Pope Benedict has been a stalwart defender of the institutions of marriage and family:
In a surprise announcement, Pope Benedict XVI said today that he will resign at the end of the month. The pope said that due to the increased weakness accompanying his advanced age - he is 85 - he feels that he is unable to carry out the duties of his office.
"After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths due to an advanced age are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry," he said in a statement to a meeting of Vatican cardinals.
"I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only by words and deeds but no less with prayer and suffering.
"However, in today's world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me."
He is reportedly the first pope to resign in six centuries.
The pope is considered one of the strongest allies of the pro-life and pro-family movements, frequently issuing statements defending the natural family and the right to life from conception until natural death.
He was elected to the papacy on April 19, 2005. (LifeSiteNews)
29 Comments
As a gay Catholic who believes in civil marriage equality, I condemn the above comments by Garrett and Daniel as hateful. Clearly the Pope's health has taken a sudden turn for the worst as his reign nears 8 years. Yes, papal resignations are unheard of in modern times and I find the timing a bit odd as Lent commences this Wednesday. But hateful speculation has no place in debate.
At least we agree on one thing, Bobby. I find the 1st two comments vulgar. I hope this isn't considered normal among their circle of friends.
This pope has done more to undo the harm caused by abusive priests than any other pope in modern history... as you can see, he has only been pope for the past 7 years... and has publicly appologized for the church's mishandling of these priests many times so you hateful comments are not true.. especially that this man may be a pedophile... it justs suggests to me that you have a hatred for the Cahtolic church...It has been evident for the past few years that this Pope has been having increasing health problems... I applaud his seeking God's will in prayer and contemplation before making his decision... I only hope his re/placement will be as staunch in vocally supporting tradional families, opposing abortion in any form and standing up for our religious freedom... God bless you Pope Benedict and know that you will continue to be in my prayers....
A good man.
Classy move by the Pope. I will miss him! Especially in our times. But I believe he knows what he's doing.
__________
What is all this hate? What do all of you people have against inter-generational love. Any one having reached puberty is obviously old enough to have sexual relations with other people. And who better than caring and loving older men and woman for them to join into loving sexual bonds with. I'm tiered of the homosexuals thinking that they're the only ones who deserve the right to love. The hate that they show toward people who find love in inter-generational relationships is just pathetic. Imagine all the young people who are born sexually attracted to older people, and the older who are born attracted to the younger, and they all have to live under judgment of the oh so righteous homosexuals who want to keep inter-generational love in the closet. Stop making all these young people feel as if they have done something wrong – do you know how much suffering and how many suicides you are causing with your hate and your nonacceptance?
LGBT-BIP : Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual – Bestiality, Incest, Pedophile. Or all rolled up into one big queer Q as they seem to like it.
But however you roll it, LGBT-BIP or “gay”, its not very Catholic.
I'm not speculating as to why he's resigning, but the fact remains that he was complicit in the move to cover-up sex abuse by Catholic priests. It's not hateful to point that out, and I only did so to counteract the NOM editor's claim that he had been a "stalwart defender of the institutions of marriage and family."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/11/pope-complicit-child-abuse-say-victims
Why call it a 'resignation'? The general media wants to find some fault or ulterior motive for 'resigning' as they call it. But from the words of this Pope, it is simply 'retirement', just like everybody else. His body is already too dead for the appointed task. So, the Pope retires.
What evil symbolism can people find in it? They'll find some speculative point of view.
This Pope had to deal with corrupt priests? Well, where better could perverted priests find solace from society at large? No better place than in a position representing of celibacy in relative isolation. As in everything in life, when some work or word gains greatly in prestige, it is the very niche which people will seek to take advantage of that prestige. I personally don't find justification for monasteries in the New Testament. For non-marriage and celibacy, yes. For monasteries, none. Certainly, a middle ground could be married with no children. But that's not encouraged in the R. Catholic priesthood.
For instance 'marriage' is one such word or institution that gained great respect and prestige. The priesthood or pastorate is another. But we should look at these offices or positions of respect as so prestigious on average, that they become targets for people wanting the prestige without EARNING the prestige. That people would want to corrupt it is a clear sign its prestige is well earned.
Another example is SSm, where couples that do not qualify for a marriage license or religious natural marriage want the prestige associated with that particular type of union, without qualifying for it. If they don't qualify, then they want to change the meaning of civil marriage, just so they can gain the prestige and acceptability (not to mention the benefits reserved for motherhood protected by fatherhood).
Garfield:
Most certainly: corrupt priests won't have an easy haven anymore in the R. Catholic church, thanks to this Pope. Your facts are speculation - guilty until proven innocent. There's corruption in every movement or association. There's a lot of corruption in the SSm movement. You are no better. Here you are presenting so-called facts, when they are accusations, charges. Anyone can make charges, anytime.
Finding the 'facts' in the issue of corrupt priests (and we are all to some extent corrupt) is complex. Accuse a priest of indecency, without proof, and you just caused another indecency.
Would you expect an innocent child to lie about molestation? (hint: focus on the word 'innocent', not the word 'child'.) Define molestation. . . Get it?
@Garrett,
What does one have to do with the other; do you admit pedophilia and SSM are part of the same agenda?
I appreciate the Pope's advocacy for marriage. God bless him.
I've a response, but now it seems that my comments aren't appearing. We'll see if they go through moderation.
"Very much more serious is the role of Joseph Ratzinger, before the church decided to make him supreme leader, in obstructing justice on a global scale. After his promotion to cardinal, he was put in charge of the so-called "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" (formerly known as the Inquisition). In 2001, Pope John Paul II placed this department in charge of the investigation of child rape and torture by Catholic priests. In May of that year, Ratzinger issued a confidential letter to every bishop. In it, he reminded them of the extreme gravity of a certain crime. But that crime was the reporting of the rape and torture. The accusations, intoned Ratzinger, were only treatable within the church's own exclusive jurisdiction. Any sharing of the evidence with legal authorities or the press was utterly forbidden. Charges were to be investigated "in the most secretive way ... restrained by a perpetual silence ... and everyone ... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office … under the penalty of excommunication." (My italics). Nobody has yet been excommunicated for the rape and torture of children, but exposing the offense could get you into serious trouble. And this is the church that warns us against moral relativism! (See, for more on this appalling document, two reports in the London Observer of April 24, 2005, by Jamie Doward.)"
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2010/03/the_great_catholic_coverup.html
Bobby and Barb, what's hateful and vulgar is 99% of the comments on this forum and pretty much everything that NOM stands for.
@Daniel,
In other-words; any opposition to your demands for special consideration?
How very convenient for you!
Whomever may be interested in the mindset of your A-typical marriage corruption supporter might want to take a look at the PBS documentary on Joseph Goebbels diary.
Like the SSM; the Nazis were all about propoganda, to the extent that they started believing their own lies.
More than 80% of the sex scandal was comprised of priests with homosexual tendencies acting out on teenaged boys. The rate was 25% of the rates in public school systems and in sports, for example.
Enedict madebig strides, quickly, to improve the safety of children. The Laity has been a hugepart of implementing the changes under the guidance of the Pope. Benedict has set the best example for other organizations to learn from.
Meanwhile, Benedict's influence as a philosopher and theologian will long outlive his papacy through his clarity and charity as a teaching Pope, as will his broad challenge to relativism and communism and nihilism, as will his personal influence through his example of warmth and gentleness, like many Cardinals have noted since his retirement announcement.
Meanwhile, in the USA, homosexuals want the gay ban lifted giving them unfettered access to young boy scouts to further their agenda and recruitment efforts. The pattern is clear.
Just to correct Garret in his use of the word "church". The Pope is the head of his church, not of THE church. Garret, by criticizing procedures in the R. Catholic church, hopes to put the entire set of Christian churches in a negative light. Even so, an organization that has functioned for thousands of years is surely one where someone can find some kind of fault (in modern day mentality). Give Garret's organizations two years to 'hang' themselves, in comparison. And don't call me a hater for pointing this out. I can hate anyone I want, and it's legal. But, instead, i try to reason with everyone. That's love, not hate. Because logic is the only common ground, if at all.
Little Man, I never used the word "church" to paint all Christians. In fact, I never used the word "church" at all. I was talking about the Pope. (Including in the first comment I made in which he was complicit in the coverup of child molestation, a post which has now been deleted.)
As for "hating," well, you're right -- it is legal to hate anyone you want, but don't be surprised when people call you a hater. And I find your "reasoning" to be a little less than desirable most of the time, Little Man, especially with your tendency to mock others' names, your insinuation that some children invite molestation (focus this time on "children," Little Man), or your frequent shifts to
And I'm not sure which organizations of mine you're talking about.
Garfield: You quoted a paragraph using the word church to refer to the R. Catholic church. it's in black and white.
So, how are you going to prove one of your comments got deleted?
"And I find your "reasoning" to be a little less than desirable most of the time".
I'm glad you don't "desire" my reasoning. Thanks. Children cannot invite molestation, obviously. Because then it is not 'molestation'. It's a play on words, and you like to play.
Well, comment number 1, by Bobby, is referring to a comment of mine that no longer exists.
And I quoted the word "church," but I didn't use it myself, Little Penis.
I hate anchovies - therefore i am a "hater". Also, i hate haters.
I hated once, and that makes me a "hater~" for ever, so reasons Garret. . .
So, the deleted comment Garret refers to was deleted, according to Bobby (#1) because it was hateful. Yes, i saw it. Garret's self-admission has been proven. . .
