marriage is more important. He parrots the usual nonsense about gay marriage being a challenge to the family's "natural structure." I have to take his pious thoughts about hunger with a very large grain of salt.

[AngryOldDem]

75. Believe what you will

But the Church and many Catholic-based charities are in the forefront to combat world hunger and malnutrition. One of the bigger programs gets going in a few weeks, Operation Rice Bowl, sponsored by Catholic Relief Services. I would daresay other than the UN, the Church does more than most other groups in the area of world hunger.

And to imply that the Church has been silent on preemptive war or capital punishment, as the poster I responded to did, is total and utter bullshit.

[w4rma]

70. The church will grow weaker if they continue attacking other people like

this. There are many sins out there, but these are not among them. The church needs to go after TRUE sins, not this stuff.