Pope scolds Canada on gay marriage, abortion

GostHacked · September 10, 2006

And this will help out with the seperation of church and state right?? Oh ffs. Tell the Pope to piss up a rope. I do NOT want to see religion in government and it should stay that way. Once we get Popes and Cardinals telling us how to do things and the government listening to them and then trying to accomodate them sets a bad example for all religions.

He can scold all he wants but who's country is this? His? HA no. His words mean nothing to me anyways. So in the end as long as our government is not influenced by it, it should be all good.

geoffrey · September 10, 2006

Based upon what do you say this? And even if the roots of the European peoples who conquered the country were, Chrisitian, is the morality vision not allowed to change over time? Even the Catholic's version of morality has changed over the last several hundred years.
Most people in Canada today, do not consider themselves religions fundamentalists. Even if they are affiliated with a religion, most Canadians are not dogmatic about adopting every religious policy for that religion. Most Canadians support a secular state and the tolerance for all religions beliefs and the ability to exercise freedom of religion

If you want to claim that the Popes' values speak for the Canadian people, show some evidence that today's Canadian society want Canada to be a Catholic Theocracy.

No one is calling for a theocracy. Because one guy is advocating his morality, he's evil? Then you go onto advocate your own views. Quite the hypocrit, religious people are all wackos that have no value, but my values do. Great outlook, grow up and realise other people have opinions too!

"In the name of tolerance, your country has had to endure the folly of the redefinition of spouse," the Pope told a group of bishops from Ontario. "In the name of freedom of choice, it is confronted with the daily destruction of unborn children."

The Pope is going beyond just lecturing Catholics on how to live their lives. He is even going beyond telling Catholic politicians that religion should dictate their legslative choices. He is now criticizing a secular state for not conforming to his religious view. Of course, he has the right to free speech and he can levy such criticism if he chooses, but it should then be fair game for states to openly criticize the Catholic church for their anti-Semitic and anti-Woman policies.

And ya, it is fair game for people to be as critical as they want about the Church. What's your point?

jbg · September 10, 2006

[ but it should then be fair game for states to openly criticize the Catholic church for their anti-Semitic and anti-Woman policies.

What is anti-semitic and anti-woman of the Catholic church?

I'm not familiar with the Church's policies towards women, aside from non-eligibility for priesthood, and requirement of priestly celibacy. Speaking as a Jew, I have no complaints about Church policy, since the elevation of Archibishop Rancalli to the papacy as Pope John. In fact, it's only gotten better, though the jury is still out on Pope Benedict.

betsy · September 10, 2006

[ but it should then be fair game for states to openly criticize the Catholic church for their anti-Semitic and anti-Woman policies.

What is anti-semitic and anti-woman of the Catholic church?

I'm not familiar with the Church's policies towards women, aside from non-eligibility for priesthood, and requirement of priestly celibacy. Speaking as a Jew, I have no complaints about Church policy, since the elevation of Archibishop Rancalli to the papacy as Pope John. In fact, it's only gotten better, though the jury is still out on Pope Benedict.

I have never been doctrined or taught anything against the Jews, but I must admit that I do not know much about the previous Popes.

As for being anti-woman, the Catholic religion had placed so much emphasis on Mother Mary...and all other women saints.

The Philippines, which is predominantly Catholic...is one of the few Asian countries that elevates the status of females. Traditional courtships and marriage have the men giving the "dowry" and performing tasks. The man traditionally shoulders ALL EXPENSES of marriage. It is even joked about that women actually rule the households! And this country is steeped in Catholicism.

jbg · September 10, 2006

As far as Jews, John Paul II was the greatest. He named two people in his will; one was Rome's Chief Rabbi. The Vatican, under his leadership, recognized Israel. It doesn't get much better.

Who's Doing What? · September 10, 2006

The pope can blow me.

Durgan · September 10, 2006

The pope can blow me.

Nintey-Six comments condemning the Pope's comments in the Globe and Mail, before the paper's censor closed the comments. I didn't see one that was flattering. Many are a good read.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ernational/home

http://xrl.us/rngc

Durgan.

jbg · September 10, 2006

The pope can blow me.

I am not a Catholic. However, that post is gravely distressing, childish and insulting. There's no reason for that.

Who's Doing What? · September 10, 2006

The pope can blow me.

I am not a Catholic. However, that post is gravely distressing, childish and insulting. There's no reason for that.

No reason for him to stick his committee appionted self righteous nose into Canadian affairs.

