Today, he lashed out at Canadians for allowing gay marriage and abortion.
Pope Benedict hit out Friday at Canada for allowing same sex marriage and abortion, saying they result from Catholic politicians ignoring the values of their religion.Well, excuse me, it's not exclusion of God but your version of God. Just as you won't like me to tell you what you should worship, neither should you tell me how I should worship.
"In the name of tolerance your country has had to endure the folly of the redefinition of spouse, and in the name of freedom of choice it is confronted with the daily destruction of unborn children," the Pope told a group of bishops from Ontario.
Such laws, he said, are the result of "the exclusion of God from the public sphere." [Star]
As Pope and leader of Catholics he has every right to tell Catholics how to conduct their religious affairs. As leader of a state he has no right to interfere with our legislative matters. I would like my Catholic politicians to keep their religion aside when legislation. Just as I would want for politicians from any other religion.
From my other blog:
Vatican, Canada and homosexuality.
Vatican, Slovakia and Abortion
Tags: Vatican Pope Canada
7 comments:
"In the name of tolerance
Hmmm, that's a bad thing?
"Such laws, he said, are the result of "the exclusion of God from the public sphere."
Thank God for that.
Mezba's right on with his observation that the Pope refers solely to his version of God. The different versions of God is why God should be left out of the public sphere.
KNB: Good catch. It was guys like him in the past that was against inter-racial marriage, divorce (which is basic common sense), the common man knowing the religious scriptures (so only the priests could interpret it anyway they like - a plague I see encroaching in the Muslim world now).
Jason: Right on. If I had to follow Christian dictates I wouldn't be able to shave, use a condom or work on the Sabbath. These were all laws of the state at one time.
I don't see what the problem is. The Pope was, according to the article, speaking to a gathering of Bishops (ie. Catholics) about the exclusion of God (ie. his God and the God of his audience) from the public sphere (ie. the Canadian community at large) and how as a result of this the law of the land is not morally just. He was not attacking the law, but rather the social and moral climate that is the cause of the law. This is completely within his purview as the head of a religious order speaking to his lieutenants.
While I'm at it, I'd like to say a few words about tolerance:
Tolerance, as with all things, has its limits. Canadians as a society find many things intolerable. An inexhaustive list would include: murder, assault, sexual assault and sexual abuse, slavery, undue captivity, incest, polygamy, bestiality, cannibalism and countless others. These are all things that are not only illegal, but morally reprehensible to the majority of Canadians. If I were to suggest that in the name of tolerance we should freely allow people to kill each other, eat human flesh and have sex with their siblings, children and household pets, would you agree? Of course not.
In his pronouncements, the Pope was simply asserting that God's threshold of tolerance is different from that of Canadian society, and that homosexuality and the killing of unborn human life (among other things of course) are intolerable in the eyes of God.
jking (1232): He was attacking the law alright. This is Canada's domestic situation. The Vatican (one senior cleric) at one time told our previous PM (Chretien) not to risk his eternal salvation by passing the law. Such interference in our domestic legislature is unwarranted.
jking (0143) Are you comparing homosexuality to murder, assualt, sexual abuse and slavery... cannibalism... and so on?
Are you comparing homosexuality to murder, assualt, sexual abuse and slavery... cannibalism... and so on?
Yes; cearly, that much should be obvious. Re-read the whole of my statement above---very carefully---and you might actually get the point.
As for the Pope supposedly attacking the law, maybe he did---it's somewhat ambiguous given the language he used---but there's no disputing his intended audience. He was, literally, preaching to the choir.
Post a Comment