Vatican leans on Canadian politicians
 

Regarding Canada's recent move to legalize same-sex marriage:

-------------
The Vatican is raising the stakes in Canada's plans to legalize same-sex marriage by issuing a directive for Catholic politicians around the globe to make their politics consistent with their faith.

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops predicted yesterday the appeal may give pause to Parliament, where Catholicism is the dominant religion.

"What it may do is that it will cause some conscience problems for several MPs," said general secretary Msgr. Peter Schonenbach.

But a spokesman for Justice Minister Martin Cauchon, one of many Catholic MPs, said the minister will base his vote on equality rights, not religion.

"His personal religious beliefs are not the issue here," said Tim Murphy. "As minister of justice, he is the justice minister for all Canadians. The key thing we have pointed out is that this is a fundamental issue of equality and there will be protection for religious freedom."

Rest of the article here
-----------

The part that irks me the most is obviously the church hoping to lay a guilt trip down on the government which is predominantly Catholic.

I am neither Catholic or in a same-sex relationship, but the fact that the church is planning on utilizing guilt-trip tactics on it's members in high places sounds more like something the RIAA or PETA would do. The church enjoys a fairly free hand in it's operations, with the government meddling very little. They run their own school system free of government monitoring. Should they not return the favour?

What I find even more distasteful is while the Canadian governemt has seen fit to allow any religious organisation the right to deny performing same-sex marriages, the churches has decided to fight to deny them totally.

I applaud the Justice Minister in ignoring his own personal religious beliefs while recognizing the fact that Canada is made up of much more than Catholics.

This is, in my opinion, gross exploitation of the power of the church and belittles the religion.

Haha..

Sorry guys, there is no Holy Roman Empire anymore.

woohoo!

Hehe, that gave me a chuckle.

The Vatican must surely realize that the power they used to enjoy around the globe is diminishing. This is a chance at retaining a toe-hold on a government that they obviously consider to be vulnerable to their pressure. I'm glad to see that they are not going to bend to the Vatican. I have very little respect for the Catholic church due to everything that they have ever been involved with, from the Inquisition, to their acts in WWII to the recent child sex scandals. They obviously need a reality check, the world is getting wise to them.

I'd say this is a legimate political move. They are lobbying to keep some morals around... good for them.

I agree, it's good that they are doing this. We may disagree with it, but we may also disagree with PETA. Doesn't mean that they shouldn't say it. They have a right to push their agenda as much as anybody else.

I don't disagree with political lobbying in most cases, but in the interest of seperation of Church and State, I think the Church should keep it's hands out of politics and vice versa.

Pity it's a vile morality based on hatred and injustice.

But it is legitimate to lobby one's representitives about one's beliefs.

Is it legitimate to prey on their guilt, their moral fibre? I would rather they presented a less... moralistic case and argue their case on merit alone.

Re: Vatican leans on Canadian politicians
 

I don't agree with this assessment. The Vatican is simply following scripture and/or its established doctrines. The Justice Minister is "ignoring his own personal religious beliefs." There are fairly clear mandates that one can not serve two masters--if the Justice Minister wants to act contrary to the beliefs of his denomination, he should discard the mantle of a Roman Catholic--or, at least, one that considers the Vatican to be his earthly head.

I find this comment offensive. Explain to me how falling in love with someone and wanting to spend the rest of your life with them legally is immoral?

Are you telling me Rosie O'Donnell has no morals? The guy at my work who gives to charity and donates his time to the community center has no morals? My wife’s best friend who is credited with getting my wife and I together has no morals?

edited out me saying F you...I need to control my temper. :)

I think he was refering to christian morals and not general morality. Two very differant things.

This is Canada -- they have public Catholic schools. :o

That's what YOU think.

If they could (and this is coming from a catholic) the Roman Catholic Empire would eliminate electricity, throw us all back into the dark ages and rule the world.

Have you seen what's been happening in Poland lately where the Catholic church is calling the shots, or Ireland for that matter??

Religion is fine and dandy when it comes to spirtuality, but that's it.

lolz!! and may i ask why?

Obviously, he would prefer it if we were under a dictatorship that took all of its guidance from the church. Kinda like the Middle East. Oh wait, that system sucks.

Keep it civil
 

Catholic church=morals?
ya, that's it:rolleyes:

Not all Christians are as closed minded as the Pope. The United Church of Canada is one step away from doing full marriages (currently they do blessings of unions) of G/L and the final move won't be far off. To have some theocrat in Rome still dictating his will to elected officials that represent their constituents is not only asinine, but offensive to democracy. And personally, as a Protestant, there is NO way I will yield to RC rule!!

