In mid-90s, Pope connected marriage crisis with homosexuality

[pepipop]

http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-new...an.php?id=5480

Very prophetic, and on a par with Pope Paul VI's warnings in relation to contraception.

A newly republished 1995 commentary of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger linked the breakdown of marriage to the rise of the acceptance of homosexuality, warning of the rise of “pressure groups” that could manipulate public opinion on such issues.

The future Pope Benedict XVI said it is not a coincidence that the growing social acceptance of homosexuality should be “accompanied by a serious crisis in the area of marriage and the family.”

Societal changes in the wake of the 1960s “sexual revolution” resulted in sexuality being more detached from marriage, and rejection of Catholic teaching on homosexuality made the pastoral care for homosexual persons “more difficult.”

“The satisfaction of the sexual impulse was propagandized as the way to happiness and to the true development of the personality,” he wrote. “Values like self-control and chastity were accepted less and less.”

The Pope’s comments came years before the Netherlands became the first country to recognize “gay marriage.”

Earlier this month, President Barack Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to voice support for recognizing “gay marriage,” while voters in North Carolina approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s commentary concerned his Oct. 1, 1986 letter from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith sent to all Catholic bishops under the title “On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.” Both the letter and the commentary have been published in a new edition in the Vatican Library series “Documenti e studi.” Previous editions have sold out and are unavailable in stores.

The Pope's 1995 comments blamed the moral crisis on the loss of a “metaphysical conception of nature.”

He criticized an understanding of nature that is only physical or empirical, in defense of views that reject sexual immorality as “unnatural.”

From the Christian perspective, he explained, an act is considered natural when “it is in harmony with the essence of man, with his being as intended by God.” In creation man can recognize a meaning and purpose which lead him to “true self-realization and to his happiness.”

“If human duty, in fact, is no longer seen as anchored in the being and therefore in the wisdom of the creator, there remains only the alternative that is derived from human wisdom. But then it is the work of man, subjected to the change of time, able to be reshaped and manipulated,” the Pope warned.

“Good and evil, then, would ultimately be decided by the majority. Then ‘pressure groups,’ which are able to guide mass opinion, have great prospects of success.”

[Mrs Sally]

Very, very interesting. I was struck by the thought that the rising acceptance of a 'gay lifestyle' makes it more difficult to minister to homosexuals.

Benedict is just so brilliant. God be with him!

[EmperorNapoleon]

I've always found it strange that people use gays a scapegoat for the failure of heterosexual marriages. Its not my fault if your marriage falls to pieces and, frankly, I've never heard of anyone filing for divorce on the grounds that gays exist or Joe and Frank are married. Can anyone cite specific examples of anyone filing for divorce on such grounds? Can anyone provide a shred of evidence that the legalization of gay marriage has had any impact on heterosexual marriage/divorce rates? Philosophical musings on the "essence of man" certainly don't cut it.

[HolyCow21]

EmperorNapoleon seems correct to me. If anything, the greater acceptance of homosexuality is leading gay people to not enter into a heterosexual marriage that will likely end in divorce and annulment. One sign I've seen on Facebook recently that also presented a good point had an image of a man who is gay (supposedly) and he was holding a sign that said, "Do you really want your daughter to marry me?" I assume that was his response to the people who say "gays can get married, just not to people of the same gender."

[pepipop]

Originally Posted by EmperorNapoleon

I've always found it strange that people use gays a scapegoat for the failure of heterosexual marriages. Its not my fault if your marriage falls to pieces and, frankly, I've never heard of anyone filing for divorce on the grounds that gays exist or Joe and Frank are married. Can anyone cite specific examples of anyone filing for divorce on such grounds? Can anyone provide a shred of evidence that the legalization of gay marriage has had any impact on heterosexual marriage/divorce rates? Philosophical musings on the "essence of man" certainly don't cut it.

Of course the acceptance of homosexual behaviour affects the concept of 'marriage' for the general public, particularly due to the media's obsession with it. As was also the case in the '60's following the acceptance and introduction of contraception, which consequences were accurately prophesied by Pope V1, i.e. women seen as sex objects, breakdown of marriages, etc..

