Now You Can Be Sued For Being Catholic


#1

The Catholic News Agency ran an article today entitled Mexican cardinal defends position on gay ‘marriage’ , but after reading it , I thought the title chosen for this thread is more to the article’s point.

The article basically says that

Both the Cardinal Norberto Rivera and Fr. Valdemar were sued for their statements in opposition to the country’s Supreme Court ruling allowing homosexual marriage and adoption

.

It is a classic case of reverse descrimination which keeps repeating itself in various human rights venues throughout the world … but oddly enough, it always seems to be gay rights persecuting the Catholic Church’s freedom of religion.

Human rights abrogating or negating “other” human rights isn’t something that is totally new. As one of my friends who is 20 years my senior and a wily veteran of the political fora put it : " You only really have rights if you have between $ 15, 000 and $ 50, 000 so you can go to court to defend them."

Back in 1999 ( according to MacLean’s Magazine ), the man who would become my country’s current right honourable Prime Minister remarked :

“Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society,” he said in a 1999 interview with Terry O’Neill of BC Report newsmagazine." It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff." He went on to complain about the “bastardization” of the entire concept of rights in modern society.

Now here’s something newer. Early in February of this year, about a month before he died, my dear old dad (about 30 years my senior) had written something down on a notepad and one particular day he kept repeating it to me. He had copied it from his latest issue of Catholic Insight. He kept looking me straight in the eye from his wheelchair and repeating it. Every time I said, “Okay”, he shook his head and would look me in the eye and repeat it again. Finally, I said, “Okay wait, I’ll write it down, repeat it slowly.” When I had written it down, I asked, “Who said it ?” He grabbed his latest edition of Catholic Insight and held it up to me saying “Here - it’s in here…He said it.” After a little navigating, I found out it was from an address given by Australian Cardinal George Pell. This is what dad kept repeating:

“…religious freedom is not a human right and may not be compatible with human rights.”

The article can be read as presented by Catholic Insight or you can read EWTN’s Zenit Dispatch version.

Cardinal Pell’s conclusion is based on a paper’s opening statement submitted by the Race Descrimination Commisioner to an inquiry into freedom of religion in Australia which the Human Rights Commission has been conducting. The opening statement reads thus :

***“The compatibility of religious freedom with human rights is the subject of the most comprehensive study ever undertaken in Australia in this area. …” ***

That means that the recurring scenario mentioned above is moving to it’s next stage. It won’t be a case of gay rights persecuting the Catholic Church’s right to freedom of religion any more. The opening staement in bold quoted directly above posits that : * freedom of religion is not a human right.*

That is borne out by Cardinal Norberto Rivera being sued for standing his ground (let’s all say a prayer or maybe a decade of the Rosary for the good Cardinal ).

A priest of our archdiocese once told me that the “english language has been taken hostage and we have to try and take it back.” I would expand on that saying those with an anti-Church agenda take any language hostage.

I welcome anyone who is versed in the science of picking out the lies, ambiguities, and prevaricative speech or equivocations to join the thread and share you wisdom with us. Everyone is welcome but I think our focus should be on helping each other to detect, identify and sift out all the deception in the purported substantiation of the charges of descrimination, and it’s related components. I think related stories would be helpful too.

I don’t think any anti-gay rhetoric would be beneficial here, it would only serve to get people banned…The same goes for pro-gay rhetoric and militance: Please take your comments elsewhere. This isn’t really about debate, I’m more interested in sharing a type of comparative analysis.

  • Our focus in this thread is on identifying the deception in the methods presently being used to persecute the Catholic Church (who has always been a champion of human rights) under the guise of or in the name of human rights.

Can anyone provide us with a link to the actual statements of Cardinal Norberto Rivera and Fr. Valdemar ? i haven’t been able to locate them so far and I think it’s a great place to start.

Thankyou in advance and God Bless.

:slight_smile:


#2

I still haven't found the statements by Cardinal Norberto Rivera and Fr. Valdemar yet. If anyone else does, please feel free to jump in and post them.

... Oh, BTW , while searching I found this Zenit article informing us that Cadinal Rivera and the priests and faithful at the Cathedral in Mexico City had been the target of acts of aggression a little less than three years ago. The protesters actually barged in during the celebration of a Sunday Mass , then "...threatened the faithful, the priests and Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera, archbishop of Mexico City, who was in Rome on Sunday."

It is further notable that after the attack, Father Hugo Valdemar Romero, director of communication for the Archdiocese of Mexico, issued a statement calling the event a "condemnable and cowardly act of terror, unequivocal expression of religious intolerance and of the hatred toward the Catholic Church."

... How much of a coincidence do you think that is ... the same two Soldiers of Christ and the two "main men" - Cardinal Rivera and Father Hugo Valdemar Romero ?

