Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

If We Donít Say No to Same-Sex Unions, then Why Not Incest and Pedophilia Says Archbishop
Lifesite ^ | April 3 07 | Peter Smith

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.”


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: nomoraljudgement; samesexmarriage; sexpositiveagenda; slipperyslope
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last

1 posted on 04/03/2007 8:56:31 PM PDT by freedomdefender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender

Rick Santorum got fried for saying the same thing.


2 posted on 04/03/2007 8:58:06 PM PDT by Eagles6 (Dig deeper, more ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender


And don't forget me and my goat! Ain't she got a purdy mouth?
3 posted on 04/03/2007 8:58:41 PM PDT by MarkeyD (Make your Red State a Fred State!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender

Hey, hey, slow down there, yer holiness! Let’s start with cornholin’ our buddies, then we’ll move on to cornholin’ our brothers! All in due time, speedy!


4 posted on 04/03/2007 9:03:27 PM PDT by randog (What the...?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender

Has he ever read the Bible?


5 posted on 04/03/2007 9:05:06 PM PDT by doc1019 (Fred Thompson '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender

Did anyone at all try to answer his question?

Or did they all just holler at him for daring to ask it?

Am I missing something?


6 posted on 04/03/2007 9:05:23 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (I didn't claw my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarkeyD

That thar goat got some pretty skinned-up knees.


7 posted on 04/03/2007 9:05:40 PM PDT by Uncle Miltie (McCain / Feingold - 2008 ... "Shut Up or Go To Prison")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender

It’s pathetic that it’s come down to this. We have people actually arguing, “If you do this, why not this bad thing that is seen as worse?”

No mention of the fact that no society on earth has accepted this outside of the last 10 years. No mention of the fact that what is being proposed is completely removing the child-bearing and child-rearing from marriage.

If you think divorse rates and birth rates are low now, wait until little Johnny is raised with, “Well, son, if you choose to marry a girl, you can have kids one day. And if you marry a boy, well, that’s okay, too!” Gone are the days when having children was pretty much a societal expectation. Kids will see marriage as solely something to tickle their fancy and make them feel better. And honestly, after you’ve weakened the backbone of the family, how well do you think the abstract notion of romantic love is going to hold up against the strains that show up in marriages?

Legalizing gay marriage will hurt straight marriages simply be redefining marriage in a careless, destructive manner.

Homosexual “marriage” is wrong from the first mention. You don’t need to mention bestiality or molestation. It’s not natural, it’s not healthful, and it’s ultimately not in the interest of society.


8 posted on 04/03/2007 9:09:17 PM PDT by CheyennePress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6

Well, fired by the people of Pennsylvania, which may speak volumes for the personal sexual habits of the people of Pennsylvania. :-)


9 posted on 04/03/2007 9:10:37 PM PDT by HitmanLV ("If at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking until you do suck seed." - Jerry 'Curly' Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender
Don’t forget polygamy. At least it has a history of acceptance (Old Testament, Middle East and early Mormons, etc..) unlike homosexual “marriage” and incest.
10 posted on 04/03/2007 9:12:39 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (Iran delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender

Growth of Islam:

North America (1989-1998)....................... 25%

Africa........................................................... 2.15%

Asia.............................................................12.57%

Europe..................................................... 142.35%

Latin America.............................................. 4.73%

Australia.................................................. 257.01%

“Homosexuality is unlawful in Islam. It is neither accepted by the state nor by the Islamic Society. Quran clearly states that it is unjust, un-natural, transgression, ignorant, criminal and corrupt. [...] Muslim Jurists agree that, if proven of guilt, both of them should be killed.”
– Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan.
11 posted on 04/03/2007 9:17:07 PM PDT by Old_Mil (Duncan Hunter in 2008! A Veteran, A Patriot, A Reagan Republican... http://www.gohunter08.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender

The article said — ““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.”

What the Archbishop says is very true. Yes — *on what basis* do we deny reducing the age consent to 12 and legalize child pornography — if indeed — we do sanction same-sex civil unions and benefits?

Note that the Archbishop is not trying to change the law to be in favor of pedophilia or child pornography. On the contrary...

The article states — “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.”

That’s where he’s coming from. What he’s pointing out is that our *basis* for rejecting these things (including same-sex marriages) all come from the same place, the revealed Word of God. if you “give way” on one of these issues, then you give way on *all of them* — and that will *certainly* happen, if we do.