But hate is a feeling, not an action. A feeling, or a genuine political stand, by itself shouldn't get me listed in the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of evil people and organizations, under the category Anti-Anchovy
, or we would all get listed.
If you quoted the word "church", you used it, man.
So funny, the hater who tried to antagonize the drive-through window clerk at that Chick Fil-A (and lost his job immediately, permanently
), and the attacker at the building of the Family Research Council in Washington D.C., self-appointed in the name of the Southern Poverty Law Center (and now arrested with lots of Chick-Fil-A's in his pack-sack, to eat better food when in jail maybe 
) couldn't even defeat a slain janitor. I just think he was overloaded with Chick-Fil-A sandwiches.
The Family Research Council is not Anti-Gay (forgive the double negative). They probably have closeted and un-closeted 'glads' working for them.
I mean, few of us here have time to hate a person for long, if at all. We simply disagree, no offense meant. . ..
And i could say too "I WAS BORN THAT WAY", an existentialist self-justification (excuses, excuses, excuses), just to get one's way. But, also: WE WEREN'T BORN YESTERDAY.
Little Man - You may hate anchovies - I am not a big fan of them either - but do you work to get them banned so that those who like anchovies cannot have them? I prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla but I don't want to outlaw the sale of vanilla ice cream.
Bobby: i thought we were discussing hate, not banning anchovies. No one is forced to each anchovies. No one is forced by law to love their neighbor, because civil law cannot regulate emotions. it can only regulate actions.
Which one is the civil problem? An emotion to be banned, or the negative actions possibly resulting from that unconstrained emotion? On the other hand, some people call others bigots when they are simply exercising their right to vote. Those are the real haters.
The attacker at the building of the Family Research Council in Washington D.C. didn't want to ban the haters - he wanted to kill some. He didn't get arrested for "hate", a feeling. He got arrested for shooting a person in the building who confronted his illegal action. I could go into that same building and hate for 3 hours, and i wouldn't be arrested. The actual emotion does not hurt anyone else, it only increases the temperature of the room a bit.
In the same way, two people can argue, but the police intervenes when they come to blows. Freedom of speech makes verbal expression of hate a liberty. This is not about banning anything that's not already a felony or a crime.
Now, can you imagine yourself trying to outlaw vanilla ice cream without at the same time, unwillingly, outlawing chocolate ice cream?
If you outlaw natural marriage, making it into simply friendship, you wouldn't be adding friendships to marriage - you would be rejecting the reasons for government to regulate all marriages. Your analogy is more profound than you realize.
But government is forced, economically, to regulate natural marriage, as a practical solution, to minimize the negative financial consequences of children born out of wedlock.
And it is forced to regulate non-marital relationships which engender children out of wedlock.
Same-sex relationships are friendships, but do not engender (on their own) children (unless a trio is formed someway - polygamy). Some State governments have equated marriage to friendship, and in so doing belittle natural marriage, and in essence do away with the full concept of marriage. It's only a matter of time to see the consequences in those States. The children will grow up to haunt them.
There's just no reason to regulate same-sex friendships of two people, when they do not engender children. It's taking a mess and creating another mess. Time will tell.
errata: "we were discussing hate, not banning anchovies. No one is forced to EAT anchovies."
LM - No one is forced to marry someone of the same sex. You don't have to eat anchovies and you don't have to marry someone of the same sex. The fact that some people eat anchovies and marry someone of the same sex does not affect you
@ 26. That's what i said. It's irrelevant.
Bobby,
You are against Catholicism if you believe that SSM is a type of marriage and that your advocacy of it is in the cause of equality.
You are very confused if you also claim that same-sex sexual attraction and/or same-sex sexual behavior is in accord with the reasonable basis for the Catholic teaching on human sexuality.
So, when you say that you are "a gay Catholic who believes in civil marriage equality", you mean that you are an individual who says that Catholicism is wrong.
A nominal "Catholic" does himself and society a disservice by misrepresentation.
Bobby, you would have government force all of society to treat a type of non-marriage as the equivalent of the union of husband and wife. In the process, you would have society pretend that favoritism of the gay identity group (a race-like identity group according to the SSM campaign), is equal treatment. But it would be a racist-like imposition that used marriage law for a decidely non-marriage purpose in its intent -- even an anti-marriage purpose in its effect.
Meanwhile Pope Benedict has made a very strong case for the preferential status of marriage in our culture and in our laws. He has also done far more to counter child molestation, and to safeguard children, than any gay activist group has done in the past decade or so. Yet what do we hear from the SSM advocates here but vitriol and scurrilous accusations. Readers might note the anti-Catholic bigotry seems to often ride alongside the pro-gay bigotry of public voices in favor of the SSM idea.