Vatican takes strong stance against gay marriage after US election

I had to laugh out loud on reading that the Vatican is unalterably opposed to gay marriage and views homosexual acts as "intrinsically disordered." This goes way beyond ordinary everyday hypocrisy. The Church has known for centuries that pedophilia was rampant within its cloistered walls. It knew that this horific behavior was intrinsically disordered but accepted it as almost an entitlement - and concealed it and protected the perpetrators even when the horrors came to the light of day. The victims were demonized for attacking Our Holy Mother The Church for monetary gain - until this defense was totally discredited. This is hypocrisy squared.

Male virgins in lacy dresses and fur trimmed cloaks telling everyone else how to live. There is no such thing as Church "teaching". It's just a collection of Dopey Popey opinions fuelled by overblown arrogance.

I wonder what the Catholic Church would have to say if the government passed a law requiring all religious officials to be married? How would that be any different than the Roman catholic church trying to require that all marriages / civil unions be between a man and a woman? In many cases the marriages / civil unions are out of necessity to enable the partner and children to have health benefits etc. If the church would keep their opinions within the church walls and only express them in regard to their own parishioners, then there would not be this great backlash against the church. The gall of the pope and his cronies is endless. Surely they must be aware that they are the laughing stock of the world for their outrageous insolence. Do they really think that their own parishioners believe the countless lies they tell? It's time they are taxed just like any other business. Hopefully the hypocrites will burn in Hell.

In respect to the question of gay marriage, who really cares. There are hundreds of thousands of people in the world who partake in many different types of sex and relationships. Why don't all the religions stick to tending their own flock. What business have they interfering in the lives of people who are not a member of their church? For the pope to comment on civil matters is irresponsible. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." How can these self righteous pedophiles preach anything about marriage when they launder mobsters money, condone impregnating nuns and rape children? And then to top it all off, they protect the pedophiles, rebuff their parishioners instead of helping them, deny the molestations are taking place and take actions to severely limit the financial liability of the church to the victims. IT'S TIME FOR ALL THE CHURCH HIERARCHY FROM PRIESTS TO THE POPE TO UNDERGO LIE DETECTOR TESTS TO DETERMINE THEIR ACTIONS AND KNOWLEDGE OF WRONGDOING IN THE CHURCH. They are great at denying participating in or having knowledge of the atrocities, but I'll wager they don't have the guts to own up to their actions. Their motto is "DO AS I SAY, DON'T DO AS I DO."

I wish I could say that I share their pain, but I can't. Sorry, boys, but until you can share the pain of raped children, nothing you can say to me will make any difference. Be real: the Vatican is adamant in its oppositon of gay marriage. What is their stand on priest-boy (same sex) marriage??? Their self-absorbed ignorance defies sympathetic comprhension. Does "authority" allow them to defy basic logic?? Guess God and the Nazi had taught them to think so.

1 Corinthians 14 [33b] "As in all the churches of the saints, [34] the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the Law says. [35] If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." Interesting how we don't hear this Scripture verse mentioned much. I guess this is one of those parts of the Bible considered "outdated".

I am giving up commenting here at Irish Central. Far too many idiots who cannot write, comment, and say the most ridulious things. Staff writers are sophomoric. Goodbye

The actual term 'gay marriage' is not proper. As it implies it is something different or special. "Equal access to marriage" is more correct. In terms of those who favor the concept of Civil Unions as opposed to Marriage, one should only think about the aspects of 'separate but equal' and its unfairness. It is also a disoriented jump by those in opposition to claim that this will lead to polygamy as the result. That actually has no real connection as it only deals with 2 men or 2 women who want to be legally recognized for inheritance, taxes, and benefits. Afterall, if anyone wants to speak about misuse of matrimony, one only needs to look at Elizabeth Taylor rather than try to be negative about a John and Harry or a Louise and Anita who want to be recognized for their love & devotion. In terms of polygamy, one only needs to look at the history of Romney's faith. CASE CLOSED! (Though not LDS, the prophets' FIRST wife, Emma Hale, was my m-in-l's g-g-aunt)

1 Corinthians 13 New King James Version (NKJV) The Greatest Gift 13 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned,[a] but have not love, it profits me nothing. 4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. 13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

You don't seem to realize, hermitT, that you enter a public forum on question like same-sex marriage. Here, you do not have the right to silence anyone! And you overstep greatly when you accuse others of "stalking" simply because they express opinions that you find obnoxious. Learn the rules we all play by. Authoritarianism gets no respect in debate. So in response to your words "If you are no longer a member leave the Church alone, stalking in any form is obnoxious and in this case, immoral," I say if you have no response to the arguments on the other side, then the counsel of propriety is for you to remain silent until you do.

HermitT: the question is when--if ever--a religious official may intervene in political decisions, viz, should LGBTs have the same rights under the law as others and equal treatment in social institutions such as marriage & adoption? No law will compel any priest to marry a same-sex couple; the question is "social and political," a family matter with no consequences for anyone else. Jesus' silence on such questions should guide us. Just as he rejected stoning the woman taken in adultry (they took her in flagrante delicto and let the man escape? Sure!), equal treatment DOES matter. If it doesn't apply equally to all sexes and orientations, it isn't a moral rule.

This is a test.

HermitTalker: the question is when--if ever--a religious official may intervene in political decisions, viz, should homosexuals have the same rights under the law as others and equal treatment in social institutions such as marriage & adoption? No priest can be compelled to marry a same-sex couple; the question is "social and political," a family matter with no consequences for anyone else. Jesus' silence on such questions should guide RC. Just as he rejected stoning the woman taken in adultry (they took her in flagrante delicto and let the man escape? Sure!), equal treatment DOES matter. Moral rules apply equally to all sexes and orientations.

The church always state that, in regarding to adult men and women. How does it stand on buggering children, with the expose on the 70% of sickos in john o gods in Australia. What does Benny the leader have to say about that. Do not forget Benny was the enforcer.

There are some very good comments below! I favor Civil Unions, but am against gay marriage. Civil Unions award the benefits described by jimgordo1. Marriage is rightfully between a man and a woman. I fully agree that anybody who takes Leviticus literally is somewhat disturbed! The gay issue aside, does anybody really want to see a single girl (or guy) stoned to death, as was actually (shockingly) practiced in the Colonial days? This reeks of modern Muslim fanaticism! I have a theory, concerning Fundamentalists: They are intelectually challenged! This applies to Christians, as well as Muslims, or any other religion, for that matter. Common sense should prevail, not a blind devotion to an ancient tome, be it the Bible, Book of Morman, or the Koran!