World figures always have to suffer pesky commentators speculating about their motives. It’s par for the course.

If you’re strutting the world stage your personal life almost inevitably becomes political. No surprise that media attention currently asks some awkward questions about our present Pope.

When Heads of State prosecute causes with more than ordinary zeal or venom, we’re all entitled to ask “Why?” and “Why this cause rather than some other?”

Benedict’s career has been marked by a singular zeal to stamp out homosexuality. He can’t, since homosexuality is part of natural variability, but that’s another matter. He desperately wants to be seen to be doing it.

This anti-gay stance borders on the obsessional. Benedict’s Xmas-eve message to the Vatican claimed that eradicating homosexuality was equally important to conserving the global environment. You don’t get much more obsessional than that!

Without any malice it’s perfectly reasonable to ask “Why”? And maybe “Is there something personal here?”

On widely held estimates, at least a third of Catholic clergy are gay. Benedict surrounds himself with gay advisors and officials in a “celibate” all-male bastion. Men in denial over sexuality gravitate towards such environments.

We’ve known for decades that “Gay bashers” (who seek out gays and savagely attack them for no other reason) are often suppressing latent same-sex urges. Destructive rampages are their attempt to destroy an innate homosexuality and assuage their guilt.

When Rome sends out its next anti-homosexual edict, it may be worth asking “Why this obsessive need to pick on a harmless, defenceless minority?” Why indeed, when world issues like hunger, disease, terrorism and war are clamoring to be resolved?

One last comment. In the Sydney Morning Herald of 28/12/08 Paul Sadler asked a perceptive question. I’ve seen no politicians other than The Greens rising to utter the appropriate condemnation Sadler suggests:

“I wonder if the Government, the Opposition and community leaders will publicly condemn the Pope's Christmas comments that homosexuality is a threat to the survival of the human race as they did Sheik Hilaly's comparison of unveiled women to uncovered meat?”

Not really getting a point here.

Homosexuality IS a threat to mankind. Men can't breed with men and women can't breed with women, so in that trail of thought, he's right. Of course, that's not including homosexuals artificially implanting their genetics in the gene pool by using donors and surrogacy.

IF he's meaning they're a threat, we should shoot them, then he's a nutter that needs reining in. Who's the Pope to judge others?. The Church have had an intolerance for the gay community since its inception and they have their reasons and the right to believe what they wish but openly vilifying them is something else, and typically hypocritical, eh Gibo and David?.

I doubt the government will say much other than talk about tolerance....if that.

Hilaly is a fruitloop. No amount of using him to highlight perceived inconsistencies will alter that perception.

Dear Tuckeroo,

I doubt whether members of the government or any politicians
for that matter,
are going to comment on what the Pope had to say
about homosexuality.
They wouldn't run the risk of alienating their
religious voters.

Hilaly was considered a bit of a 'nutter,' so commenting
on his remarks was a safer bet.

It is very sad though that a religious leader
in his Christmas message,
instead of focusing on the real problems that face
humanity, such as poverty, disease, overpopulation,
injustice, oppression, and the devastation of our
natural environment, chose instead to foster hatred.

Instead of giving his followers
a message of hope, and love, of their fellow human beings,
chose instead to condemn.

Sad, very, very, sad.

People of a Catholic persuasion might, in some cases, consider the Papal edict a path from which they must not divert, under peril of eternal damnation or excommunicatoin but the ones in know could not give a rats and as I myself am not catholic, I could not care less either.

The Pope is an influential potentate, elected by a college of cardinals who are, in turn, appointed by the Pope. Hardly a model of democratic propriety.

Church leaders should stick to what they claim to believe and not want everyone else must do. It is no different to listening to (say) the Australian Medical Associations view on foreign policy matters.

I read heaps on 'Your Say opinions' about the Popes comments and the worrying thing was that hardly anyone, if even one, mentioned the disease factor.

The Pope perceives a great threat to mankind caused by homosexuality, this being as much as anything else, is the disease factor which I now call "the great plague".

When I was a child the HIV AIDS factor wasnt there.

Then the door to the underworld openned and the gays came out and got rights.

Then the disease began to sweep the world.

Now it, the great plague, more or less, owns whole countries.

