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.”
[... Wish he’d stay out of politics...]
I apologize for this. I have confused
what the Pope said about the Iraq war
with the good Bishop.
Please forgive me.
Exactly. But until we can do that, the homos will have to take a hike on marriage... it is not a biological function of the human organism...
Even better yet, until we abolish Socialist Security, make a marriage certificate equal to a birth certificate... NO MORE DEADBEAT PARENTS...
I think the Archbishop is against same-sex unions, incest and pedophilia.
In reply to that, I say marriage is a public act that requires a license:
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.
>>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
You know..., while one can discuss cultural norms in different socities, over a period of time and evaluate this one and that one — that’s all you’re doing, just evaluating who said what and when. And if you talk about one teacher or great man or philosopher who said “this” or “that” — again, he’s just another man saying something.
There’s no authority to any of that. Any of it can be changed at a moment’s notice in a society, according to the whims and wishes of the people. One person may appeal to one philosopher. Another person appeal to some laws and traditions. They all hold no authority in today’s society — because today we’re taught that what is right for you is fine and what is right for me is fine. I make my own reality and you make your own reality. That’s post-modernism. So, you make your own authority in today’s society and culture.
And if we don’t like the “norms” that we have in today’s society, we simply change the laws and make homosexual behavior a “choice” and make sex with 12-year olds another “choice” and so on...
On the other hand, when one does recognize that there is a Creator God, who has claim over everything that exists (past or present), who has spoken and who has said what is right and what is wrong — and is the final and Supreme authority — then this is One who can’t be ignored or can’t be put aside without ultimate consequences. And that’s the situation with our Creator God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, of the Bible. That’s the only *authority* that counts and has any basis at all, in the world. All else is simply a lot of discussion that one can easily ignore and choose to go whatever way they want.
Regards,
Star Traveler
[All else is simply a lot of discussion that one can easily ignore and choose to go whatever way they want.]
The Natural Law declared by God via 4.5 billion of evolution will not be erased because someone chooses to ignore it - or pervert it.
Truth Is.
[via 4.5 billion of evolution ]
should be
[via 4.5 billion years of evolution ]
You said — “Truth Is.”
While I would go along with that statement, considering that I recognize this follows from our “Creator God is” — that doesn’t mean that others, who subscribe to the post-modernist thinking of today are going to go along with it. They say that they construct their own reality from their own their own thinking and choices and “truth is” whatever they decide it to be (mind you, I’m just speaking from their viewpoint, not mine).
Now, knowing where you’re coming from, I would say that certainly “truth is” — but that’s only because our “Creator God is” — and He forms the *basis* for that objective and real truth (outside of ourselves and any perception that we have). I say that knowing also that you’re giving a so-called “reality based truth” which differs from that given by our Creator God. But, even so, there is a slight common ground in the recognition that there does exist such a thing as objective and absolute truth, which is separate from the individual and their perceptions of it (and whether they exist or not). That’s not “true” for the post-modernist, though...
But, going down that line of “truth” that you’re talking about, from whatever facts (and their interpretation) that one may have for a 4.5 billion year evolutionary timescale and scheme of things — that kind of “truth” will have no ability to prevent 12-year old kids from having sex and homosexual marriage being as legitimate a life-style as a one man/one woman marriage.
However, the truth that proceeds from the Creator God does have that ability to prevent these things from happening, from the inherent authority which exists from that Creator God.
Regards,
Star Traveler
[that kind of “truth” will have no ability to prevent 12-year old kids from having sex and homosexual marriage being as legitimate a life-style as a one man/one woman marriage.]
“Even better yet, until we abolish Socialist Security, make a marriage certificate equal to a birth certificate... NO MORE DEADBEAT PARENTS...”
...Meaning a couple, once married, could never be divorced? There are far too many “abusive” marriages for such a decree to ever be practical. Further, if the government is completely out of the marriage business - as we both have stated we would ultimately like to see - who would or could ever enforce such a law? The only marriage “certificate” a married couple would have would be from the church who performed the marriage. It would not be legally binding if the government was out of the marriage business.
Regarding “homos tak(ing) a hike on marriage,” well, same sex couples are going to do what they want to do, whether you or I like it or not. Frankly, I don’t care what they do - I just don’t want the government telling anyone you can/can’t be married, and then offering tax breaks, subsidies, or other ‘amenities’ to those it recognizes as married couples.
“Even better yet, until we abolish Socialist Security, make a marriage certificate equal to a birth certificate... NO MORE DEADBEAT PARENTS...”
...Meaning a couple, once married, could never be divorced?
No... it means for eighteen years we can hold you responsible and you are guaranteed a living hell if you are a piece of crap for a parent...
Regarding “homos tak(ing) a hike on marriage,” well, same sex couples are going to do what they want to do, whether you or I like it or not.
But, the secular question is: Can they make babies together? No? Too effing bad...
Was Freudian psychoanalytic theory of sexual stages in psychological development more accurate than accredited?
The Michael Jackson Complex is fixation on mutilation of and deviance with human anatomy in the media. It is a social psychosis catering to the lowest common denominator and generated with Pavlovian behavioral conditioning in popular culture.
Should we really be canonizing special societal privileges in the law based on idolatrous fetishes? Disability, welfare, Social Security, etc., etc., ad nausea...
The social psychosis generated by behavioral conditioning (Pavlov's salivating dogs) in the popular culture and the conditioned response to accept the false premises of mental illness or birth defect will be used as a political tool to systematically rob the public purse.
Then, we could have other self-inflicted mental illness and disease (aside from those we already do) subsidized by the government consolidating an ever increasing portion of the economy in the hands of the cultural Marxists.
Cultural Marxism has a goal to feminize males, making them docile and compliant.
Marijuana is a chemical warfare agent. Homosexual monogamy is a psychological and biological warfare tactic.
No man may become a law unto himself under the guise of freedom of religion.
Some of these liberal-tarians forget, it is THEY who advocate “separation of church and state.” Let me cram it right back down their throats...
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.
Now, it ain't so palatable to them, is it? They are the ones here bashing the religious folks, now they want to claim some mercurial, ever changing definition of freedom of religion? I'm not going to live in their hell...
If I cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater, I don't think someone should be able to light one with a U.S. flag and call it “free speech.”
Of course, a lot of these traitors to the United States would also whine if we wanted an Amendment to ban homosexual marriage or flag burning, wouldn't they?
SFD: In reply to that, I say marriage is a public act that requires a license:
Can you believe some jerk here has this on his homepage here?
I say the federal and state governments have no Constitutional authority to be in the marriage business at all, except where each individual has a biological responsibility for any offspring they produce.
Can you believe some jerk here has this on his homepage here?
I say the federal and state governments have no Constitutional authority to be in the marriage business at all, except where each individual has a biological responsibility for any offspring they produce.
Yep. Are you a deadbeat dad or something?
vs.
I say the federal and state governments have no Constitutional authority to be in the marriage business at all
Do you agree with both these statements?
And for the record, no, I'm not a deadbeat Dad.
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.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;...
Socially, the institution serves the public peace by granting monogamy a monopoly status for reproductive arrangements, disadvantaging permanently with the umbrage of the law the various other arrangements you list on your profile page. This the Congress is allowed to do, to invade the presumption of liberty in all things memorialized by the Ninth Amendment, if they follow due process, for the manifest good and overriding public interest.
On this thread you wrote: In reply to that, I say marriage is a public act that requires a license[.]
On your homepage here, your wrote: I say the federal and state governments have no Constitutional authority to be in the marriage business at all, except where each individual has a biological responsibility for any offspring they produce. [Bolding mine in both cases].
Both of these statements are yours. Do you agree with them both? (Hint: it's a yes-or-no answer).
On your homepage here, your wrote: I say the federal and state governments have no Constitutional authority to be in the marriage business at all, except where each individual has a biological responsibility for any offspring they produce. [Bolding mine in both cases].
Both of these statements are yours. Do you agree with them both? (Hint: it's a yes-or-no answer).
Hint(s):
1. 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.
2.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;...
3. The Declaration of Independence.
"...to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them... that all men are created... Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world... with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence..."
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.