Screw him and the pomp surrounding him.

newbie · September 10, 2006

Hmm, now if he could only lecture his bishops and priests on pedophilia.

Wilber · September 10, 2006

No one is calling for a theocracy. Because one guy is advocating his morality, he's evil? Then you go onto advocate your own views. Quite the hypocrit, religious people are all wackos that have no value, but my values do. Great outlook, grow up and realise other people have opinions too!

Right on Geoffrey

He is the spiritual leader of a church. It is his job to stick up for what that church stands for, particularly with members of that church, which is what he was doing in this case. I respect him for that, even though I don't agree. I guess taking a particular moral position is now un Canadian unless one takes a poll first.

WestViking · September 10, 2006

The pope can blow me.

Nah, lightning strikes are done at a higher level and the Pope has better taste.

Leftists dispise the Pope as he stands for the ethics and morality they shun. Too bad, really, that they cannot diferentiate between being secular and being immoral. Being amoral does not mean you are secular.

daddyhominum · September 10, 2006

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...ope-canada.html
"In the name of tolerance, your country has had to endure the folly of the redefinition of spouse," the Pope

All those learned men should have corrected him. The courts, followed by Parliament, ruled on the basis of equality under the law.

The issue was not marriage itself but that some citizens were excluded from the benefits of Canadian citizenship.

As the Pope is God's voice on earth, it makes you wonder how well God understands the idea of one law for all.

bradco · September 10, 2006

Based upon what do you say this? And even if the roots of the European peoples who conquered the country were, Chrisitian, is the morality vision not allowed to change over time? Even the Catholic's version of morality has changed over the last several hundred years.

Most people in Canada today, do not consider themselves religions fundamentalists. Even if they are affiliated with a religion, most Canadians are not dogmatic about adopting every religious policy for that religion. Most Canadians support a secular state and the tolerance for all religions beliefs and the ability to exercise freedom of religion

If you want to claim that the Popes' values speak for the Canadian people, show some evidence that today's Canadian society want Canada to be a Catholic Theocracy.

No one is calling for a theocracy. Because one guy is advocating his morality, he's evil? Then you go onto advocate your own views. Quite the hypocrit, religious people are all wackos that have no value, but my values do. Great outlook, grow up and realise other people have opinions too!

"In the name of tolerance, your country has had to endure the folly of the redefinition of spouse," the Pope told a group of bishops from Ontario. "In the name of freedom of choice, it is confronted with the daily destruction of unborn children."

The Pope is going beyond just lecturing Catholics on how to live their lives. He is even going beyond telling Catholic politicians that religion should dictate their legslative choices. He is now criticizing a secular state for not conforming to his religious view. Of course, he has the right to free speech and he can levy such criticism if he chooses, but it should then be fair game for states to openly criticize the Catholic church for their anti-Semitic and anti-Woman policies.

And ya, it is fair game for people to be as critical as they want about the Church. What's your point?

"Because one guy is advocating his morality, he's evil? Then you go onto advocate your own views. Quite the hypocrit, religious people are all wackos that have no value, but my values do. Great outlook, grow up and realise other people have opinions too!"

Its not considering him "evil" purely for advocating his morality. Its considering him "evil" for the morality he is advocating. It is pointing out faults in his morality and suggesting a different set of morals that may have less faults. Its suggesting that being tolerant might be more moral than being intolerant.

Leafless · September 10, 2006

The issue was not marriage itself but that some citizens were excluded from the benefits of Canadian citizenship.

That is an outright lie and you know it.

Homosexuals wanted 'marriage'.

They declined other options or alternatives.

BTW- It's not over yet.

Electric Monk · September 10, 2006

I agree, Homosexuals should have their own "different but equal" civil union ceremonies, their own "different but equal" washrooms, their own "different but equal" water fountains, their own "different but equal" back seats on busses. I mean really, who doesn't agree? :unsure:

betsy · September 10, 2006

The pope can blow me.

Are you gay?

betsy · September 10, 2006

The issue was not marriage itself but that some citizens were excluded from the benefits of Canadian citizenship.

It IS the issue of marriage itself! THEY wanted to change the DEFINITION!

I have always agreed that THEY should be allowed to have their own definition of a union...with all the protection and benefits of any married couples.

The outrage is not about whether they can openly and legally shack up together in a union.....the outrage is about the changing of the definition of marriage!

Leafless · September 10, 2006

I agree, Homosexuals should have their own "different but equal" civil union ceremonies, their own "different but equal" washrooms, their own "different but equal" water fountains, their own "different but equal" back seats on busses. I mean really, who doesn't agree?