All most commentators were interested in, is personal freedoms and the right to choose.
I have a right to choose too.

And I want to join with the Pope, against the weakness of politicians and say that "homosexuality is a vast threat to the earth and to her peoples".

Its a world killer that people must turn from to stop the plague.

Dear Gibo,

People can only get infected with AIDS
from someone who has the
disease. And the disease does not
discriminate - anyone can get it.
Men/women - having unprotected sex.
Drug addicts sharing unclean needles.
You can get it from blood transfusions,
the list goes on.

It's an old misconception that homosexuality is
to blame for the disease.

FOXEY>>...Instead of giving his followers
a message of hope, and love, of their fellow human beings,
chose instead to condemn.

Sad, very, very, sad.>>

im sad too girl
he didnt say it
seems the media 'reporting' decieved you all yet again

as i recall it was in the news the day before [thats perhaps where you got the error from[media timming]

anyhow here is the transcript

ive read the darn thing twice
[still cant find referance to homo[nuthings]
http://www.zenit.org/article-24674?l=english

anyhow the big reason for the church stance is they dont want the priests distracted[if you get what im saying] if two priests are on their knees you expect them to be praying.

personally the only thing i have against it is the need to get our children for their non breeding program

i feel stick em on a island
[let em breed their own
[clearly if we all stop breeding the humans stop comming, ie we get extinct]

i can understand the homo sexuals[hating men cause you been rapped[or had a very pushy mother hood figure[or being teased by girls[or being judged by god]who knows [the pope sure dont[he reveals church doctrin is staying unchanged on the matter[a wise choice]

if you visit a certain homo site you will find my defense of homo sexuality[old test says to abstain from woman before cerimony
and song of soloman is about a homo erotic love affair]

BUT [its not for me,

and i suspect that articles complaining about the issue is a good way for converts to link up[thats gotta be better than tapping your foot in a rest room ,or haunting school yards]

and aids was invented to kill off homo sexual deviants[who were about the only people who got the monkey virus polio serum in the usa]

so do as you please but dont say the pope said it at jesus birth announcement[if he didnt]

Hi Foxy.
I dont doubt where HIV AIDS began.

Gay folks in the US in early 1980's showed its beginnings.

I know about the "permissive society" of the 60s and 70's.
I grew up in that era.
I know about free love and the hippy age and how infections spread because of the free love and I know how needles spread the virus.

Most of all I noticed... through my growing years... the great rise of homosexuals to power.

Even they tell the true story of where the plague began.

Whenever gays hear people speaking about gays and of the disease factor, more than a few get violently militant about their sexuality and their rights and push the truth out of their minds.

I really think they, themselves, as a community, know the truth.

They are the real source of the great plague.
They are the major spreaders today.
They are the destroyers of a world and it sexual health.

i often suspect aids was used to end the 'freelove' generation[who needs a lover who will give you a death sentance],

to know it was deliberated and exicuted so thoughrily by govt/big buiness collusions and it is this that makes me angry[thus i spoke harshly [no offense foxey]

i note the poster postulated the media deception in the origonal post as fact first and rightfully should have directed my response upon him

anyhow there is much dicusiion on the deliberated origen of this vile MAN MADE disease[not that man 'made'it but that the drug czars deliberatly allowed it to contaminate into other drugs that they were targeting at specific people[and children]but they do much the same through time

http://www.quantumbalancing.com/news/cancer_vaccines.htm

anyhow it is worth noting its a blood to blood route of transmission[homo tend to tear delicate tissue[somehow] in their [can it be called copulation?] its certainly not mating as such ,

but the thing is we all need love[and i know males dont do it for me, but i understand the gays have their own preferances]and what adults chose to do of their own freewill is their buisness [i just wish they would get on with doing what they want [but not in our media] every month we hear some sob story[poor me]

i have learned not to try to convert whatever preferance people feel they are[things girls get away with doing upon girls would be percieved differently if it was a man doing the same] i thought lesbians were tender lovers in chosing mono sexual partnering ;rejecting the brutish males[i dont think this error anymore]

anyhow i have egsausted the need to make comment on the topic[read the link , learn its not even the end of the vile those drug czars are doing[to the poor ;they supposedly are meant to be helping]

anyhow smoke if you have em

god dont judge fags][he dont judge anyone] they have their own room [in the many rooms of gods heavenly house] ,just the same ,just be carefull you are what you eat

gulp

“It is very sad though that a religious leader
in his Christmas message,
instead of focusing on the real problems that face
humanity, such as poverty, disease, overpopulation,
injustice, oppression, and the devastation of our
natural environment, chose instead to foster hatred.