(* I think I'd better pray at least 2 decades for these dear brothers).:)


#3

I may have discovered parts of the statements for which Cardinal Rivera and Father Hugo Valdemar Romero are being sured. But I belive there is something much bigger here ; something happening on a global scale .It would be easier to understand in segments.

Let's pick it up from January 2010 .This article ; ( Statement January 4, 2010 , Reported January 7, 2010 ) Mexico archdiocese: Pro-gay marriage political party hates Church, wars on society . There is a slight variation in the wording from the CNS article it is based on - Mexico City Archdiocese says political party declared war on society but the message is the same:

The Archdiocese of Mexico City has accused a leading political party of "declaring war on Mexican society" by approving laws that legalize same-sex marriage and permit homosexuals to adopt children in the nation's capital ... Father Hugo Valdemar Romero, archdiocesan spokesman, also accused the Democratic Revolution Party of showing "its true face (...) intolerance and hatred toward the Catholic Church."

Of course, those kind of comments upholding the truth, aren't going to win you any friends from the gay militant circles- are they ?... and I would think we may assume the lawsuit had "foregone conclusion" written all over it because ...

...The party’s leader said on January 4 that it would lodge complaints with the government to prevent the Church from speaking on political matters...

and (second article)

...On Jan. 4, the national president of the Democratic Revolution Party, Jesus Ortega, said he would file complaints with the Interior Ministry accusing the archdiocese of improper church meddling in political matters...

...both prove intent, don't they ? And language such as, "to prevent the Church from speaking on political matters" and "accusing the archdiocese of improper church meddling in political matters" would have us actually believe they're making a case.

These are simply things to note at this point. The reader needs to see a few of these articles before we can begin to extract some of the main deceptive methods being employed by those who persecute the Holy Catholic Church.

Usually the main weapon in this war is words. But a question we might ask ourselves is : Will it continue to be ? Words used to be the sole weapon but it can turn a lot more ugly when we continue to uphold the truth (as we have seen referenced in post # 2). However, the most powerful weapon a Catholic always has, is prayer.

We should first acknowledge that these particular persecutors of the Holy Catholic Church use all sorts of manipulative language to obtain their goals... no different in this respect from the pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia groups . They key on language.

Remember the first post with Cardinal Pell's statement ? For his being a true son of the Holy Catholic Church and standing up for freedom of religion and conscience, the pro-gay marriage, pro-gay adoption groups decided several years prior to portray him this way to the public through the media : Pell Backs Discrimination Against Gays Remeber that word - "discrimination", the protagonists presently persecuting the Catholic Church always remember it, and they cling to it as if it were the Holy Gospel. But what really hurts, is that article "Pell Backs Discrimination Against Gays" was published by ABC News , Australia, who claim to be (this claim appears on other websites too) "The ABC is Australia's most trusted, independent source of news. Our network of more than 500 journalists at home and abroad provide unrivalled coverage of the news ..."

You see, when these particular groups apply pressure to quiet someone speaking the truth, and the person continues to speak it, inordinate efforts are made to stick that person with all types of labels. And the media just love to read those labels over and over to us out *LOUD ! *

:)

So an initial point to remember in the current persecution against the Holy Catholic Church, is that the protagonists key on manipulative language and their favourite place to do it is in (ahem) "trusted" mainstream media. That's where it has the most effect. That's also where the group easily gives the illusion of appearing much larger than they really are.

(I know this isn't a thread in the Prayer forum, but I intend to say at least one Hail Mary for every Cardinal and priest who is in the frontline trenches facing this current persecution and to remember them at Holy Mass each time I post).


#4

As documented by CNS, approximtely 5 weeks later, the lower house of Mexico's Congress' approve a proposed constitutional amendment that would enshrine separation of church and state. The protagonists are making progress on their threat. The linked news brief is short enough to post here :

Catholic leaders upset with proposed change to Mexican Constitution

MEXICO CITY (CNS) -- Catholic leaders across Mexico expressed disappointment with the lower house of Congress' approval of a proposed constitutional amendment that would enshrine separation of church and state. Statements issued by the archdioceses of Mexico City, Guadalajara and Leon described the proposed wording as "regrettable" and a setback for religious freedom in a country with a history of contentious church-state relations. The statements also described the change as an attempt to silence Catholics and other religious groups at a time when Mexican politicians are addressing social issues such as abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage. "No one disputes the proper and healthy separation of the spheres covered by church and state," said Father Hugo Valdemar Romero, spokesman for the Archdiocese of Mexico City, in a statement Feb. 12, the day after the legislation passed. "But it's questionable if what is understood by 'secular' is an irrational, anti-religious attitude that is specifically anti-Catholic and attempts to regulate and subjugate the church in regard to its evangelizing and social mission." To amend the constitution, the legislation still would have to be approved by the Senate, half of Mexico's state legislatures and President Felipe Calderon.