The gay rights movement and acceptance of homosexuality further endorsed that relationships were only about a 'person's' freedom to 'love', which translated into having a sexual encounter with whichever person someone chose to be in 'love' with.

The acceptance of homosexuality further diluted the concept of 'marriage' as a union between a male and female to create and protect a family - to being a union of two people who had 'feelings' of 'love' for each other that culminated in a sexual relationship.

After condoms were introduced in African countries, the levels of AIDS did not decrease because the level of promiscuity rose, as had happened in the west previously. This is due to conditioning. Prior to contraceptives, religious beliefs, morality and shame would have lessened sexual encounters between heterosexuals, however after their introduction it was inferred psychologically that free sex is 'ok' and hence promiscuity rose as did the number of births and ST diseases.

Likewise, is the acceptance of sexual unions between persons of the same sex. This also 'conditions' the general public to interpret that any two humans can come together and form a relationship that is based only upon their attraction/love/lust for each other - with no necessity to procreate, just to act on their feelings for each other. Hence the original meaning of marriage between a male and female has been further diluted by the acceptance of homosexuality. After SS marriages are made legal the original meaning and concept of marriage is lost entirely.

[fix]

Originally Posted by EmperorNapoleon

I've always found it strange that people use gays a scapegoat for the failure of heterosexual marriages.

That is not what he is saying.

Its not my fault if your marriage falls to pieces and, frankly, I've never heard of anyone filing for divorce on the grounds that gays exist or Joe and Frank are married.

Again, that is not the point.

Can anyone cite specific examples of anyone filing for divorce on such grounds? Can anyone provide a shred of evidence that the legalization of gay marriage has had any impact on heterosexual marriage/divorce rates? Philosophical musings on the "essence of man" certainly don't cut it.

That is a reductionist understanding of the issue.

[scipio337]

Originally Posted by EmperorNapoleon

I've always found it strange that people use gays a scapegoat for the failure of heterosexual marriages. Its not my fault if your marriage falls to pieces and, frankly, I've never heard of anyone filing for divorce on the grounds that gays exist or Joe and Frank are married. Can anyone cite specific examples of anyone filing for divorce on such grounds? Can anyone provide a shred of evidence that the legalization of gay marriage has had any impact on heterosexual marriage/divorce rates? Philosophical musings on the "essence of man" certainly don't cut it.

Of course, overturing and redefining a 2000 year+ tradition, and the foundation of Western Civilization (the nuclear family), and equating heterosexuality with homosexuality will have no consequences, whatsoever.




One only need look to the multitude of benefits raised in a two parent household to see what the consequences are.

The state of marriage in American society is already undermined by high cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birth rates. Gay marriage will only make a bad situation worse.

Gay marriage will reinforce the idea that traditional marriages formed for the purpose of having children and providing a healthy mother-father environment is out, and alternative partnerships are in. See legalized gay unions in Scandinavia, where marriage rates have declined as the number of babies born to cohabitating has risen.

Marriages have plenty of reasons to fail on their own, without this issue cheaping its value as a time-honored institution.

[TarkanAttila]

Originally Posted by EmperorNapoleon

I've always found it strange that people use gays a scapegoat for the failure of heterosexual marriages. Its not my fault if your marriage falls to pieces and, frankly, I've never heard of anyone filing for divorce on the grounds that gays exist or Joe and Frank are married. Can anyone cite specific examples of anyone filing for divorce on such grounds? Can anyone provide a shred of evidence that the legalization of gay marriage has had any impact on heterosexual marriage/divorce rates? Philosophical musings on the "essence of man" certainly don't cut it.

Ah... I think you have it backwards. As does everyone else. The distortion of the proper understanding of marriages lead to contraception, divorce, and gay "marriage" - as well as a rise in single parenthood, poverty in families, especially single parents, as well as the rise in teen pregnancy, the rise in child mental problems, and the rise in general mental problems.

The breakdown in our understanding of reality has led to the plagues we've got, not the other way around.

[EmperorNapoleon]

Originally Posted by pepipop

Of course the acceptance of homosexual behaviour affects the concept of 'marriage' for the general public, particularly due to the media's obsession with it. As was also the case in the '60's following the acceptance and introduction of contraception, which consequences were accurately prophesied by Pope V1, i.e. women seen as sex objects, breakdown of marriages, etc..

Its amazing that people attribute all of those things to the 60s. Contraceptives have been in use for nearly 4,000 years. Women as sex objects? Prostitution has been around at least that long. As for the "breakdown of marriages"; monogamous marriage is a relatively recent social construct and I don't think the Church has had any ground to stand on in terms of that issue since the introduction of annulments.

Originally Posted by pepipop

The gay rights movement and acceptance of homosexuality further endorsed that relationships were only about a 'person's' freedom to 'love', which translated into having a sexual encounter with whichever person someone chose to be in 'love' with..

Baseless. Promiscuity does not have its origins in the "acceptance of homosexuality."

Originally Posted by scipio337

See legalized gay unions in Scandinavia, where marriage rates have declined as the number of babies born to cohabitating has risen.

Marriage rates in Scandinavia are all higher than they were prior to the legalization of gay unions and out-of-wedlock births in cohabitatating households has not seen any change in trend. I remind you that Kurtz was proven quite wrong years ago.

[JimR-OCDS]

EmperorNapoleon

Promiscuity does not have its origins in the "acceptance of homosexuality."

Correct.

However, acceptance of homosexual acts as being natural, along with all the other unnatural immolral acts committed by heterosexuals as well, are the fruits of promiscuity.

Or to put it another way, the effectual consequences are from the cause propagated by man.



Jim

[EmperorNapoleon]

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

However, acceptance of homosexual acts as being natural, along with all the other unnatural immolral acts committed by heterosexuals as well, are the fruits of promiscuity.Or to put it another way, the effectual consequences are from the cause propagated by man.

I don't believe that the fact someone doesn't want to bash my head in for being gay turns the whole of society into a bunch of sex crazed maniacs. Promiscuity is as old as time so do you have any facts or figures to back up your suggestion that there has been any increase since the "acceptance" of homosexuality? Frankly, I've never heard anyone claim that the "acceptance" of gays made them have sex.

[Luna Lovecraft]

Originally Posted by TarkanAttila

Ah... I think you have it backwards. As does everyone else. The distortion of the proper understanding of marriages lead to contraception, divorce, and gay "marriage" - as well as a rise in single parenthood, poverty in families, especially single parents, as well as the rise in teen pregnancy, the rise in child mental problems, and the rise in general mental problems.

The breakdown in our understanding of reality has led to the plagues we've got, not the other way around.

Can you provide sources for any of these claims?

[Dakota Roberts]

Originally Posted by scipio337

Of course, overturing and redefining a 2000 year+ tradition, and the foundation of Western Civilization (the nuclear family), and equating heterosexuality with homosexuality will have no consequences, whatsoever.




One only need look to the multitude of benefits raised in a two parent household to see what the consequences are.

The state of marriage in American society is already undermined by high cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birth rates. Gay marriage will only make a bad situation worse.

Gay marriage will reinforce the idea that traditional marriages formed for the purpose of having children and providing a healthy mother-father environment is out, and alternative partnerships are in. See legalized gay unions in Scandinavia, where marriage rates have declined as the number of babies born to cohabitating has risen.

Marriages have plenty of reasons to fail on their own, without this issue cheaping its value as a time-honored institution.

ah, the joys of conservatives, a desire to return to a slightly less degenerated state, but not to the original thing. Multigenrational families were the norm until the aftermath of WWII with suburbia.
Advantages:
allows the elderly to be better taken care of
less stress for the younger generation as they have a helping hand raising the children,
fewer children are latchkey kids,
more people are home in neighborhoods lowering burglary rate
cheaper living costs
etc.

[JimR-OCDS]

Originally Posted by EmperorNapoleon

I don't believe that the fact someone doesn't want to bash my head in for being gay turns the whole of society into a bunch of sex crazed maniacs. Promiscuity is as old as time so do you have any facts or figures to back up your suggestion that there has been any increase since the "acceptance" of homosexuality? Frankly, I've never heard anyone claim that the "acceptance" of gays made them have sex.

You're mixing the issue. Those who want to harm people because they are gay, is just another symptom of a disordered society.

Promiscuity is as old as original sin, but age of sin doesn't some how make it right.

I also never said acceptance of gays makes them want to have sex, but acceptance of homosexual acts as being moral, decays social morals as well as unnatural and promiscuous sex between heterosexuals does.

Legalization of prostitution in Amsterdam, only opened the flood gates of human trafficking. When the demand for sex is higher than the supply, the people running this sort of business will stop at nothing.

Sin spreads like cancer, and to deny sin is to deny an illness.

It's akin to a man being told he has a brain tumor, but does nothing about it, because tumors are natural. He merely ignores it and the tumor grows and kills him.

Jim

[TarkanAttila]

Originally Posted by Luna Lovecraft

Can you provide sources for any of these claims?

I am merely summing up what is common knowledge, at least around these parts.

Before the 1930s, it was understood by every Christian that we are to "be fruitful and multiply". Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, it didn't matter. While people did privately have abortions and contracept behind the back of the churches, it was never considered morally acceptable.

Then came the Lambeth Conference in the 1930s in the Anglican Church. The big turning point. Contraception was now morally OK'ed in some circumstances.

What happened afterwards, I don't know exactly. But I do know that Humanae Vitae radically shocked the Catholic world - at least in America and Britain - when it completely banned contraception. It was 1965, then. You can only imagine what even conservative Protestantism was like by then if the commission studying these issues under the archbishop of Krakow called it "stupid conservatism".

Before 1965 there was no objection from the courts as to the criminalization of fornication, adultery, contraception, and abortion. Of course, part of this was due to the Comstock laws, enacted in 1873 by Anthony Comstock. But in America before the sexual revolution in the 60s, abortion was illegal, contraceptives were advertised discreetly - often as "cleansing herbs" and the like, and of course it was not considered normal nor moral to have sex before marriage.

In 1965, contraception was legalised in the USA under Griswold vs. Connecticut. Between then and Roe v. Wade several state laws criminalising fornication and adultery were made and struck down, including sodomy laws (all of which are being struck down to this day).

Both the contraceptive and adultery laws which went to court were struck down on the grounds that, according to the courts, in every case, the government may not "reach into the bedroom of a private residence and criminalize the private, noncommercial, consensual acts of two persons legally capable of consenting".

Of course, we know that when two people contracept, they are trying to avoid having children. So what happens when they accidentally conceive? Either they'll carry it to term. Or, one way or the other, it will be gotten rid of.

In 1973, Kinda Coffeee, the attorney for the anonymous "Jane Roe", won in American courts the ability for a woman to have abortions on demand except in the third (and later second) trimester. Abortion was legalised universally and without question in the USA in Roe v. Wade. (In Britain, contraception had never been made illegal, and abortion was fully legalised over there in 1967.)

I think abortion, in some ways, may be a turning point in the "reproductive rights" movement, because since Roe, the federal government has been imposing more and more restrictions on abortion. Pro-choice advocates, especially Margaret Sanger's pet project Planned Parenthood have been fighting for their lives. But I think we're beginning to see there is a problem with killing children.

But we don't yet see that the legalisation of contraception would lead to a legalisation of abortion, and of worse evils. For they all stem from the same problem: a lack of respect for the intertwined nature of procreation and the sexual act. Pope Paul VI spoke of this in Humanae Vitae, especially in the seventeeth paragraph.

This might be the most relevant words of my entire post to the argument being made here:

Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

Adding also, that a man might, seeing it as little different from contraception, turn to a man and use him as a woman - or a woman might turn to another woman as if she were a man, for just the same reasons.