Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Holy Smokes!

Well, it didn't take long. This new pope has been christened a "homophobe" before he's even christened pope.

The over-the-top lefties are already screaming from the rafters before the (white) smoke has cleared.

Thought this article was interesting on the take of the AIDS and alternative lifestyle advocates.

"AIDS groups, gay activists dismayed over new pope"
--Yahoo! Health news/AFP/April 20, 2005


First, that Pope Benedict is a "homophobe" already, "more strict than Pope John Paul."


"The former positions taken by the Catholic Church had already prevented
the use of condoms and helped the spread of AIDS," said Franco Grillini, a gay
left-wing Italian lawmaker who is the honorary president of the gay rights group
Arcigay.





Note that phrase: The Church's positions "... helped the spread of AIDS ..." How does the Church's position (prohibiting condom use by the faithful) was actually HELPING the spread of this (mainly) sexually transmitted disease? If two people are married (which, in the eyes of the Church, are the only people supposed to be engaging in sex) and are not breaking other commandments (i.e. sixth commandment) and are being FAITHFUL to each other, the FAITHFUL are really not in a lot of danger. The odd (and dramatically ever-decreasing) infected blood transfusion or organ donation notwithstanding, irresponsible (prohibited) sex is the ONLY way to contract the disease.

The Church has been advocating abstinence and fidelity to the FAITHFUL for over 2,000 years (and Old Testament traditions well before that). What's so NEW about what this pope is advocating?

How can one help SPREAD a sexually transmitted disease if your position is NOT TO CONDONE the SEX and to active advocate the opposite?

The position is perfectly understandable -- IF -- one see the Church's perspective and steps away from the alternative (that everyone is doing it/going to do it anyway). Why must the onus for change be on the Church and NOT on the part of the un-churched (a.k.a. "Unfaithful"). Why is it so easy to advocate that the CHURCH must change, and not even consider changing the ways of permissive SOCIETY and mortal FASHION?

Continuing:

"This (new) pope has been violently homophobic," he (Grillini) told AFP by
telephone from Bologna following the election of the arch-conservative
German cardinal Joseph Ratzinger..."

Since when do we have only two options: Agree with me or be labeled "a -phobe" (that you fear me). What ever happened to Agree or Disagree, minus the "fear". Can't you have agreement without association or disagreement without animosity? Why should I accept only the "Agree" or "Fear" options? "Jews" and "Christians" don't always agree, but does each -- as a general rule -- "fear" the other?

This line made me laugh:

"He (Grillini) said the Church's opposition to condom use was practically
set in stone, ..."

Yeah, as a matter of fact, it IS set in stone. You wonder if they realize what they're saying.

Finally, there's this (below) which takes the cake because it comes from a "man of the cloth":

In South Africa, where some 25 million Africans are living with HIV and AIDS,
Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu expressed hope that "the whole question of
disease, HIV/AIDS particularly," would be addressed by the new pontiff, who
should also "look again at the prohibition that the Church has placed on
condoms."

If people didn't respect their faith, the instructions of their Church leaders and live by the teachings of the Church regarding extramarital sex (and by extension, drug use), what makes them so likely to suddenly and whole-heartedly embrace condom use so as not to spread infected?

After all, the best educated, most affluent, most savvy, and most health-accessable "at-risk" population in the world (Western homosexuals, IV drug users) haven't learned that lesson after 25 years.

It appears that few in the Human Race have learned all that much in the thousands of years we've been walking around here.

0 comments: