Is Pope Benedict a homophobe?
The Pope’s speech to the members of the Roman Curia on December 21 brought with it accusations that the Pope is a homophobe. It is not the first time that he had been so accused; in my opinion, mistakenly.
It is said that the word homophobe was coined by George Weinberg, a psychologist, in the 1960s. It describes a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality. It includes an attitude of contempt for homosexuals and is evidenced in hostile behaviour such as discrimination and violence. Some say that homophobes are closet gays.
The attribution of the above to Pope Benedict is totally amiss. One of the subjects addressed by the Pope in the above mentioned speech was the family. During this part of the speech he made a philosophical argument, based on a study by the Chief Rabbi of France, Gilles Berheim, in favour of the concept of family made up of father, mother and child. Among other things he strongly criticised the theory that describes gender as a cultural construct and not a natural one. Benedict also outlines some of the negative consequences, which in his opinion, would naturally flow that that position. His words apply to all adherents to this theory independently of their sexual orientation.
Are we to understand that everyone except the Pope is entitled to an opinion? Are we to believe that all movements and organisations, barring the Catholic Church, can lobby for different positions?
Quite naturally it is perfectly legitimate for other people to hold radically different points of view from his. Is this not what free speech, pluralism and democracy are all about? But these concepts should be applicable for the ecclesiastical goose as much as they are applicable for the secular gander. Consequently while counter arguments are totally acceptable, the vitriolic slurs against the Pope are inappropriate. Those who say that their position can only be defended by insulting those of a different opinion are demeaning their position much more that it can be demeaned by those of an opposing opinion.
I will reproduce in full the words of the Pope on the subject hoping, perhaps against hope, that there can be a rational and intelligent discussion.
The position of the Pope
Pope Benedict said the following:
"The great joy with which families from all over the world congregated in Milan indicates that, despite all impressions to the contrary, the family is still strong and vibrant today. But there is no denying the crisis that threatens it to its foundations – especially in the western world. ... The challenges involved are manifold. First of all there is the question of the human capacity to make a commitment or to avoid commitment. ... Man's refusal to make any commitment – which is becoming increasingly widespread as a result of a false understanding of freedom and self-realization as well as the desire to escape suffering – means that man remains closed in on himself and keeps his 'I' ultimately for himself, without really rising above it. ... When such commitment is repudiated, the key figures of human existence likewise vanish: father, mother, child – essential elements of the experience of being human are lost".
"The Chief Rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim, has shown in a very detailed and profoundly moving study that the attack we are currently experiencing on the true structure of the family, made up of father, mother, and child, goes much deeper. While up to now we regarded a false understanding of the nature of human freedom as one cause of the crisis of the family, it is now becoming clear that the very notion of being – of what being human really means – is being called into question. He quotes the famous saying of Simone de Beauvoir: 'one is not born a woman, one becomes so' (on ne naît pas femme, on le devient). These words lay the foundation for what is put forward today under the term 'gender' as a new philosophy of sexuality. According to this philosophy, sex is no longer a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of: it is a social role that we choose for ourselves, while in the past it was chosen for us by society. ... People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given by their bodily identity that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves. According to the biblical creation account, being created by God as male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature. This duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about, as ordained by God. This very duality as something previously given is what is now disputed. ... Man calls his nature into question. From now on he is merely spirit and will. The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man's fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. ... But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation. Likewise, the child has lost the place he had occupied hitherto and the dignity pertaining to him. Bernheim shows that now, perforce, from being a subject of rights, the child has become an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain. When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker Himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God, as the image of God at the core of his being".
Best wishes for the New Year to the Editor, his staff as well as to all ecclesiastical geese and secular ganders.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
83 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Jan 5th, 05:16
"Do you honestly believe that when two people love each other they can actually do without the sex act?" (Jessica Debattista)
The answer is a clear resounding "YES". Christians are supposed to love their neighbour, even their enemy, as themselves but it would be impossible to actually do the sex act with all of them. Again you are considering loving and copulating as if they were synonymous.
Jessica Debattista
Jan 5th, 10:19
I thought we were discussing homosexual relationship - the kind of relationship that draws people together and which inevitably leads to the sexual act. Otherwise why would we be having this discusion in the first place?