What can be observed if we scratch the surface here as the conflict begins to mount are the men of vision - the Church, pitted against the men of machination who are proceeding to arm themselves with legislation. They will perform all sorts of gymnastics to convince you that the legislation is in the name of "human rights", but any analyst with a conscience and half a brain can tell you, bluntly, it is anti-Church legislation - trampling the rights of believers.

The men (and women) of vision are at a clear disavantage. They can anticipate what an enemy could do armed with such (ahem) "legislation", but they can't actually accuse them of doing it until it is done ... By that point, it's too late. Notice also that the other archdioceses are behind Mexico City on this one - Guadalajara and Leon, because they realize the disatrous potential. However, in one way, it plays right into the enemy's hands because the whole idea is to paint the entire Catholic Church as the enemy of the state. That's a much easier task when you have all the archdioceses in one basket. However the Church has no alternative but to stand united, because satan's modus operandi is always the same : Divide and conquer.

Check out this part again

The statements also described the change as an attempt to silence Catholics and other religious groups at a time when Mexican politicians are addressing social issues such as abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage.

Also noteworthy is the fact that ,in the whole exercise, it isn't even necessary for the Church's enemies to silence Catholics for good ... only for the critical duration while the "legislation" is slithering its way towards becoming law.

Once it is law, ...:shrug:... just try speaking up...and see where you end up.
Here in Canada we have hate laws which limit our freedom of speech to a greater extent than in the good ol' USA. The ironic part is that when groups of "sexual orientation" were finally included under the protection of these hate laws ( in Section 319 of Canada's Criminal Code in the year 2004), religious groups had already been enshrined previously under the original law - which included four groups : colour, race, religion, and ethnic origin.

What we see now in this country, is (to use the same word as the Honourable Stephen Harper) a "scary" imbalance between the two.

People are told, "Don't make waves...Don't get involved...Don't be intolerant." We can become lulled or numbed into a state where we don't even pray about these things any more.

We aren't quite at the point yet where we'll get arrested for saying, " I'm a heterosexual ... and I like being that way", but no one goes around shouting it, and ,we're inordinately politically correct in Canada presently ...

...as a Franciscan friar friend of mine one jested : "We're so politically correct here, we're not even allowed to say someone is dead anymore - we have to say they're metabolically challenged".

:)


#5

[quote="NeedImprovement, post:1, topic:214084"]
The Catholic News Agency ran an article today entitled Mexican cardinal defends position on gay 'marriage' , but after reading it , I thought the title chosen for this thread is more to the article's point.

The article basically says that .

It is a classic case of reverse descrimination which keeps repeating itself in various human rights venues throughout the world ... but oddly enough, it always seems to be gay rights persecuting the Catholic Church's freedom of religion.

[/quote]

I'm sorry, but I really don't get the part where gay rights for gay people is persecuting the Catholic Church's freedom of religion. They're not trying to prevent the CC from practicing their religion. It's the reverse actually: Catholic opponents of gay rights are the ones trying to stop gay people from living their lives as gay people. I'd hardly call that preventing the CC from practicing its faith. We, as Catholics, are free to practice our religion, which involves not being in a homosexual relationship. It would be discrimination if we were forced to be in a gay relationship, but we're not. By protecting the "rights" of gay civilians the government by not tolerating Catholics forcing non-Catholics to adhere to Catholic rules, they are not discriminating against Catholics and preventing them from practicing their faith...just saying. I don't get how gay people living the gay livestyle is hindering Catholics from practicing their faith...


#6

[quote="Rence, post:5, topic:214084"]
I'm sorry, but I really don't get the part where gay rights for gay people is persecuting the Catholic Church's freedom of religion. They're not trying to prevent the CC from practicing their religion. It's the reverse actually: Catholic opponents of gay rights are the ones trying to stop gay people from living their lives as gay people. I'd hardly call that preventing the CC from practicing its faith. We, as Catholics, are free to practice our religion, which involves not being in a homosexual relationship. It would be discrimination if we were forced to be in a gay relationship, but we're not. By protecting the "rights" of gay civilians the government by not tolerating Catholics forcing non-Catholics to adhere to Catholic rules, they are not discriminating against Catholics and preventing them from practicing their faith...just saying. I don't get how gay people living the gay livestyle is hindering Catholics from practicing their faith...

[/quote]

And obviously you're not alone. Furthermore I would agree in saying that you have just stated the ideal : Gay people living their gay lifestyle is not supposed to hinder Catholics from living their faith. Perhaps you could explain to me why it is necessary for a government to pass legislation so that the Church doesn't speak out (on all issues) concerning morals.

Or we could cut directly to the chase and you might explain clearly, according to the information on hand, "Why" is the Catholic Church of Mexico currently being sued ?