Are you actually promoting the illusion male and male or female and female or homosexual and lesbian relationships are equally important concerning the importance pertaining to all levels of a functioning society as male and female heterosexual relationships.

Are you that adamant concerning your twisted sexual analysis that there should be no special benefits available to heterosexual couples that form the cornerstone of society and are directly RESPONSIBLE for the CREATION of society itself?

Renegade · September 10, 2006

[ but it should then be fair game for states to openly criticize the Catholic church for their anti-Semitic and anti-Woman policies.

What is anti-semitic and anti-woman of the Catholic church?

Sorry, I phrased that badly. I didn't mean that their policies were necessarily anti-Semitic or anti-Woman. I meant that it was fair game that others outside the church to examine their policies and criticize the church for policies which they FELT were unfair to woman, Jews, or anyone else.

During WWII the Roman Catholic church was accused of being complicit in Nazi extermination of Jews. The Catholic church is still accused of an anti-woman policy by prohibiting the ordination of women.

Renegade · September 10, 2006

No one is calling for a theocracy. Because one guy is advocating his morality, he's evil? Then you go onto advocate your own views. Quite the hypocrit, religious people are all wackos that have no value, but my values do. Great outlook, grow up and realise other people have opinions too!

Huh? I don't speak my opininons as a head of state or head of a church. The Pope does. I speak only for myself as a private citizen. I'm not criticizing his morality. Since he speaks leader of the Catholic Church, I am crticizing the Church's presumption that it should lecture Canada on how it should legislate.

As for thinking the religious people are all wackos, where have I said this or implied this? My reaction would be the same if the US or some other world leader started lecturing Canada on what it could or could not permit of it's citizens.

My response was to betsy statement which implied because of Canada's Christian hertiage, the Pope somehow represents the views of Canadians.

And ya, it is fair game for people to be as critical as they want about the Church. What's your point?

It is quite one thing for private citizens to criticize the church. It is quite something else for a world leader to do the same as he represents an organization far beyond his personal views.

Can you imagine Cahholics reaction if Stephen Harper or George Bush started lecturing the Catholic church on their policy to exclude woman from ordination?

Renegade · September 10, 2006

The issue was not marriage itself but that some citizens were excluded from the benefits of Canadian citizenship.

It IS the issue of marriage itself! THEY wanted to change the DEFINITION!

I have always agreed that THEY should be allowed to have their own definition of a union...with all the protection and benefits of any married couples.

The outrage is not about whether they can openly and legally shack up together in a union.....the outrage is about the changing of the definition of marriage!

betsy, it is interesting you think in terms of "us" and "them" . When exactly did the church or even the hetrosexual community become the dictators of the definition of marriage?

By our laws, that definition is Federal juristiction, which means it is the domain of our representatives (aka the Federal Government). By "our" I mean all of Canadian society, gays, straight or whatever. Given that it is "our" definition, and we have chosen to be an inclusive society, it is only logical that we create the most inclusive definition possible. I think the problem could be solved equally well, if not better, by abandoning the need for a definition.

Leafless · September 10, 2006

betsy, it is interesting you think in terms of "us" and "them" . When exactly did the church or even the hetrosexual community become the dictators of the definition of marriage?

You demonstrate absolute contempt and total lack of respect against in most part the entire population of this planet who have traditonally used marriage as a major part of religious ceremonies regarding the heterosexual union of a man and a woman.

Renegade · September 10, 2006

betsy, it is interesting you think in terms of "us" and "them" . When exactly did the church or even the hetrosexual community become the dictators of the definition of marriage?

You demonstrate absolute contempt and total lack of respect against in most part the entire population of this planet who have traditonally used marriage as a major part of religious ceremonies regarding the heterosexual union of a man and a woman.

No, I have no contempt for the population who has used marriage as a hetrosexual religious union. What I have contempt for is the presumption that religious definitions should extend to secular society.

Renegade · September 10, 2006

Are you that adamant concerning your twisted sexual analysis that there should be no special benefits available to heterosexual couples that form the cornerstone of society and are directly RESPONSIBLE for the CREATION of society itself?

If you want to claim that hetrosexual couples are responsible for the creation of society, then you should also claim that hetrosexual couples are responsible for all the damage that overpopulation has caused. The fact is many societies go to great extents to encourage birth and population control simply to mitigate the effects of uncontrolled reproduction.

Maybe its the homosexual couples which shoudl be given "special benefits" because they biologically cannot produce children and are thus less likely to deplete the earth's resources.