Jessica Debattista
Jan 5th, 11:10
For five years my husband and I kept ourselves virgins till the day we got married, therefore I can understand "that when two people love each other they can actually do without the sex act" but we were looking forward to the day we got married when it was permissible for us to have intercourse. Maybe some homosexual couples can manage to live a life as virgins but for how long?
Francis Saliba M.D.
Jan 5th, 11:31
@Jessica Debattista, today 10:19
I take exception to your assertion about relationships "which inevitably lead to the sexual act".
Humanity is endowed with an intellect that attains its optimum performance when primitive instinctive behaviour is subjected to the control and censorship function of the higher brain centres. Otherwise we would all be rapists.
David Seychell
Jan 4th, 20:36
"He [the Pope] quotes the famous saying of Simone de Beauvoir: 'one is not born a woman, one becomes so'"
So according to this new theory of the gender criticized by the pope, I became a man instead of a woman because I chose so? If I became a man because I chose so and not because I was biologically determined to, does this also mean that I became a man at the age that I chose to?
Francis Saliba M.D.
Jan 5th, 11:34
@DavidSeychell
I would have thought that H.H. the Pope takes his inspiration from Christ not Simone de Beauvoir.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Jan 4th, 17:18
The "homo-" in homosexuality has a different etymology from the "homo-" in homophobia.
In homosexuality it implies sex attraction/activity with the "same" sex.
Homophobia deceptively attributes a morbid, psychoneurotic fear and hate of all mankind not just a fear of one's own sex. Gays evidently do not fear/hate their own sex - quite the opposite.
The terminology is deliberfately confusing.
PETER7 MALLIA
Jan 4th, 11:28
it would be like a father who gives a box of choclates as a gift to his diabetic son. I would definately try and stay away from this father and anyone who tries to convince me otherwise !!!!
Please advise !!!
PETER7 MALLIA
Jan 4th, 11:26
In all these comments below there is one fundamental question which remains unanswered :
What loving father would give us this desire and "need" called sexuality and then condemn us for using it. If the sole aim of sexuality is procreation and not pleasure, surely that our ever loving father would have created us like fish who do not need to express themselves sexually other than to procreate.
Ken Cowan
Jan 3rd, 12:03
"Are we to understand that everyone except the Pope is entitled to an opinion? "
No, of course not. but when it is the Pope, we expect an EDUCATED opinion, not one based on facile prejudices. Plenty of hetero families have a father or a mother missing - are we supposed to take the children away and farm them out to another couple? Studies show gay parents raise well-balanced kids. Stop the crap.
Anthony Scicluna
Jan 3rd, 08:59
Dear Fr Borg,
I do not question the Pope's dedication to the Christian message of "agape"; yet, how could he wield dogma and not realise how damaging such dogma may be? Regard: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20887170. The question should not be whether the Pope is a homophobe but how can such a dogmatic stance lead to further persecution which is surely not his intention.
charles caruana
Jan 3rd, 13:00
@ Anthony Scicluna
Please first learn the real Catholic meaning of dogma before you use it in its more superficial and cliched distortions. Allow me to recommend Chesterton's book 'Orthodoxy' for a marvellous insight into the function necessity and even the 'romance' of dogma. And he wrote it before he formally became a Catholic.
Anthony Scicluna
Jan 3rd, 17:17
Charles, do not read into my words. The word "dogma" here is used in its literal sense, i.e., a code of authoritative tenets. With regard to the appealing side of dogma, I urge you to read the other side of the argument like Chris Hitchens.
Evarist Saliba
Jan 2nd, 14:33
The answer to the question raised by the title depends on what one means by "homophobe". This is an inexact demeaning term to attack, and attribute a "morbid fear or aversion" of same (homo), any person who does not promote the agenda that the LGTB pressure group claims as a right. Today, we have reached the stage where words mean what the person using them conveniently wants them to mean.
Joseph Borg
Dec 31st 2012, 20:18
Leave everyone to go on his own life please. Religions are there to fright people that's all. There are many truths still to be uncovered in future by this pope. Read his latest book and you will find a lot of controversies.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Jan 1st, 06:27
@JosBorg.
Allowing homosexuals and heterosexuals to express an opinion about their sexual orientation is actually leaving everyone to please themselves by expressing an opinion and there is nothing wrong with that as long as it is done in a dignified and civil manner. Glibly stating that religion is there only to frighten the billions who practice it is only a silly misuse of that freedom
Anthony Scicluna
Dec 31st 2012, 15:46
@MSciberras: The Pope is saying that defining gender solely upon social terms is misleading because it does not account for the biological (congenital) and the pre-ordained (divine intervention). Since the bio is pre-ordained by God, then they are interchangeable. The Pope claims that it is ultimately God that should prevail as a guide to our morality. This last is the main contentious issue.
R. Balzan
Dec 31st 2012, 13:38
To answer your question you should ask the younger, more open-minded generation who have now distanced themselves from the Roman Catholic Church because of some foot-in-the-mouth utterings by the present Pope. Whilst at it, also ask them if your frequent meddling in purely political affairs through this blog is in any way helping them to reconcile with the church and its hierarchy.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Dec 31st 2012, 20:41
Your comment suggests that according to you the only opinion worth having is that of a generation that has distanced itself from Catholicism because only they are the open-minded ones. Many would differ on the grounds that wisdom continues to matures with experience.
Jessica Debattista
Dec 31st 2012, 12:39
Homosexuality can be a congenital trait and in such cases one cannot really say that it is a choice. However, it seems that the number of homosexuals is growing at a faster rate than nature allows. Is our permissive society warping budding sexuality during puberty when it is common for teens to be attracted to people of the same sex and the opposite sex?
Francis Saliba M.D.
Dec 31st 2012, 20:35
The choice is not about being BORN with the normal heterosexual orientation or with a deviant homosexual orientation. The choice is between COMMITTING SODOMY or not. Committing sodomy is immoral whether made by heterosexuals or homosexuals. That is why it is deceitful for gays to label the Pope a homophobe a coloured term used by gays to imply deceitfully a hatred for one's neighbour.
Jessica Debattista
Jan 1st, 21:03
Dr. Saliba, my comment was not addressing homosexual practice but rather the diffusion of homosexuality in our times. It seems to me that the forceful lobbying by homosexuals is exerting a lot of influence on a vulnerable section of society – adolescents who are confused about their sexuality. I asked a pertinent question hoping that somebody would give me an answer.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Jan 2nd, 05:19
Homosexuality is being publicised by a gay pressure group spouting lies about homosexuality being as "natural" as heterosexuality with sex practices just as morally defensible, that science has discovered a genetic excuse for homosexuality (not true) that those who disagree are psychoneurotics who hate their fellow men and that it is smart and politically "correct" to accept those lies.
Jessica Debattista
Jan 2nd, 11:19
1. We cannot deny that many gays show their nature at a very young age and it is unfair to repress their homosexuality and force them to live a lie. We all need to love and be loved and if their attraction is to their own kind, there is no way one can hold them back from coming together.
continued...
Jessica Debattista
Jan 2nd, 11:20
2. I object to homosexual/.heterosexual sodomy primarily because I find it unclean but also because it is not a practice open to procreation. Does this objection apply only to male homosexuals who practice sodomy?
Continued...
Jessica Debattista
Jan 2nd, 11:21
3.Lesbians have other practices but since they are not the ones carrying the seeds and therefore are not the ones dispersing the seeds in unfertile ground, would their practices be less sinful than sodomy?
Francis Saliba M.D.
Jan 2nd, 13:21
@JessicaDebattista 1,2 3
I deduce that we agree that homosexuals are entitled to live their own discreet life as long as their sex act is not one that that negates procreation. That would exclude sodomy equally between hetero- and homosexuals. I also distinguish between "loving" and "making love". Gays often use them interchangeably as if they were synonyms to create confusion.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Jan 2nd, 13:37
@Jessica Debattista (1)
Just like homosexuality, there are people who from an early age show antisocial tendencies like kleptomania, aggressiveness, compulsive lying and defrauding others. No one thinks that it is unfair to repress these early tendencies. Society actually legislates to control them even though that is very dificult and it is often unsuccessful.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Jan 2nd, 13:45
@ Jessica Debattista (3)
Sex activity between lesbians is open to your own objection that "it is not a process open to procreation" even though no "seed is dispersed on unfertile ground". That should answer your question about sodomy between males being more or less sinful.