This is yet another example of the difference between the US and Canada... while our goverment is seeking to legalize, the US government (Bush specifically) is trying to make it constitutionally illegal.

I find that interesting.

Ya, I just saw that on TV. Bush was saying how marriage is for a man and a woman and that the bible told him that. The difference between the US and Canada is that the US is still very religious. Europe and Canada is shedding religion, or at least its influences in politics.

In the good ole' days when religion was at the heart of the country we flourished. We had common values and morals and shit worked fine. Look at what happened to Europe as it started shedding religion, its gone down the shitter. The once mighty and now ultra liberal countries of England, France, Germany are in the dust. If for the fact that we weren't the sole hyper-power we would be going down the tube, but it will all change, I'd give us another 50 years.

If you believe something is a moral thing to do, then you, by definition, believe it's got merit.

I suspect what you mean is you'd be happier making the argument without reference to their version of the Pink Unicorn.

I think you'll have offended a bunch of Christians will the assumption that the morality espoused by the Roman Catholic Church is the same as thiers.

Can't win!

Unfair. They'd keep electricity.

But certainly, the Church would like more temporal power. Which seems an odd interpretation of "Render unto Caeser..."

Slavery? Civil War? Extermination of Native Americans? Jim Crow laws?

Yeah, shit worked real good.

I grovel at your mastery of history. I didn't realise that England lost the Empire as a direct result of legalisation of homosexuality, relaxation of censorship laws, recognition of de facto relationships, and other such forays into "liberal" thinking that occured in the 1960s and 1970s.

I'd always laboured under the misapprehension that it occurred in the years immediately following the ruinous Second World War. Thanks for correcting me.

And, of course, neither France nor Germany's power was in the slightest affected by either the First *or* the Second world wars, not even when Germany was partitioned by the victorious powers! It was turning "ultra liberal" that did it!

Time to rewrite all those history books, I guess.

Please enlighten me as to what is happening here with the catholic church?

Bush's push against gay marriage.

I enjoy that first quote the most. The paraphrasing on the proverb is awkward enough, but the fact the he contradicts himself is brilliance. "Welcome to our country. Pursuit of happiness is allowed, so long as your happiness doesn't hinge on being able to form a legal union with the person you love."

It's interesting how often proponents of gay unions quickly and without hesitation label those opposed as basing that conviction on hatred and injustice. I fail to see the connection. I concur that some hate and some prefer injustice, but using that fallacious logic immediately puts you in the EXACT same class as the catholic 'empire' you so summarily dismis for it's 'underhanded' tactic of guilt. Touche.

Exasperation with the movement failing to persuade mainstream populations with your point of view does not entitle you to hypocracy. Of course nothing prevents you from hypocracy so plug right along with that course of discourse. I doubt your goal will be realized with the methodology.

In anticipation of the sure to follow question: "If it's not hate and injustice to be against my point of view on gay's, what is it, you fucking homophobic, hate filled, intolerant bigot?"

I reply:

It is difficulty coming to terms with actions which fly in the face of practical understanding. The normal/natural animal experience. The impracticality, and procreative uselessness of the activity. Everyone can cite anecdotel evidence about hatred, intolerance and bigotry...even blonde haired white christian males. In fact just about everyone does (people just don't listen to bhwcm). I think your incorrect...MOST people DO NOT want gay unions, yet most people do not hate homosexuals, . In fact I think most people dont give a flying fuck about homosexuals. Most could care less about their cause and their tactics are not helping.

I challenge you, that in order to win your battle, you will need to elevate your tactics...rise above the fray...and logically, turn ignorance into knowledge, misunderstanding into acceptance. Insulting and alienating your audience does not help your cause.

Oh and good for the HRC...they are a huge segment of the population, like senior citizens, or hispanics, only bigger. They have an issue and they are lobbying for action in support of their position. THAT IS the democratic way.

Sep of church and state ONLY goes one way...State out church. NOT VICE Versa. We do have method for changing things in the US, constitutionally. A new method has surface in the form of judicial activism, under the auspices of "the right thing to do." Although the actual method involves 2/3 of congress and ratification of ALL 50 states, I believe.

Another $.02 offered...peace,

bear

You've elevated yourself since last time. My congratulations, for all that may mean to you or anyone.
I'm not arguing with you, but where do you get your information on what most people want? If it's true that most people couldn't care less about homosexuals, then why would they want to prevent their being allowed access to the legal state of marriage?
Amen, brother. Amen.

man it was lonely in that ignore list...I'm rested and spent a little more time on the wordsmithing. Plus I was just being a prick before :) The thoughts remain the same, but 'killing em with kindness' and less invective verbage is much more effective...if you know what i mean.

Anyway...I am a Canadian born, low class 'hood bred, middle class educated and formed, Marine Corps trained, prison hardened, blue collar employed knucklehead, with a self made upper class immediate and intact family unit. I have experienced the gamut of human flavors, and base my assertion purely on my experiences. I consider them to be varied, broad and rather enlightened. I call em like I see em.

In order for there to be change people need to care. If they did, there would be change. It's not so much that people are fighting to 'prevent,' it's that most are not fighting to change...because they don't find it particularly important.

Thoughts?,

bear

If I follow your reasoning, what you are saying is "If things are a certain way, there's a good reason for it, and it's not supposed to change." Is this correct?
And while you have indeed experienced quite a few things in your life, you're still one man. To assume you know the mind of all mankind is foolish at best.
But welcome back off the ignore list. I'm sure it was lonely, what without my scintillating brilliance to light your nights. :D

I'm not sure about the 'there's a good reason for it, and it's not supposed to change' part...although it's very possible. We're generally a lazy species, and that logic seems to fit. I didn't say it though, and only think it ~possible~. I do not assert or endorse it.

I only ever speak for those I have spoken with. I believe a diverse and representative sampling of the population. I haven't seen anything to the contrary...has anyone?

over,

-b-

Um...Can I count myself as someone who is to the contrary? How about most people I know?
As to the logic, I more intended for you to show me the fallacy in my interpretation of your position.

Of course you can. I'll throw your position into the 'care' column.

How come most people you know are to the contrary? Do you interact with a diverse group of humans? I'm interested in seeing why my observations are different to yours.

Just to clear up my position on the issue of homosexuality in general. What ever floats your boat. I am not particularly fond of 'queen' type gays, flambouyant and gesticular, because I find them annoying. I will discriminate against people I find annoying. This shouldn't be a problem for most people I hope. Please realize that this lifestyle is not widely acceptable, and understand that it will present obstacles. Create unions, celebrate commitments, but marriage is a hetrosexual thing...founded in religion, and recently sanctioned and regulated by governments. Get your own method for governments to regulate your lives, create liabilities, and tax you additionally :). Governments should be completely out of most aspects of our personal lives...especially sexuality. IN EVERY RESPECT. Additionally, inheritance and hospital visitations are upto the dead or dying to have determined. Adoptions should be at the discretion of the biological parents, with the option to refuse adoption to a gay couple of their child. Other wise no sexual orientation restriction. AND please don't presume that your behaviour is normal....It isn't. It is deviant, a deviation from the norm. Doesn't mean it's wrong...OR right for that matter. Time will tell as the 'people' speak, learn, speak, learn, and speak again. To me it's benign. Without consequence for anyone but yourself. I do care...I just don't see all that much that needs fixing, ~specific~ to this issue.

-b-

Why should the United States government even be involved in defining marriage, other than tax code (which needs to be changed)?

Let's clear a few things up, here. First off, I'm not gay (Not that there's anything wrong with that. -- Seinfeld). I'm not doing this for me, or for anyone I know, really. I gain nothing from this stance. Second, I think we might have to agree to disagreee on the natural existence of homosexuality, since you appear to have your head in the sand in regards to that. However, I really do ask that you back off the "This behavior is deviant" stance. It makes it hard for me to tolerate your existence. :)
Now. It is crucial for heterosexual unions and homosexual unions to have the same name, rights, and restrictions, lest we return to "Segregation Now, Segregation Forever." On that note, and your stance of "Biological parents should get to refuse the adopting parents" (and you presume they will, should the new parents be a gay couple), should biological parents be allowed to refuse mixed-race parents? What about Jews, should biological parents be allowed to refuse them?

They shouldn't. Unfortunately they do. ~Probably~ because of Religion. Tax code....whew whole 'nother thread there...I'm on board with change (read elimination).

Anyway..it's not just the US government. It's all governments. Marriage is essentially ONLY a government thing now. It's not religious really...because it's not complete or 'official' until the government sticks a thumb in that pie. It can be,religious that is. If it is it must still be government approved or sanctioned or dare I say...blessed. Also the government IS the people so really it's the people have decided to regulate marriages, and don't seem all that particularly interested in broadening that definition?

Sometimes I live in reality and deal with the crap of what is actually going on....sometimes I jump into fantasy and espouse rediculous and impossbile things like Anarchy (aaaaah...sweeet anarchy :) ).

-b-