If you would care to offer me *your *definition of marriage, I might be able to illustrate several additional points to you in a way that you might perhaps "get".

Please permit me to comment that from the outset of this thread , in the original post, it was stipulated

[quote="NeedImprovement, post:1, topic:214084"]
I don't think any anti-gay rhetoric would be beneficial here, it would only serve to get people banned...The same goes for pro-gay rhetoric and militance: Please take your comments elsewhere. This isn't really about debate, I'm more interested in sharing a type of comparative analysis.

  • Our focus in this thread is on identifying the deception in the methods presently being used to persecute the Catholic Church ...under the guise of or in the name of human rights.

[/quote]

I even found myself teetering a little away from that objective, and I realize this is not an easy line to straddle - particularly with this issue. But, it is necessary to lay out a fair amount of articles for anyone following this thread before many will "get" what's happeneing here. We aren't there yet. If you have anything else to offer besides your opinion - or perhaps precisely what you are basing your opinion on, feel free to post it, but as I said, we're focusing on the deception being used. I do appreciate your input and interest so I'll provide you with a link I hadn't intended to produce until a little later in the pathology. Perhaps it will help you see where I'm coming from. Please have a look here

For anyone else following the posts, I originally intended to keep it chronological a little longer with focus on the Catholic Church in Mexico, but the link in the previous paragraph goes back to 2003.


#7

[quote="Rence, post:5, topic:214084"]
... I don't get how gay people living the gay livestyle is hindering Catholics from practicing their faith...

[/quote]

There is another point which I intented to present later, but, for the sake of clarity, it should be mentioned here. I do not say it is intentional but the above statement could possibly be misconstrued to give the impression that there is no such thing as a gay Catholic. In fact there are Catholics who are gay who often struggle with either their sexual orientation, or their faith, and/or both. I also know several men with wives and children who feel an attraction for men. I also know a mother of three children who is now openly lesbian.

That being said, for the original objective of the thread, it is only necessary to establish two groups in reference here: Those who are simply gay, and those who are gay and actively engage in the gay militant agenda. However, the focus is not on them. It is on the deception being used to persecute the Church.


#8

My understanding is that the Cardinal was not sued for his statements about gay people or gay marriage. He was sued by the Mayor of Mexico city for publically claiming that the mayor had bribed the Mexican Supreme Court to rule in favor of gay marriage.

latimesblogs.latimes.com/laplaza/2010/08/mexico-city-supreme-court-gay-adoptions.html


#9

[quote="TMC, post:8, topic:214084"]
My understanding is that the Cardinal was not sued for his statements about gay people or gay marriage. He was sued by the Mayor of Mexico city for publically claiming that the mayor had bribed the Mexican Supreme Court to rule in favor of gay marriage.

latimesblogs.latimes.com/laplaza/2010/08/mexico-city-supreme-court-gay-adoptions.html

[/quote]

This is a different cardinal and whatever purported comments they say he's being sued for appear to be his own. The original link provided in the original post, names a different cardinal - Cardinal Rivera of Mexico city and the date is more recent - Sept 26th as opposed to August 18th ... not saying there isn't some connection, but as I was lamenting: I'd sure like to know exactly what the comments of Cardinal Rivera were which led to he and Father Hugo Valdemar Romero being

sued for their statements in opposition to the country’s Supreme Court ruling allowing homosexual marriage and adoption

One of the links in the article you provided, brings us a little closer ( :thumbsup: ) - it's a statement issued by Mexico's Bishops, the article is dated August 17th ( to verify the bishops' statement, go to TMC's linked LA Times article and click on the link in pph 4 "said it supports"). I still don't see any quote by Cardinal Rivera yet though.

Here is the latest development on the case you brought up TMC - a news release by CNS issued today, Oct 4th

That statement by the bishops of Mexico reported August 17th, 2010 is worth reading. It follows in the next post.


#10

Mexico City, Mexico, Aug 17, 2010 / 09:59 pm (CNA).- The Bishops’ Conference of Mexico released a statement on Tuesday rejecting the decision by the country’s Supreme Court to uphold the legality of same-sex “marriage” and to allow gay couples to adopt. The prelates remarked that the ruling not only goes against the natural order, but also against the will of the people.

Here is the complete statement titled, “Responsibility and Free Expression, a Right of Every Person.”

During recent days the media has bombarded us with the controversial issue of same-sex 'marriage' and their adoption of children.

We are all aware of Mexico City Assembly’s decision to pass a law that opened the door to these kinds of unions. This decision was carried out hurriedly, without the necessary consultation of different leaders in society and without concern for the consensus of the majority, which was against such unions and especially the adoption of children. The steamroller of the ruling party prevailed and debate on the issue was set aside to the detriment of the majority of society that was shown to be against it.

The attorney general's office challenged the measure’s constitutionality before the Supreme Court, thus demonstrating its disagreement. Yesterday, the Supreme Court ended its debate without getting to the heart of the issue and only confirming the legality of the juridical process carried out by the Mexico City Legislative Assembly.

The Bishops of Mexico, sensitive to the opinion of the majority not only in Mexico City, but also in the entire country, exercising the freedom of expression guaranteed by our democratic political regime, manifest our total disagreement with the ruling issued by the Supreme Court, with all due respect for the institutions of the Mexican State. We believe that to make these unions equal to marriage is disrespectful both to the very essence of marriage between a man and a woman, as expressed in article 4 of the Constitution, as well as to the customs and the very culture that has governed us for centuries.

The Church, made up of all the baptized, watches over the rights of those who cannot defend themselves, and in this case, children who are the weakest among us. For this reason, based on natural law and our faith, as pastors, the bishops have always and will always be on the side of the rights of the unborn, of those who cannot watch over themselves, of those humiliated and exploited in every sphere.

The Holy Father, Benedict XVI, at different times and with appropriate reflections, has insisted on the importance of safeguarding the fundamental values of the human person from conception to natural death. Likewise, he has expressed the importance of respecting and protecting creation, nature in general and human nature in particular. The environmental awareness that has won so many converts for the safeguarding of different species, respecting their natural processes, should include the human species, whose dignity and consciousness of its own development is superior to all. For this reason, the Church discovers in nature itself the dignity of marriage between a man and a woman. This encourages us to promote the dignity of the couple and their offspring by appealing to natural and moral values.

We lament that in manifesting these concepts to the public, there exist those who respond with recriminations and threats, claiming this is intolerant, when tolerance is supposed to ensure that we call all express our opinions and positions. For this reason, we express our solidarity and our feelings to Cardinals Norberto Rivera Carrera and Juan Sandoval Iniguez about this delicate issue.

What Mexico is experiencing now demands a dignified debate that unites us and in which all members of society together address the problems that afflict us: the lack of security, violence, corruption, unemployment, etc. It is urgent that our country put an end to the hindrances of stubbornness, exclusion and prejudices of all kinds, and that all of us as brothers and sisters strive to build a Mexico with room for all and respect for the rights of each individual, where transparency and the good use of democratic freedoms make our nation prosperous based on transcendent values.

As pastors of the People of God and brothers of all, we bishops call on the faithful to pray to the Holy Mary of Guadalupe for the decisions of our leaders and for all the children who have no voice but who have the right to have a family that can be an example of virtues for them.”

(...Looks like I wasn't that far off when I said several decades of the Rosary over it)
:)


#11

Sometimes, it's the little things that matter. Notice how in the first sentence of the bishops' statement above, the word **marriage **is enclosed in single quotes. The Mexican Conference of Bishops has clear vision on these issues. It is my hope we can revisit this (the word 'marriage' in single quotes in the bishops' statement) later.

I believe I may have located, at least, some of exactly what Cardinal Rivera said which has resulted in him being sued ... Whole story at this link.

The article isn't that long, so let's have a look at the entire thing to keep the quotes and paraphrases within their context:

*Cardinal:High court wrong to uphold gay marriage *
Associated Press
Monday Aug 9, 2010

Cardinal Norberto Rivera sharply criticized Mexico’s Supreme Court on Sunday for upholding a law allowing homosexuals to marry in the capital, calling the ruling "aberrant" and "immoral."

The Roman Catholic archbishop said it was wrong to go against Christian doctrine that recognizes only marriages between a man and a woman.

"The church cannot fail to call evil evil," Rivera said in a statement.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court on an 8-2 vote upheld the constitutionality of gay marriages in Mexico City under a law passed by the state legislature. The federal government had sought to nullify the law.

The Federal District is the only part of Mexico that allows gay marriages. The city government said last week that since 320 same-sex couples had married since March, 173 of them male and 147 female.

Rivera said homosexuals have suffered abuses from the broader society, but argued that allowing same-sex marriages is not the way to try to atone for such injustices.

He called same-sex unions "inherently immoral," saying they "distort the nature of marriage raised by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament."

The Roman Catholic archbishop said it was wrong to go against Christian doctrine that recognizes only marriages between a man and a woman.

"The church cannot fail to call evil evil," Rivera said in a statement.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court on an 8-2 vote upheld the constitutionality of gay marriages in Mexico City under a law passed by the state legislature. The federal government had sought to nullify the law.

The Federal District is the only part of Mexico that allows gay marriages. The city government said last week that since 320 same-sex couples had married since March, 173 of them male and 147 female.

Rivera said homosexuals have suffered abuses from the broader society, but argued that allowing same-sex marriages is not the way to try to atone for such injustices.

He called same-sex unions "inherently immoral," saying they "distort the nature of marriage raised by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament."

Copyright Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Now, compare everything Cardinal Rivera has said to this sticky posted at the top of our CAF Social Justice Forums header.

It certainly appears to confirm the statement embodied in the title of our thread : Now You Can Be Sued For Being Catholic - doesn't it ?

Any Catholic lawyers out there ? If so, would you care to give an opinion as to whether, if these current lawsuits successfully stand, it would be plausible following subsequent distortions of the law ,that a Catholic priest could be sued for refusing to bless a gay 'marriage' in Mexico ?


#12

I'm not sure what exactly the "slur" might be for which accusations have been leveled against Cardinal Sandoval, Archbishop of Guadalajara , but according to the excerpt below taken from this article , the soldier still has his sense of humour (highlights mine):

(Note: Cardinal Sandoval, Archbishop of Guadalajara, called the country’s supreme court “a supreme disappointment” and suggested that the Mayor of Mexico City and left-leaning international organizations gave “gifts” to the justices for their votes, prompting the mayor to file a defamation lawsuit against the cardinal yesterday. The Mexican Supreme Court earlier issued a rare censure against the cardinal for his remarks. Cardinal Rivera is the Archbishop of Mexico City, who has come under harsh attack for his strong defense of natural marriage and his opposition to homosexual adoptions.)


#13

It may be because they called for civil disobedience against the law in statements they gave a couple months ago. One specific article mentions them both by name, calling for disobedience against the legalizing of same-sex "marriage" and adoption.

Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera of Mexico City denounced a recent Mexican Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of a same-sex marriage law in the nation's capital as an "aberrant judgment."

The church "cannot stop calling evil, 'evil,'" he said in a statement read after his Aug. 8 homily in the city's Metropolitan Cathedral.

"The absurd approval of this law that can be legal, but never moral, allows us to be conscious of the unequaled value of family ... and is an opportunity to continue raising our prayers to God for our leaders," he said.

"Even though we are called to be respectful of the civil laws, we have a moral duty to not make vain God's commandments and avoid falling into permissiveness that damages the fundamental principles of our faith and the precious value of family," the cardinal said the statement, which was read by two congregants.

Other Catholic leaders outside of Mexico City also criticized the ruling.

"We strongly condemn the approval of civil weddings between men and women of the same gender, and we make a call to faithful Catholics so that ... what's civil doesn't dominate what's moral," Father Raul Villegas, spokesman for the Archdiocese of Leon, said Aug. 5 in comments to the newspaper A.M. Leon.

Read the entire article here: catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1003221.htm

The fact that both are mentioned in this article, and both are calling for civil disobedience against the so-called "rights" to gay "marriage" and adoption, this makes me think that these may be the statements they're being sued for.


#14

Oh, I just found this from a couple months ago:

Mexico City Chief of Government Marcelo Ebrard and other members of his party have filed complaints against several representatives of the Catholic Church in Mexico for "homophobia" and "moral damage" following criticisms of the city's new homosexual "marriage" and adoption laws.

... Diocesan spokesman Fr. Hugo Valdemar is also being charged along with Sandoval Iñiguez, apparently for his recent statements accusing Ebrard of creating "laws that are destructive to the family, that cause worse damage than narcotrafficking." In addition, a complaint has been filed against the Cardinal Archbishop of Mexico City, Norberto Rivera Carrera, for reasons unstated in the Mexican media.

The article can be found here: lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/aug/10082002.html


#15

Among the several good points you make, I think the best one may have been inadvertent. Upon first read, the article really does appear that way . If we have another look , the only specific thing Cardinal Rivera encouraged the faithful to do was to see the “… opportunity to continue raising our prayers to God for our leaders.”

In the next paragraph, he simply confirms our moral duty.

I suppose , if someone wanted to, they might be able to construe

“We strongly condemn the approval of civil weddings between men and women of the same gender, and we make a call to faithful Catholics so that (…) what’s civil doesn’t dominate what’s moral,”

as a call to civil disobedience, but, without knowledge of the wording represented by the ellipsis , it’s very hard to tell. At this point, we could equally speculate that it was yet another call to prayer.

However, if we read the article a second time, we discover that Cardinal Rivera did not say those words at all. The article says those words were stated by," Father Raul Villegas, spokesman for the Archdiocese of Leon". And this was a separate statement (“Other Catholic leaders outside of Mexico City also criticized the ruling.”) made on August 5th, while the article says Cardinal Rivera’s statement was “read after his Aug. 8 homily in the city’s Metropolitan Cathedral.” (Let’s hit pause here for a second. It makes me wonder if one or two may have been attending Mass for the sole reason of having something to incriminate Cardinal Rivera with)
.
There are people who make a living out of wording things deceptively - it’s their livelihood. That is a fact - I’ve had to deal with some over a protracted period (about 5 years). It’s to the point here where they can even influence medical reports given to certain (ahem) agencies.

One of the professional deceivers’ tactics is to never line up dates for comparison right beside each other when they are trying to create their illusion. Sometimes, the wording is so slick, that well-meaning people repeating a *so-affected *story may actually not even be aware there is any deception in what they are recounting . One of the deceivers’ most successful strategies is to only tell part of the truth (I think we’ve all heard of a *half-truth *… we know who the main author of those is) . People well versed in this practice can create a collage of partial truths and arrange them in such a manner that they convey an idea or image totally opposed to the real truth. Leaving out some of the truth can become an even bigger lie than a blatant lie. It’s one of the reasons we’re asked to “…tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth” in a court of law.

Getting back to that point of implied civil disobedience , it would seem to support the question proposed earlier at the conclusion of post # 11- that if the present law in Mexico continues to be evolve into distortions , how long before a Catholic priest is charged with civil disobedience for refusing to bless a gay ‘marriage’…?.. When things become corrupted , often it doesn’t even actually have to be a real case of civil disobedience as long as someone who has access to the courts calls it that. Is it any wonder the Shepherds of the Catholic Church in Mexico are uneasy about the direction part of their government is pulling in ?

As for what Cardinal Rivera actually said himself , apart from the article in post number 11, I haven’t seen anything yet. It really is a mystery. Did you notice in the most recent link you provided that the article stated :

In addition, a complaint has been filed against the Cardinal Archbishop of Mexico City, Norberto Rivera Carrera, for reasons unstated in the Mexican media.

:confused::hmmm:


#16

In the the year 2004 , Cardinal Rivera was speaking out against the 'morning after" pill. In his statement he brought up the fact that :

  • "... unfortunately here in Mexico that decision is made more difficult by the lack of complete information available to the public and because the media and activist groups that are seeking to take advantage of the proposal are only presenting part of the truth and not the entire picture."*

Even then, he remarked that 11 years previously, reverse discrimination was apparent against the Church of Mexico ... :shrug:in the name of human rights :

“Here in Mexico we already have experienced this. For 11 years we have not been allowed to wear clerical garb. We could be fined for wearing religious symbols. This seems ridiculous in Mexico. We hope that this seems ridiculous as well in France in a few years,” said the Cardinal."

... his concluding statement :

  • " ' We don’t want to impose our way of thinking on anybody, but we do demand the right to proclaim what we see as the truth, and many times we are denied this right,' he concluded."*

#17

Fast forward about three years and lets examine this document where Mexico's Interior Ministry had filed a complaint against Cardinal Rivera and Father Hugo Romero (same 2 guys again...:ehh: ) .

Although that particular complaint was discarded , it is notable that the complaint had been filed by,* "...local lawmakers... accusing Cardinal Rivera and the Mexico City archdiocesan spokesman, Father Hugo Romero Asencion, of violating a constitutional passage that prohibits religious figures from participating in politics.

... Father Romero praised the decision but said he expected similar complaints in the future.
"Unfortunately the law is still there and, as we've said, it's discriminatory," Father Romero said. He added that political parties are using the Mexican Constitution to prevent the Catholic Church from voicing its views. *

When this article is contrasted against the present-day situation for the Church in Mexico, the similarity is striking .It almost appears that we have a template in the making ; one where whatever charge one may wish to file against the Church can simply be inserted , where "legalized abortion during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy" and *" gay 'marriage' and gay adoption " * seem practically interchangeable.


#18

[quote="Rence, post:5, topic:214084"]
I'm sorry, but I really don't get the part where gay rights for gay people is persecuting the Catholic Church's freedom of religion. They're not trying to prevent the CC from practicing their religion. It's the reverse actually: Catholic opponents of gay rights are the ones trying to stop gay people from living their lives as gay people. I'd hardly call that preventing the CC from practicing its faith. We, as Catholics, are free to practice our religion, which involves not being in a homosexual relationship. It would be discrimination if we were forced to be in a gay relationship, but we're not. By protecting the "rights" of gay civilians the government by not tolerating Catholics forcing non-Catholics to adhere to Catholic rules, they are not discriminating against Catholics and preventing them from practicing their faith...just saying. I don't get how gay people living the gay livestyle is hindering Catholics from practicing their faith...

[/quote]

all people with homosexual urges can get married if they truly want, just like everyone else. Sorry but your argument just doesn't work. Homosexuals want to change an institution that has existed for thousands of years and has been a bulwark of society. They just aren't willing to make the sacrifice that it takes for marriage. Gay marriage is having your cake and eating it too. The sodomites don't want to give up their sodomy for marriage.

there have been many preachers who have been arrested for saying things against the gay movement. The gay agenda is an affront to freedom of religion. And they use the ACLU as their bully pulpit.

Lastly you assume they have the authority themselves to change marriage. Where all of a sudden did they get this authority to meddle with the sacrament of marriage??


#19

[quote="PetersKeys, post:18, topic:214084"]
...Lastly you assume they have the authority themselves to change marriage. Where all of a sudden did they get this authority to meddle with the sacrament of marriage??

[/quote]

This is a great question to take us to the next part.
The answer is that they did it with manipulative language (as mentioned in post # 3) . Only this time it wasn’t by only telling half- truths or using long drawn out statements. This next stage of their agenda is all about labels.

So instead of the usual smokescreen , they set out to hijack only one word :

“ MARRIAGE ”

That’s where all the efforts were concentrated . It formed the main thrust of the assault, the spearhead if you will.

Now there are several steps to their methodology. But first consider the goal : Change the definition of the word marriage. If you do that, you can deceive at least half the people . Change the definition of the word ‘marriage’ and then with the right amount of human rights pressure- and be sure to use that word "discrimination", you'll be able to change all sorts of legislation as well if you draw up the bill properly. At that point, it doesn’t really matter if the people begin to realize they have been deceived, because it has already become law. If you disagree with that, all I can say as firmly as possible is wake up, open your eyes – it’s happening right before our eyes in Mexico.

“Okay, but how are we going to do it ? They’ll never take it standing up...Marriage has been around... forever !”

The first step is to engage people in debate over the meaning of the word so everyone only thinks we’re having a discussion. Throw in the fact that they want equal spousal rights, a little diversion here and there, and before you know it, people begin to become desensitized to seeing the word gay, homosexual or same-sex prefixed to the word marriage. When conscientious people dare to raise an objection, then the protagonists cry out : “discrimination !” Subsequently, many good men and women are reticent to further voice their opinion . If they dare to, they’re labeled as intolerant, or bigots, or homophobic or, (the link is coming up but) check it out – now we can be accused of something called “heterosexism*” too – That is totally outrageous !!..:dts:

The debate over definition of the word ‘marriage’ is not an isolated thing. It’s a set pattern. Look at all the countries in the world which condone gay (ahem) civil unions substituting the word ‘marriage’ for it, and they all began with that first step ... Hey everybody, let’s just have a friendly debate and exchange some ideas as to whether same sex unions should also be called ‘marriage’ .

(Here comes that link) I’m not a large fan of Wikipedia but to save running all over the place with a search engine (which I have been doing) have a look at the right hand column here ...and note first how many areas are performing “same sex (ahem) marriages” already. Then, below, also take note of the long list of countries with current or recent debates on same sex unions.

The pattern is always the same and the introductory step is always to have a little “debate” . Almost unfailingly , the outcome of all these debates is the ‘substantiation’ of the claim that the traditional definition of marriage is discriminatory ; that the traditional definition of marriage (except in countries which practice polygamy) as the union of one man and one woman is discriminatory.

Get that ... we initiate the institution and define it by the way we live it , while through it over the centuries we carry on the human race to perpetuate our existence up to the present day, and now someone who wants to live a different way decides they want to take the name we have always had for the traditional way – they don’t just want equal benefits or privileges, they want the name too.

Why ?...What’s in a name ?... Plenty ! For one thing if they get to call it marriage too , then there’s less of a chance for people to remark that it is somehow different from the union of a man with a woman .

A lot of people were aware of this when the definition was being debated. For a while Proposition 8 was made to work in California in 2008. But on August 4th of this year “ U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that California's Proposition 8, a ballot measure passed by voters defining marriage as between one man and one woman, violates the right to equal protection, deeming the 2008 law unconstitutional.

To Judge Walker’s ruling, Nicholas Miller- Director, International Religious Liberty Institute, Andrews University comments

"I believe that the Proposition 8 ruling is a disaster for gay rights, as well as for civil rights generally. The court’s reasoning is, in my view, ill-informed, ahistorical, and violative of basic constitutional norms. (To be fair, the anemic effort by the team defending Prop 8 appears to have contributed significantly to this judicial train wreck.) Such a blatant act of judicial activist legislation has, in my opinion, no meaningful chance of being upheld by the current, conservative U.S. Supreme Court.

...** The fervor to reign in libertinism could well threaten liberty itself. **..."

That last part kind of echoes the sentiments of the honourable Stephen Harper back in 1999


#20

This article by Pulitzer Prize winning editor and writer Paul Greenberg , entitled The Decline and Fall of Words : Humpty Dumpty on Unholy Matrimony is worth a close look.

Mr. Greenberg makes his points most eloquently. Although the article was written in 2003 it is just as applicable today in that it conveys just how serious the situation has become . The author further demonstrates that despite it all, no one is allowed to steal his sense of humor.

After reading this article several times, all sorts of lights started coming on .


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.