Top Vatican Cardinal: Gay Marriage is "A Crime Which represents the Destruction of the World"

Life Site News.net ^ | 05.03.05

[Coleus]

Top Vatican Cardinal: Gay Marriage is "A Crime Which represents the Destruction of the World"

Gay Adoption "Destroy's the Child's Future" and is "An Act of Moral Violence Against the Child"

VATICAN, May 3, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On the first business day after meeting privately with newly elected Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo, gave one of the strongest statements defending the traditional family in recent memory.  The Cardinal, who was reinstated in his post as President of the Pontifical Council for the Family which he held under Pope John Paul II just after the election of Pope Benedict, met with the Pope Friday and on Monday gave an extensive interview to Fides news service on the subject of homosexual 'marriage'.

Homosexual 'Marriage'

Cardinal Trujillo said parliaments which "open the way for same sex 'marriage'  . . .  destroy piece by piece the institution of the family the most valuable heritage of peoples and humanity."  He explained, "In these unions there are no promises for the partners or for the children, no stability, nothing before society or God, but they demand all the benefits of authentic marriage."

Homosexual Adoption

Asked about allowing same sex couples to adopt children, the Cardinal answered, "This would destroy the child's future, it would be an act of moral violence against the child."

He said, "They say that children adopted by two people of the same sex are very happy. A child may be for a couple of years but when the child reaches the age of reason, when he grows up and becomes a young adult, how tragic it will be for him to let his friends know that his 'parents' are two women or two men? This situation endangers the child's personality, balance, harmony."

No Unjust Discrimination

The head of the Pontifical Council for the Family also repeated the Church's teaching that homosexual persons are to be treated with respect., but added that they should be assisted as far as possible to overcome their disordered inclinations.  "As I have said many times, homosexual peoples must be respected, loved and assisted. We must help them overcome this situation if they seriously want to and help them realise that there is not only life on earth, there is another life. The Church does not wish to see these 'couples' suffer discrimination, or humiliation, jeered at or treated without respect. They are human persons and we must love them. It is false to say that the Church does not love these people. She loves them and wants to lead them to eternal salvation."

Duty to Refuse to Participate

Cardinal Trujillo also spoke of conscientious objection.  "This means a person can use his or her right to object out of conscience and refuse to comply with this crime which represents the destruction of the world." 

The Cardinal went further noting a duty to refuse to participate in homosexual unions comparing it to the duty of Christian doctors "who refuse to carry out abortions". He said, "All Christians, including state employees, have a duty to avail themselves of conscientious objection because the law of which we are speaking inflicts a deep moral wound on the Christian faith."

Countries Which Would not Tolerate Conscientious Objection Denounced

"It would be pure totalitarianism if a person were sacked for conscientious objection."  The strong condemnation would already apply to certain Canadian provinces where, while ministers of religion are not forced to perform homosexual 'marriages' as of yet, civil marriage ministers are required to under pain of job loss. 

Read this important interview in full here:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/may/050504a.html

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Editorial - The Real Reason Why Christians Oppose Same-Sex Marriage
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/apr/05041403.html

[bad company]

Man is this gonna make them howl.

[GipperGal]

"It would be pure totalitarianism if a person were sacked for conscientious objection." The strong condemnation would already apply to certain Canadian provinces where, while ministers of religion are not forced to perform homosexual 'marriages' as of yet, civil marriage ministers are required to under pain of job loss.

I can't help but feel that we are about to enter a time of real persecution. Stand up for your faith and either a) lose your job, or b) go to jail.

[Wolfhound777]

Stand up anyway :)The rewards will be worth it.

[John Lenin]

Tyranny of the minority.

[Ronin]

Whoa...

Talk about slapping down a gauntlet...

[Baraonda]

God bless and long live Pope Benedict XVI.

[SteveMcKing]

Good point -- it's not the direct cause of a degenerate society, but a symptom that other things have gone very wrong.

Correct what ever is wrong, and gay marriage won't even be an issue anymore. Not even a question.

[dasboot]

Where is he on Mary?

[Jaysun]

I can't help but feel that we are about to enter a time of real persecution. Stand up for your faith and either a) lose your job, or b) go to jail.

It's inevitable.

Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name's sake. And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. But he who endures to the end shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. So says Jesus Christ. (Matthew 24:9-14)

[kcvl]

Man is this gonna make them howl.

I think I heard heads exploding. lol!

[Jaysun]

Good point -- it's not the direct cause of a degenerate society, but a symptom that other things have gone very wrong. Correct what ever is wrong, and gay marriage won't even be an issue anymore. Not even a question.

Bring back shame. We've eradicated it from our society, and continue to do so starting in our schools. For example, there's no longer a social stigma attached to having sex outside of marriage. The liberals have worked hard to remove social stigmas and they've done so successfully (much to our detriment). I think that would fix the problem you speak of. The question is how do we go about doing it?

[GipperGal]

Yep, as B16 said, it's all part of the "dictatorship of relativism."

[GipperGal]

Kinda puts it into perspective, doesn't it. Thanks for posting that.

[SteveMcKing]

"The question is how do we go about doing it?"

If I call a slut a slut (which I've been known to do), I am shouted down as misogynist or just plain mean. So I laugh at them.

It's now accepted (by some) that to slur homosexuals means you are either a gay man in denial, or a bigot. So, I slur them anyway when it's called for, and then I slur the people who attack me for it. They usually react with typical liberal cowardice ("Steve- What did I DO WRONG?!").

You can solve a lot of problems if you don't care about making friends or being liked by others.

In any case, I'll re-emphasize that two men living together isn't "the problem", rather the fact that they ever considered the concept acceptable shows that other conditions have gone wrong. The idea never should have entered their minds to begin with.

The trouble began long ago, deeply rooted in the 1960s and 70s devolution of personal values. It has lead... to this:

[GipperGal]

Dear God, don't post that photo without a warning. I'm going to have nightmares tonight.

[Jaysun]

Beginning in elementary school, students are taught that all lifestyles are equal and that they should not discriminate between them. What this means most of all is: "Do your own thing" and don't judge me. We have to straighten out the schools. That picture made me gag for two minutes straight - my eyes are still watering.

[Atchafalaya]

Ooohhh, this is not what the "vocals" want to hear; Sullivan will crap. Good.

[Atchafalaya]

Molon Lave!

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made "separation of church and state" a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices. Congress, state legislatures and public referenda have statutorily determined polygamous, pederast, homosexual, and incestuous marriages are unlawful. No Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage is required to regulate "practice" according to the Reynolds decision.

Marriage is a religious "rite," not a civil "right;" a secular standard of human reproductive biology united with the Judaic Adam and Eve model of monogamy in creationist belief. Two homosexuals cannot be "monogamous" because the word denotes a biological procreation they are not capable of together; human reproductive biology is an obvious secular standard.

All adults have privilege to marry one consenting adult of opposite gender; therefore, Fourteenth Amendment "equal protection" argument about "privileges and immunities" for homosexual marriage is invalid. Driving, marriage, legal and medical practices are not enumerated rights; they are privileged practices that require statutory license. Nothing that requires a license is a right.

Homosexual monogamy advocates are a cult of perversion seeking ceremonious sanctification for voluntary deviancy with anatomical function and desperately pursuing esoteric absolution to justify their guilt-ridden egos. This has no secular standard; it is an idolatrous fetish. Why not properly apply the adjudicated Reynolds 'separation of church and state' here?

No person can logically say that carnal practices engaged by homosexuals are consistent with human anatomical function. It is obvious, and an impervious secular argument to say that biology is a standard by which we can measure. The hormonal drive to mate is biologically heterosexual. Either homosexuality is a choice, a birth defect, or it is a mental ill-ness. Take your pick.

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).

- - See also:
Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 (1890). Revised as 140 U.S. 665, 11 S.Ct. 884, 35 L. Ed. 592 (1891).