Instead of giving his followers
a message of hope, and love, of their fellow human beings,
chose instead to condemn.

Sad, very, very, sad.”

That’s about the size of it Foxy.

The Pope; such a mighty figure on the world stage. And oh so so soo sooo soooo sooooooooo misfocussed !!

The worst thing about Pope Benedict's homophobic pronouncement is that it gives authoritative support to the kinds of ignorant sentiments expressed here by Gibo and other bigots. Fortunately, I don't think any sane reader would take Gibo's drivel seriously.

Curiously, I find myself agreeing 100% with Col's comment on this issue. Cripes, what's happening?!?

Dear CJ,

In the Pope's message I see a narrowness,
lack of feeling, a growing inability to care.
A going back to an arrogant Church that knows
no way except the way of law. A Church that
can hold its ears and ignore the voices
raised in pain. And above all it is an un-Christian
Church that can lose ideals in a multitude of laws.

Christ's message was, "that you love
one another as I have loved you."

It's a message the Pope seems to have forgotten.

UOG and Tuckeroo,
Firstly Tuckeroo, in your first post you referred to the Popes xmas-eve message, have you got link to your information.

Secondly UOG, In one of your posts you refer to the Popes xmas day message. In that there was no mention of homosexuals. This may not be the message that Tuckeroo was referring to.

Can you both clarify which speech refers to homosexuality as it is important to get this right. I hate to see anyone condemned by a media misquote. I can think of a couple of clasic instances where the media got it wrong.

Good People,

This is the translation of the speech given by the Pope to the Roman curia. (Fancy name for a bunch of elders)

The Christmas message from the Vatican is another speech altogether.

It is laced with Catholic institutionalised homophobia. The text is comprised of superfluous language more suited to a waffle iron. Of course, this is a translation and it may not be totally accurate.

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/213106?eng=y

David

CJ I had the exact same thought when I read Col's post.

I am not yet fully convinced that I've read it correctly so I'm going back to check. I would never have guessed that he and I would be in agreement on anything.

I am pretty interested in One Under God's post - it's very entertaining.

This website may also be of interest:

Times On Line -

"Pope Benedict on Homosexuality."

Dec. 23 2008.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5388920.ece

I know what I observed CJ.
You must have been asleep during that period the gays were on the rise or a bit too young or maybe similarly inclined along 'that road' as well not to have noticed what had happened.
Many of you folk just dont look at what goes on in our world each day.

Did Benedict really say those nasty things about homosexuals? Or is the ruthless gay lobby inventing it all?

The answer is no, but yes. He spoke/wrote in Italian. The contemporary Italian word for all things sexually "unnatural" is "gender" which equates roughly with what Australians would call "gender-bending". The term includes homosexual bisexual, transgender and all such abominations. The Roman Catholic blogsites (see below) recognise that this was his precise meaning - he was talking about all of the "perverts" whose very existence, he believes, is a threat to the human race. So "no" he didn't use the word "homosexual" in his words to the Curia. But "yes" the word he used includes homosexuals and more.

See http://mysterium-fidei.blogspot.com/2008/12/popes-address-to-roman-curia.html

Dec 22, 2008
Pope's address to Roman Curia
[quoted verbatim from the Mysterium-fidei blogsite]

Pope Benedict took an unconventional approach today to stand up to what he sees as gender-bending, saying protecting heterosexuality was as important as saving the rainforest.

"(The Church) should also protect man from the destruction of himself. A sort of ecology of man is needed," the pontiff said.... "The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less."

The Pope stressed that the Church would defend the traditional roles of "a man and woman, and to ask that this order of creation be respected".

He turned his attention to those people who call themselves in Italian "gender" or "transgender" — a broad term that includes anyone who doesn't identify entirely with their assigned sex and can include homosexuals, bisexuals, pansexuals and others....

"What's often expressed and understood with the term 'gender', is summed up definitively in the self-emancipation of man from the created and the Creator … But in this way, he lives in opposition to truth, he lives in opposition to the Creator," the pope said.
[end of quote]

Gibo: << I know what I observed CJ. >>

Let's just say that most of us don't observe the stuff you do, Gibo - you know, demons, witches, UFOs and such. I'm not much younger than you, and I certainly missed the bit where gays destroyed the world.

Tuckeroo - it seems that the new Pope is riffing on the old "stop it or you'll go blind" approach. Now it's "stop it or the human species will die out".

Very contemporary of him, I think. Trouble is, billions of people around the world take notice of the old prude.

Indeed, Pope’s Christmas Message was devoted to peace in the Middle East and stability in Africa (see e.g. http://www.zenit.org/article-24674?l=english as provided by OUG for those who are interested).

As already noted by others, what people are objecting to is a couple of paragraphs in his annual address to the Curia delivered on 22nd December dealing with the 08 WYD in Sydney and environmentalism. It does not contain the words “homosexual“ or any other explicit reference to homosexuality, although it certainly contains general statements (as well as a restatement of the fact - obvious until recently - that marriage is between man and woman) that, indeed, must have enraged those who do not see homosexuality as an aberration.

I'm probably chiming in too late but yep it had nothing to do with his Christmas message. It related to comments to Roman curia.

Albeit in his rather unique and characteristically nuanced manner which media equally characteristically fail to reasonably represent, he is a Christian leader preaching Christian orthodoxy in house. That is the essence of the 'event'. One would think that was rather pedestrian, unsurprising, and unnewsworthy. If on the other hand he had told Roman curia that they should advocate 'gay marriage' that would be much more interesting.

I suspect the media were having a slow patch and reported it hoping people would mistakenly think it was his Christmas message and form the sorts of opinions that were expressed early on in here. If people with that misimpression get stirred up enough it might generate further news during a slow period. It is a possibility that a gay activist might get upset if they thought that that was the Pope's Christmas message and take action.

Yeah,It is certainly not a xmas message. Its an in house thing and media trying to blow it into something. If homosexuals get upset over that they all I can say is they are a bit over sensitive, poor little dears.

And I am not religous at all and could not care less.

This is addressed to any reliable information source.

Within the mindset as outlined by Rudyard Kipling (and I agree) "I keep six honest serving men, and their names are - what & why & when and how & where & who - they taught me al I KNOW.

an answer please is the following true or false - within in Kiplings mens assesment. (above)

"The understanding of God is called "theism" in Theological circles
But "theism" is NOT God: it is nothing but a human definition of God - and a radically inadequate one atthat.
So who is God ? No one can realistically say. That is not within human competence.
Once we accept the fact that there is no thestic God who will come to our aid, Religious Authority crumbles.
For it is the claim to be able to either speak to God or to explain Devine behaviour that is the source of all Religious authority.

Further more all things are accomplished in real time which is now the 21st century what happened yesterday is history - some times correctly recorded - more often not.

Rajah

Most commentators seem incapable of distinguishing a comment , by the Pope or any other Christian , that homosexual activity is contrary to Christian doctrine , from the comments which are made consistently by Christian leaders , that it is not wrong for a person to have homosexual preferences . Of course , the Catholic Church and most other mainstream churches , say that it is wrong for persons [ whether naturally homosexual or generally heterosexual ] to engage in homosexual activity . That results in Christians ,who are homosexual , having to remain celibate , which presents them with an extremely difficult life . Heterosexual Christians are also required by Catholic teaching to abstain from heterosexual activity , except with their spouse , which is almost as difficult . That it is difficult to restrain oneself from doing an act , does not make the act right .
The Pope has every right to explain Catholic doctrine . If persons do not agree with the teaching , they have the freedom to disregard the Pope 's explanation ; but , in that event , they cannot be expected to continue being treated as Catholics in good standing .
Most of the persons who complain about the Catholic doctrine on homosexual activity [ not on homosexuality , in itself ] are not affected by it , as they are not practising Catholics . The doctrine gives them just one more excuse to criticise Catholicism , in particular , and organised religion , in general.

As a 'lapsed' catholic, I know I won't be listening to anything the leaders of the catholic church say until they start living in the 21st century.

How can a group of men who havent experienced a marriage, a realtionshop with the opposite sex or even had children tell anyone what they are to do and what they should believe in?

Its such hypocracy - how can the pope condemn a way of life that many of his own priests take part in - how many cases, especially lately have there been where a priest has abused a male child. Its ridiculous!

Until they bring the catholic church into the present and allow their leaders to live a normal way of life and be allowed to have sex and marry they will always attract sick perverts who have nothing else except there perverted desires.

one under god: <song of soloman is about a homo erotic love affair>

Song of Solomon 1:13 A bundle of myrrh is my wellbeloved unto me; he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts.

Song of Solomon 4:5 Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies.

Song of Solomon 4:10 How fair is thy love, my sister, my spouse! how much better is thy love than wine!

Song of Solomon 7:1 How beautiful are thy feet with shoes, O prince's daughter! the joints of thy thighs are like jewels, the work of the hands of a cunning workman.

Song of Solomon 7:7 This thy stature is like to a palm tree, and thy breasts to clusters of grapes.

one under god, were you just assuming no-one would verify your claim? If you must lie, you really should do it better than that.

Countryperson,

You obviously feel strong about priests not having sex (and homosexuality) but you are about 2000 years too late to change the situation with regard to sexual continence.

“How can a group of men who havent experienced a marriage, a realtionshop with the opposite sex or even had children tell anyone what they are to do and what they should believe in?”

How do people with an engineering degree tell people how to build a bridge? What exactly are you getting at and why do you assume that they haven’t had a relationship? The prohibition is on sex after becoming a priest.

I don’t suppose the following will be taken up so enthusiastically by the media:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iulo8u2HSLUmoEGxml4xvq1R1PpAD95BMMVO0

mjpb comments "I don’t suppose the following will be taken up so enthusiastically by the media:http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iulo8u2HSLUmoEGxml4xvq1R1PpAD95BMMVO0

I sympathise with your concerns and applaud Benedict's stance on the Gaza conflict. However, mjpb, there's an old story called "The boy who cried wolf". In case you've forgotten it, the moral is that people who repeatedly call out calamity when there is no calamity have only themselves to blame if their voice about real calamities is ignored.

Perhaps if Benedict restricted himself, as my original thread opener suggested, to matters of real importance (yes, like Gaza) then what he has to say about them might be taken seriously.

As an instance of the man's most recent unscientific pontifications about matters that are derisory in the extreme (in this case the contraceptive pill causing environmental destruction!) consider the following report and decide for yourself. This Bennie is a boy who calls wolf far too often for his own good.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jAOv_zU_KMSFrB0Mt7QEcsO0c4vg

Contraceptive pill is polluting environment: Vatican newspaper

VATICAN CITY (AFP) — The contraceptive pill is polluting the environment and is in part responsible for male infertility, a report in the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano said Saturday. The pill "has for some years had devastating effects on the environment by releasing tonnes of hormones into nature" through female urine, said Pedro Jose Maria Simon Castellvi, president of the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, in the report.

But that comment was from Pedro Jose Maria Simon Castellvi...(?)

Okay, I see where you are. And I never thought (as an atheist)that I'd have to teach (apparent) catholics how the Vatican operates, but here it is. The Pope is CEO of the world's biggest religious corporation. Nothing happens anywhere in that corporation without the Pope or his representatives being responsible for it. If something is published in the Vatican newspaper, or if a confederation of Catholic scientists release some research, it is all done with HIS approval. The buck stops with him, - he's the CEO, the boss, the top dog. If some Catholic medicos say that they have discovered something it means that Benedict has, in effect, sanctioned it. Understand that this is the way things operate. He doesn't have to say it personally, himself - he has literally hundreds of thousands of willing slaves doing his will, every one of them in fear of eternal damnation. That's all he needs. Right? If it comes from the Vatican or one of its subsidiaries, then HE has effectively said it, or okayed it.

Tuckeroo,

If that is oorrect he is a busy boy.

Well if he's God's representative on earth he has all the resources he needs, doesn't he? (just joking)