http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4473001.stm


Well, I'll be very proud of my home country if this bill gets passed :).

That pope...


I salute Spain here.

NOOOOOOO....WAAAAY

I've got a weird feeling about this Ratzinger guy.

ZIEG HEIL! I am Ze Furher Ratzinger!

All Hail Me As I March My Way Back To Ze 15th Century!!!

It seems that some in here have a problem with "free speech".

You do not have to agree or dissagree with what the Vatican says.  It is stating their opinion of the law, and urging their followers to do something.  Other then Gay Catholic couples not adopting, I really do not see how their belief matters a bit.

Whenever I hear of a situation like this, I remember the quote "Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s."  In other words, this is a secular matter.  They do have a right to give their opinion in reguards to what their followers do about the law.  As the Church, that is their right after all.  That is a far cry from declairing a holy war, and insisting that Spain change the law or being condemned to hell.

Well, in exercising my own free speech, I must admit that I resent the hell out of the Vatican and Ratzinger for more than one reason.

First off, I want to give a big F-U to the man for being the one who told the Archbishop of Washington D.C. to deny communion to John Kerry during the election. Also for clearly setting a precedent among Catholics in American politics which says that one can sin against the church with his/her vote. I say butt out of our democracy, @sshole!

This is just another pathetic attempt by the church to flex its long-atrophied muscles in European politics. Most Europeans don't care about what the church has to say, and are, quite frankly, getting tired of their banter. Ratzinger will only help to further this trend, as the Liberal domination of Western European politics will outsway the old-fogeyness Benedict XVI just radiates.

The Church is pretty much dead as a political entity. They need to learn to live with that.

The Pope and bishops represents the Catholic church so nobody else really needs to worry about what they have to say to Catholics.

Well, in exercising my own free speech, I must admit that I resent the hell out of the Vatican and Ratzinger for more than one reason.

First off, I want to give a big F-U to the man for being the one who told the Archbishop of Washington D.C. to deny communion to John Kerry during the election. Also for clearly setting a precedent among Catholics in American politics which says that one can sin against the church with his/her vote. I say butt out of our democracy, @sshole!


Once again, this is an eclasiastical issue, not a secular one.

Kerry's denial of Holy Communion was because of his vocal support of abortion, something that the Catholic Church strongly opposes.  Kerry has every right to support it, but then he should not be upset (nor should anybody else be) if his Church refuses to give him communion.  After all, it can be said that he is not "in a state of Grace".

As I have always said, actions have consequences.  Kerry has every right to do or say anything he likes.  But with those actions there come consequences, either good (widespread support from pro-abortion liberals) or ill (refusal to grant Communion).  Either way, this is a Church matter.  To me, nobody else has any right to complain about it.  If he feels strongly about it, he can always leave the Church and become a Protestant.

I find it strange that a lot of people complain about "Seperation of Church and State", yet get upset when a church makes it's support or oposition made known in what is a purely ecesiastical manner.  And if you are not Catholic, then it should not matter to you either.

On the flip side, there are a lot of Catholics that are still upset that Clinton (who is not even Catholic) was granted Holy Communion.  Should something be done about that as well?

The Pope and bishops represents the Catholic church so nobody else really needs to worry about what they have to say to Catholics.


Not trying to sound facetious, but "Amen".  Simple and well said.

I'm not going to comment on Pope Benedict, but I will say this:

¡Viva la españa, siempre!!

:)

Once again, this is an eclasiastical issue, not a secular one.

Kerry's denial of Holy Communion was because of his vocal support of abortion, something that the Catholic Church strongly opposes.  Kerry has every right to support it, but then he should not be upset (nor should anybody else be) if his Church refuses to give him communion.  After all, it can be said that he is not "in a state of Grace".

As I have always said, actions have consequences.  Kerry has every right to do or say anything he likes.  But with those actions there come consequences, either good (widespread support from pro-abortion liberals) or ill (refusal to grant Communion).  Either way, this is a Church matter.  To me, nobody else has any right to complain about it.  If he feels strongly about it, he can always leave the Church and become a Protestant.

I find it strange that a lot of people complain about "Seperation of Church and State", yet get upset when a church makes it's support or oposition made known in what is a purely ecesiastical manner.  And if you are not Catholic, then it should not matter to you either.

On the flip side, there are a lot of Catholics that are still upset that Clinton (who is not even Catholic) was granted Holy Communion.  Should something be done about that as well?


As an American I think I have every right to be upset with a figure of foreign power, of a sovereign state, who would tell his followers that they could be sinning against God by voting for a particular candidate. You are missing the big picture. Either that, or you are grossly oversimplifying the issue. It was more than just the denial of Holy Communion to one man (for that, I couldn't give a rat's @ss), but it was setting a precendent. Now we can expect the Papacy to be sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong on a regular basis in American politics. There are over 60 million Catholics in this country, and I reserve the right to resent their leader if his proclamations decree that voting for this guy or that guy will buy you a one-way ticket to hell.

That's the sort of thing that could endanger any democracy, and I hope the Spanish government sees that. I hope America's 60 million plus Catholics see that as well.

The Pope and bishops represents the Catholic church so nobody else really needs to worry about what they have to say to Catholics.


Except of course when those Catholics happen to be citizens of a country.

That's as ridiculous as saying that because people in America speak english then they should answer to either the Queen or Tony Blair.

As an American I think I have every right to be upset with a figure of foreign power, of a sovereign state, who would tell his followers that they could be sinning against God by voting for a particular candidate. You are missing the big picture. Either that, or you are grossly oversimplifying the issue. It was more than just the denial of Holy Communion to one man (for that, I couldn't give a rat's @ss), but it was setting a precendent. Now we can expect the Papacy to be sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong on a regular basis in American politics. There are over 60 million Catholics in this country, and I reserve the right to resent their leader if his proclamations decree that voting for this guy or that guy will buy you a one-way ticket to hell.


But the Pope is not a "Foreign Power".  He is the head of a religion.  And as that head, he has the right to impose sanctions when somebody does not follow the tennets of that faith.  In the same way that a Mullah or Rabbi can censor or "punish" somebody who endorses the eating of Pork products.  You seem to be wanting to combine Secular and Ecliastical rights.  They are not the same.

Once again going back to the words of a great Teacher, "My kingdom is not of this world."  And as the percieved descendent of this religious chain, it is the right of the Pope to comment or even comdemn somebody who does not follow the teachings and beliefs of this religion.

And while the Pope is "technically" a "Head Of State", this proclimation is not made as such.  In fact, I can't think of the last time I heard of a secular declaration from Vatican City.  I guess that I will worry about him as a "Head Of State" when the Pope declairs war on SPain for it's refusal to follow this declaration.  8)

But the Pope is not a "Foreign Power".  He is the head of a religion.  And as that head, he has the right to impose sanctions when somebody does not follow the tennets of that faith.  In the same way that a Mullah or Rabbi can censor or "punish" somebody who endorses the eating of Pork products.  You seem to be wanting to combine Secular and Ecliastical rights.  They are not the same.

Once again going back to the words of a great Teacher, "My kingdom is not of this world."  And as the percieved descendent of this religious chain, it is the right of the Pope to comment or even comdemn somebody who does not follow the teachings and beliefs of this religion.

And while the Pope is "technically" a "Head Of State", this proclimation is not made as such.  In fact, I can't think of the last time I heard of a secular declaration from Vatican City.  I guess that I will worry about him as a "Head Of State" when the Pope declairs war on SPain for it's refusal to follow this declaration.   8)


I understand the perceived rights of the papacy, and I also understand my right to resent said pontiff's influence in what is supposed to be a secular democracy. I wouldn't care if it were the Archbishop of Canterbury saying that all Episcopals had to vote for Kerry or be sent to hell... I would resent it.

Ratzinger is a foreign power. First off, he's foreign, secondly, he commands the largest denomination in the world, and in the United States of America. I'm not questioning his right to exist as a spiritual leader, but only his judgement in crossing the line over into a political ballcourt. When he practically tells people whom to vote for, under pain of eternal damnation or at least a long stint in purgatory, that's when I become a little disgusted. JP2 never did this sort of thing. Now we have former member of the Hitler Youth doing it. That guy's the last person qualified to give Americans voting advice. Be that as it may, he is in a position of incredible power... Around a billion people believe he is God's voice on Earth.

Hey gay Spaniards, puck the fope!  Convert to Protestantism and join the Unitarian Church.  If the Vatican doesn't welcome you as part of its "family," the Unitarians will embrace you as part of theirs!
8)

Hey gay Spaniards, puck the fope!  Convert to Protestantism and join the Unitarian Church.  If the Vatican doesn't welcome you as part of its "family," the Unitarians will embrace you as part of theirs!
8)


Are you a Unitarian, Maxwell?

Ever heard of a guy named James Leonard Park? He's an existentialist philosopher in Minnesota who is very active in the Unitarian church. Just wondering if you're familiar with his work...

And if the Pope is all but ordering his followers to vote for a candidate running for the highest office in my country, then it also affects me even though I am not Catholic.

That's not a good correlation.  The Pope isn't a political leader in that way.  He isn't telling people to follow practices that violate the laws of their country.  He's the leader of a religion that people choose to follow or not.  If you're not Catholic you, shouldn't worry.  It's like worrying about what the head of the Doughters of the American Repulic tells their members to do or think.  If you're not a member, you don't have to worry about it.  If they interfere with you, then that's one thing, but they can teach whatever they want.  Of course you have the right to get all annoyed and bent out of shape about it.  But why bother, and why do you care?  It doesn't affect you.


I'll echo what McDonald said.

He is all but telling people who they should vote for in what is a free election that he has no part in. A lot of these people will belive him because (foolishly in my opinion) they see him as the voice of God on Earth.

There are a hell of a lot of Catholics in the world, you get a few million of them voting in one specific direction it will definatley change the shape of the election.

Maybe you missed this part of the article:

Corriere de la Sera, Cardinal Lopez Trujillo said the Church was making an urgent call for freedom of conscience for Roman Catholics and appealing to them to resist the law.

He said every profession linked with implementing homosexual marriages should oppose it, even if it meant losing their jobs.

So, if I'm not Catholic, but I am gay and I am getting married in Spain and I do want to book my honeymoon through a travel agent that happens to be Catholic and I want to order flowers from a florist who happens to be Catholic and I want to rent a reception hall from an owner/manager who happens to be Catholic and I want to order invitations from an engraver who happens to be Catholic, etc...  those people HAVE been instructed by "the church" to defy the secular laws of their nation and deny me, a non-Catholic, goods and services and it DOES affect me, even though I'm not Catholic. 


Well, that also falls under the "right to refuse service" ability.  As the owner of a business, I do have the right to refuse service.

However, most people are not willing to turn away money, unless the person being refused would be a disruption.  For example, I would not turn away somebody for who or what they are.  But if the person was a KKK member who came in wearing his robes, you bet your booty I would kick his @ss right back out the door.

I will say it again, actions have consequences.  If you feel it is your religious duty to refuse service to somebody, that certainlyisyour right.  But do not be surprised if you are fired, or if you loose business.

This only applies to Catholics.  And honestly, I feel that if you are not Catholic, then you have no right to complain about the statement.  As long as it is not endangering or threatening somebody, then just ignore it.

I find it amazing that so many people are up in arms about this, when Muslim clerics put out fahtwahs all the time calling for the death of Jews, Christians, Americans, and people who they dissagree with.  I am much more worried about those then this one from the Vatican.

I find it amazing that so many people are up in arms about this, when Muslim clerics put out fahtwahs all the time calling for the death of Jews, Christians, Americans, and people who they dissagree with.  I am much more worried about those then this one from the Vatican.


The difference is High ranking church officials supposedly live in the real world and are well educated men who should have the best interests of there followers at heart. Fanatical clerics are a bunch of nuts who really only appeal to a Minority.

But hey, you aren't Muslim so I guess it's none of your business, right?

Oh wait, but this affects you...

Pope tries to use his mass influence to sway elections in countries of which he is not a citizen... you're fine with that? That doesn't directly affect you? That's none of your business? It's only the integrity of your elections... But I guess he's not bringing the pro-choice Democrats any votes.

I find it amazing that so many people are up in arms about this, when Muslim clerics put out fahtwahs all the time calling for the death of Jews, Christians, Americans, and people who they dissagree with.  I am much more worried about those then this one from the Vatican.



I don't think you can put these two in the same category.

I'm fine with someone urging people to follow their own beliefs, as long as the beliefs doesn't interfere with me.  It's like the DMC telling a democrat they should vote for Kerry instead of Nader.  That affects me too.


The DNC doesn't tell Democrats whom to vote for. They nominate and promote a candidate and the decision is yours. You can't compare them to a religious leader in a foreign country who claims to be the voice of the Almighty on Earth.