Posted on 02/24/2010 10:12:17 AM PST by Shellybenoit
On March 17, 2009 two weeks before his appointment to President's Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, Harry Knox published a statement on the Human Rights Campaign Web site in reaction to Pope Benedict XVI’s remarks concerning condoms and AIDS in Africa. The statement partly reads: “The Pope’s statement that condoms don’t help control the spread of HIV, but rather condoms increase infection rates, is hurting people in the name of Jesus. …The pope’s rejection of scientifically proven prevention methods is forcing Catholics in Africa to choose between their faith and the health of their entire community. Jesus was about helping the marginalized and downtrodden, not harming them further.”
Agree or disagree with the Pope's stance on condoms, that statement was justifiably offensive to Catholics. Especially when you consider that Papal Infallibility is a basic tenet of Catholicism.
It was surprising that someone who had such harsh views about the leader of a major world religion would be appointed to the President's religious advisory council.
(Excerpt) Read more at yidwithlid.blogspot.com ...
Um, because he has bigger fish to fry???
Ummm. Because he too is anti-Catholic?
Such a typical democrat, obamanista @sshole.
The democrat-condom way is better than the Christian-patience way?
I swear, these scum are the spawn of Ishmael himself.
>> Agree or disagree with the Pope’s stance on condoms, that statement was justifiably offensive to Catholics. Especially when you consider that Papal Infallibility is a basic tenet of Catholicism.
I actually agree with the Pope’s stance on condoms, and think the statement was ridiculous and offensive.
That being said — would you define any vocal disagreement with Pope (or vocal disagreement with Papal infallibility) as anti-Catholic and thus “justifiably offensive”? I believe the Pope to be an educated theologian, but not infallible. I don’t believe he is wrong about this ... but I believe he is wrong about other things.
I find the statement offensive because it uses the name of Christ to promote a fundamentally immoral program — people must choose between their faith and their sexual promiscuity, not their faith and their safety during that promiscuity.
Is it offensive because of the content of the statement, or because the statement represents a denial and contradiction to the concept of papal infallibility?
SnakeDoc
Is this a trick question?
…The pope’s rejection of scientifically proven
This stated anywhere in the Obama administration of Newspeak is stand-up comedy...probably at its worst, but it has to be seen as such.
Do you know if the Pope was speaking Ex Cathedra?
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
So much of what the Fedgov does is unconstituitonal, and having a "President's Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships" is defintely on the list of purely unconsitutional stuff. I'm at the point of thinking that a total financial and economic collpase might be just what the doctor ordered. If the Fedgov (or other levels of gov) have no money, they can't pay all these idiots and leftist scum money, and they'd be out of jobs. And the country would be much improved.
Obama Banana is ignoring protests about his anti-Catholic appointee because The Banana is anti-Catholic. Duh. The Thing is also anti-American, or haven’t you noticed?
Articles show that he had Muslim friends in college, my guess is that is his inclination
Don't worry it is not just Catholics..it is all of us.
>> Saying, the Pope...is hurting people in the name of Jesus” isn’t “justifiable offensive”?
I’m not sure what that means. If you’re asking whether I said that ... no, I didn’t. I found the statement offensive myself, and said as much — thus I must already understand that it can be justifiably offensive.
I asked a separate question about the way such offense was stated in the initial article. The citation was made to being offended because the statement is contrary to papal infallibility. I don’t believe in papal infallibility ... and was offended for a different reason. So, what is the root of the anti-Catholicism in the statement? Does my denial of papal infallibility, and my disagreement with the pope on occasion, make me anti-Catholic?
SnakeDoc
No Catholic representation invited to Inauguration. Nuff said.
Do you have an answer for my post #7?
I have no idea. I’m not a Catholic so I don’t know those kinds of details; haven’t read enough about this.
It’s anyone opposed to promoting the homo-nazi agenda. Which includes people of any religion and none.
If I had time and a brain, I’d find stuff like that out but I’m constantly trying to do several things at once and time seems to be going through the hourglass a lot faster than it used to....
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.