Jessica Debattista
Jan 2nd, 16:23
@.Dr. Saliba:
1. “I deduce that we agree that homosexuals are entitled to live their own discreet life as long as their sex act is not one that negates procreation.”
I agree that they are entitled to live their own discreet life, but I cannot see how they can live it in any other way but one that negates procreation.
Continued...
Jessica Debattista
Jan 2nd, 16:25
@ Dr. Saliba:
2. Do you honestly believe that when two people love each other they can actually do without the sex act? In the case of homosexuals any sex act is bound to be sinful but I prefer to leave judgement in the hands of God who is their maker.
Continued...
Jessica Debattista
Jan 2nd, 16:26
@ Dr. Saliba:
3. What I object to is their insistence that their union be regarded on the same level as a heterosexual union. It is not the same, no matter how many arguments they put forward to argue their cause. They can never procreate naturally so perforce they cannot expect to be on the same footing as man+woman = child.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Jan 2nd, 21:09
@ Jessica Debattista (continued)
Like you, I leave in the hands of God the judgment what is sinful and what is not. But here on earth the Church must continue to teach what is right and what is wrong.
Jessica Debattista
Jan 3rd, 10:10
@ Dr. Saliba: But here on earth the Church must continue to teach what is right and what is wrong.”
1. Of course I agree with you and maybe even homosexuals themselves realize the truth in this teaching.
Continued.....
Jessica Debattista
Jan 3rd, 10:11
@ Dr. Saliba:
2. But society’s unacceptance of their orientation has made them aggressive to the point that they will go out of their way to make a statement in their favour. The gay pride parade is such a statement! In some countries it becomes so bizarre that they end up making a carricature of themselves.
Franco Farrugia
Jan 9th, 20:22
@ Debattista: Quoting your words of wisdom: 'They can never procreate naturally so perforce they cannot expect to be on the same footing as man+woman = child.'
What about that hetero couple that 'can never procreate naturally'? Can it not 'expect to be on the same footing as man....'?
You never appear to re-read over and over again what you are writing in public.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Dec 30th 2012, 20:01
@MSciberras today 14:41.
In the present context a "pre-ordained" sexual orientation and a congenital sexual orientation have the same meaning. Therefore H.H. the Pope is not denying that homosexuality can be congenital.
Please take some time to think out properly what to write so as not to attribute wrong notions to the Pope that he does not possess.
Mr E Phillips
Dec 30th 2012, 22:57
Present? As in present day? Or present as in present discussion?
M Sciberras
Dec 31st 2012, 12:28
Preordained is certainly not congenital in the context of the Pope's speech and the inference of his words is clear. Gender is preordained, as is the consequent structure of the family. Sexuality is tied to gender & homosexuality, with all the consequent choices stemming from its being reduced to 'social choices'. The Pope is clearly excluding that homosexuality is a'given element of nature'.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Dec 31st 2012, 21:38
@MSciberras today 12:28.
Your comment does not make sense. A sexual orientation that had been "pre-ordained" by God for someone means that this orientation would be congenitally present (i.e. belonging to that person from birth). As to your being so certain that it is not so, may I remind that only fools are certain while intelligent people enquire and check their opinions against known facts
Francis Saliba M.D.
Jan 3rd, 20:42
@Jessica Debattista
Please take note that my replies are being edited and sometimes not published at all.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Dec 30th 2012, 17:28
Insulting H.H the Pope by attributing to him a non-existent hatred of homosexuals is an indecent way of exercising the freedom of speech. It downgrades the esteem for the detractors of the Pope, not the Pope himself The Pope in the good company of millions of Catholics is averse to sodomy etc whoever practices it but shows no hatred of homosexuals. This denigration of the Pope is based on a lie.
Adrian Buckle
Dec 30th 2012, 17:09
All over Europe and the US, gay marriage and adoption are being legalised . . . which make the pope irrelevant.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Dec 30th 2012, 21:08
@Adrian Buckle.
The Pope is concerned with a moral law that is based on the teaching of Christ and not on the vagaries of civil laws that vary from time to time and from one judicature to another. These laws in their various interpretations have always been irrelevant to morality as preached by Christ and spread by his Apostolic Church.
Giorgio Greco
Dec 31st 2012, 16:28
With all due respect mr saliba... but if your god may exist... such an all mighty being as you and your fellow catholics dscribe him... do you even think he would even care if gays (which have existed since the beginning of time and also many animals have gay tendencies) get married? seriously, get realistic.
charles caruana
Dec 31st 2012, 18:47
Mr Buckle, we believe in a God who was victimised by a majority. That majority has been consigned to oblivion, while Christ is still very much with us. We are not impressed by mere numbers, or faddish words like 'irrelevant.' This Pope's name will resound through centuries - yours, like mine, will be forgotten in one generation. That's relevance for you.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Dec 31st 2012, 20:49
@GiorgioGrecO.
It is of the essence of the Catholic faith that God cares very much for gays and for all humanity so much that he sent his Son to show the way by his teaching, his suffering and his death on the Cross. The atheist chooses to dismiss God and his deeds. That's their quandary.
Adrian Buckle
Dec 30th 2012, 16:38
When an influential person uses his influence to deny a section of the population equality (in this case marriage and family), then he is in the wrong. And in such a case, it is acceptable to call the pope a homophobe.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Dec 30th 2012, 21:58
The Pope does not exercise any power to deny "marriage and family" to those who have that right at civil law. He has the right and duty to teach that some "marriages" are morally wrong. When he carries out that duty It is not acceptable that he be insulted with the deliberately odious, unjust term "homophobe" (i.e. unreasonable fear of all humanity). Homosexuals rely on deceptive terminology.
charles caruana
Dec 31st 2012, 11:17
@ Adrian Bukle,
So Mr Bukle, you have the right to use your influence to encourage gay marriage, thinking it beneficial, and the Pope does not have the right to discourage it because he thinks it harmful? You call his stand wrong, and label him a homophobe. Aren't you denying his freedoms of speech and religion? In such a case is it acceptable to call you a Popephobe?
Adrian Buckle
Dec 31st 2012, 13:41
@charles caruana
I am not denying the pope's freedoms because he can still say what he likes. However, that freedom involves me disagreeing with him and calling him a homophobe.
As for me, you can call me what you like. I never liked this pope and never made a secret of it.
charles caruana
Dec 31st 2012, 18:34
Your liking or disliking of the Pope does not interest anyone, unless you prove he is in fact a homophobe, something which you have signally failed to do. If you want to be taken seriously, stick to reasoned argument and not emotional and mindless name-calling.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Dec 31st 2012, 21:09
@AdrianBuckle today 13:41.
No decent person would insist that he has any right to insult the Pope as a hater of men. That is what gays really mean when they call the Pope and others "homophobes". Whether you allow it or not I would still choose not to insult you even if I didn't like you. Disagreeing with your opinions does not mean that one dislikes you so much as to insult you.
charles caruana
Dec 30th 2012, 14:51
Disagreeing with the Pope's stands is called the right to free speech. Disapproving of Catholic sexual ethics is a perfectly legitimate form of criticism. Homosexuals who reject Christian sexual mores are absolutely within their rights. But if the Pope or any Christian dares to call gay sexual activity a sin they are of course homophobes. Democratic tolerance and political correctness of course.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Dec 30th 2012, 21:44
@CharlesCaruana
Tolerance, political correctness and the right to freedom of expression are not one-way rights reserved for homosexuals who delight in maligning the Pope. Heterosexuals are entitled to exercise those rights in the opposite direction. Democracy does not prohibit Catholics to express the Church's opinion that certain sexual practices are wrong, immoral and often sinful.