There is *no other basis* for rejecting same sex marriages, or reducing the age of consent to 12 or child pornography.

It’s good that the argument comes down to recognizing where we’re eventually going with same sex marriages...

I hope everyone recognizes that.

Regards,
Star Traveler


12 posted on 04/03/2007 9:17:49 PM PDT by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HitmanLV

I know. I worked hard for Rick and Diana Irey but it didn’t happen. I was surprised that Rick lasted as long as he did. Honor and Christian values don’t float around here.


13 posted on 04/03/2007 9:20:56 PM PDT by Eagles6 (Dig deeper, more ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender
And if marrigae is something different, then why not 2, 3 or 4 wives for a man?

But then again most men think one is plenty!

14 posted on 04/03/2007 9:23:50 PM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender

Same sex ‘marriage’ is a thinly disguised movement that’s sole purpose is to destroy the institution of marriage. I’ve been listening to the liberals rant for decades about how pointless and hypocritical the idea of spiritually sanctioned fidelity is. I heard and believed that they held nothing but contempt for the whole idea. Why now would they suddenly demand the right to become part of it?


15 posted on 04/03/2007 9:23:54 PM PDT by Spok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jo Nuvark

To you...


16 posted on 04/03/2007 9:29:52 PM PDT by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

You said — “Don’t forget polygamy.”

Check with Mitt Romney. He might bring that one back into play. Or, at least his church might want him to...

Regards,
Star Traveler


17 posted on 04/03/2007 9:32:59 PM PDT by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

You asked — “Has he ever read the Bible?”

Yes, I’m sure he has, and that’s probably why he’s pointing this out, as he is...

Regards,
Star Traveler

P.S. — He’s right you know..., if we’re all just a product of evolution, just the same as any animal that is out there, they start engaging in sex as soon as they are physically able. So, this Archbishop is saying, then you only have evolution as a “basis” — therefore, you’re going to have people start engaging in sex as soon as they are physically able to do so, just like the animals (mind you..., we “evolved” just like they did...).


18 posted on 04/03/2007 9:41:27 PM PDT by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

“Gay marriage” affects real marriage the way counterfeit money affects real money.


19 posted on 04/03/2007 9:56:23 PM PDT by reagandemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Spok

You said — “Same sex ‘marriage’ is a thinly disguised movement that’s sole purpose is to destroy the institution of marriage. I’ve been listening to the liberals rant for decades about how pointless and hypocritical the idea of spiritually sanctioned fidelity is. I heard and believed that they held nothing but contempt for the whole idea. Why now would they suddenly demand the right to become part of it?”

That’s certainly right. It is a movement to destroy the institution of marriage. Note the *basis* of that institution.

Jesus said in Matthew 19:4-6

4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’

5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Genesis 1:27-28

27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

And from Genesis 2:23-24

23 And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”

24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

As for the condemnation of those who try to make it man with man and woman with woman, see Romans...

Romans 1:16-32

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.

17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,

25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.

27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,

30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;

32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

So, one man/one woman marriage was instituted at the very creation of the first man and the first woman in the world. Jesus affirmed this very thing by what He said to the people of His day, making it clear that this was “from the beginning” with the very first man and woman who existed in our world.

Of course, if one chooses to ignore God, what He has said in the Bible and to remove themselves (for a time) from His authority (and the authority of His word) — then what it says in Romans (above) applies. We can see what the Bible says about that.

It’s talking about those who have suppressed the truth of the word of God, although it’s well known to them that God has created this world (all that is seen, as it said). We can see that by suppressing the truth of the Word of God, it leads them to become fools — and also we see the starting point of homosexuality in this — very specifically and pointedly stated in the Bible.

Once one has abandoned the Word of God, which forms the *basis* for this one man/one woman marriage — then one cannot appeal to the Bible for any of the other morals for other some of these other things (spoken about in the article).

The alternative is evolution (versus creation by the direct hand of God of the first man and first woman, and as stated by Jesus). And with the means of evolution, we see that animals (of which we are part of, by viture of evolution) engage in sex indiscriminately, according to whatever desires they have, and as soon as they are physically able to do so and their hormones kick in. Thus, so it “should be” with humans, too — just another part of the animal kingdom (in the understanding of evolution, anyway...).

And there you have it...

Regards,
Star Traveler


20 posted on 04/03/2007 10:12:45 PM PDT by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson