Skip to comments.Despite Legal Threats, Mexican Cardinal Refuses to Retract Condemnation of Homosexuality
Posted on 09/25/2010 11:05:41 AM PDT by markomalley
MEXICO CITY, September 24, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Cardinal Archbishop of Mexico City is refusing to retract his statements condemning homosexual behavior, despite a complaint filed against him with the federal government's National Council to Prevent Discrimination (Contrapred).
Multiple complaints before various government agencies were filed in August against Rivera, his spokesman Hugo Valdemar, and Cardinal Juan Sandoval Iñiguez by Mexico City Mayor Marcelo Ebrard and fellow members of the socialist Party of the Democratic Revolution in response to statements they made denouncing the homosexualist and abortionist policies of the Mexico City government and the nation's Supreme Court.
The complaint filed against Rivera with Contrapred is based on his statement denouncing the Supreme Court's approval of homosexual "marriage," calling it an "immoral legal reform," and declaring that the Catholic Church "cannot cease to call evil, evil."
"Such immoral activity can never be the equivalent of the sexual expression of conjugal love, because it endangers the dignity and the rights of the family that constitute the common good of the society," he added.
In his official response to the complaint, Rivera maintains his ground, saying that his statements on homosexual "marriage" and adoption cannot be compromised because "our posture emanates from our religious creed, that is, from our conscience," according to quotes published in the Mexico City newspaper Milenio.
Rivera reportedly denies the accusation of "discrimination," and says that his statements made "use of religious liberty," a right protected under the Mexican Constitution's Article 24. The government, he says, "cannot censure nor diminish our religious liberty."
When "a person expresses his opposition, following the doctrine of his religion, to a particular regulation or reform," writes Rivera, "it is not possible to limit his religious liberty, and for that reason the minister of worship or layman has the right to express his opinions regarding religious matters, as long as they do not attack the security, order, health or public morals, or the rights or liberties of others" - conditions he says his statements have met.
I guess God will be arrested for bias. He made it absolutely clear that men should not lie with men because doing so is an abomination.
not just religious at all. I know many infact most who are not religious but find homosexuality disgusting and sick
The significance is that homosexuality precludes fellowship with God through faith in Christ. It grieves the Holy Spirit.
Accordingly, prevention of the communication of this religious facet denies a citizen of both free speech and free exercise of religion, substituting a pagan religion as a government established religion.
The condemnation of homosexual acts, homosexual “marriage,” and homosexual adoption, is a religious position, a philosophical position, and a political position. It is the latter two positions due to the Natural Law, which is knowable by reason, and independent of faith.
Furthermore, homosexual acts are contrary to the true nature of man, according to Natural Law.
You’re wrong. I’m right.
I would substitute "secularism" for "pagan religion."
Our founding documents, namely, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, are based on Natural Law, which was created and given to man by God. What is the Mexican Constitution based on?
The Cardinal has the inalienable right, and the moral authority, to speak out against active homosexuality, no matter what the Mexican constitution says. I see that he invokes the Mexican Constitution's Freedom of Religion/Conscience "clause." Without a basis of inalienable rights and Natural Law, I don't know how far he's going to get with the Mexican Government.
He's very brave, and he needs our prayers. The Mexican government has had it in for the Catholic Church for nearly 200 years.
Technically, the natural man has an old sin nature, which might have a proclivity to homosexuality. God provides a solution to every type of thinking and behavior the natural man is tempted to perform contrary to His Plan.
He shows us that those who are homosexuals, as well as liars, murderers, extortioners, etc will not inherit the Kingdom of God, but a way is available for salvation through Him. Hence the issue of homosexuality and how to avoid eternal consequences of such behavior is also a religious issue, in that religion, as a method for worshiping God, provides guidance on how to best avoid homosexuality.
You are absolutely correct.
To say that objection to the homosexual agenda of which the basic foundation is the normalization homosexual acts is a religious position is as ridiculous as saying that objection to murder and its promotion is a religious position, since all religions in the world condemn murder.
That may be true, but the actions of homosexuals affect the society at large; the spread of AIDS is the perfect example of that. If their push for 'civil rights' means that religious institutions that oppose their lifestyle choice are forced to accommodate homosexuals while providing services for the general public, then that is an infringement on the Church's ability to conduct its activities.
Even though the Church teaches against homosexual activity, she also teaches that people who choose that lifestyle be treated with all Christian charity, and not suffer discrimination simply because of that choice. That does not mean that homosexuals should have preferential treatment, just that they not be treated differently because of their choice.
Just because it is also a religious issue, doesn’t mean the law may not also address it. On the contrary, a law which requires the equivalence of homosexuality is also a law establishing the practice of a religion, which is antiChristian.
>>The condemnation of homosexuality is a religious position.
As well as a Darwinistic one. Celebration of what is clearly a Darwinistic defect is absurd from a Darwinistic perspective.
Glad to see there are still a few iron-spined men of God in the world.
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.