M Sciberras
Dec 30th 2012, 03:42
Any loving mother knows that her gay child is as 'preordained' in his or her gayness as the gender the Pope believes is absolute. She knows this all the more because she may well have harboured futile hopes that her child be 'normal'. If Fr Borg wishes to reduce the gaping holes in the pope's arguments when exposed to scientific fact to differences of opinion, fine. But it's our loss as Catholics
Francis Saliba M.D.
Dec 30th 2012, 09:12
To my knowledge neither H.H. the Pope nor Fr J Borg are discussing any opinion among scientists about whether homosexuality is a congenital or an acquired trait. It is grossly improper to attribute to them the rashness of a non-existent "gaping hole in their arguments".
M Sciberras
Dec 30th 2012, 14:41
What the Pope is saying is that gender is 'pre-ordained' and that sex is in fact 'a given element of nature' - I quote from what he said. This can only mean that the Pope denies that homosexuality can be a congenital trait, as you put it, or, using the Pope's choice of words, as much as 'given' as is the 'duality' of male and female. In other words, homosexuality is denied, hello intolerance.
Mr Patrick Bonello
Dec 29th 2012, 19:47
It is safe to assume by all that homosexual couples do indeed love and care about each other and the feelings they have towards each other are only natural to them. Just like heterosexual individuals, they never had to chose which sex they're attracted to physically and emotionally; it's only natural. We're all the same in the end, we need to love and be loved.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Dec 29th 2012, 21:24
There is no objection to the love and care shown by homosexuals to people of the same, or the opposite sex. The objection is to make love (to copulate) deviantly in a manner negated by anatomical facts i.e. sodomy, bestiality, necrophilia etc. These occur, but not one of them would be " only natural".
I Bugeja
Dec 29th 2012, 23:49
Francis. You say sodomy is not natural and anatomically speaking you are right but I ask how many people have never tried oral sex which is in fact considered sodomy?
Mr Patrick Bonello
Dec 30th 2012, 00:30
@FrancisSalibaMD
Categorising sex between two consenting adults of the same sex along the lines of bestiality and necrophilia is an irrational and askew premise to build an argument on. Low even.
Ms. P.M Graham
Dec 30th 2012, 09:20
@Francis Saliba M.D.
Just once could your opinion regarding gay relationships, not focus on the sexual aspect? You seem to have some sort of fixation on the sexual aspect that doesn't allow you to see any further, as in the loving commitment that is absolutely no different to a heterosexual relationship, more so in fact as there is no pressure on gays to marry.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Dec 30th 2012, 09:20
@PatrickBonello today at 00:30
I have no doubt that those who practice bestiality, necrophilia and other deviant forms of sex would also object to be included in the same category as homosexuals. Chacun a son gout. Tr: Everyone has his own taste.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Dec 30th 2012, 09:49
@ I Bugeja
Don't ask me - conduct your own research. I do not see the relevance of the incidence of oral sex to the subject of this blog.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Dec 30th 2012, 10:03
@ Ms P M Graham.
I mention the sex aspect of homosexuality because Christianity does not condemn the fact that some people are/may be born with that trait as long as they do not actually indulge in deviant sex practices.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Dec 29th 2012, 18:06
No need to ask that question. The answer is 'yes'. Most definitely. Ask most homosexuals and you get an overwhelming 'yes'..
Francis Saliba M.D.
Dec 30th 2012, 10:21
Your sophistric argument is:
Most homosexuals are of the opinion that H.H. the Pope is a homophobe, therefore the Pope must really be a homophobe in the estimate of everybody else. That is what homosexuals decree.
Do you need any additional proof that your comment is illogical?
Kurt Waschnig
Dec 29th 2012, 14:56
6.Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I was reading the position of the Pope. His point of view will not reach out to people in democracies. The majority is indifferent and will not listen to it. The position of the Pope has nothing to do with the reality of nowadays. It expresses the position of a sect.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Dec 29th 2012, 17:38
H.H. the Pope's message is not intended "to reach out to people in democracises". It does not seek popularity and it does not try to earn popular acclaim, It is intended to spread God's gospel to all nations even if that results in more martyrs.
Edward Mallia
Dec 29th 2012, 19:34
A sect if that is the word of rather long standing. What is the pedigree of your sect? Or is your position subscribed to by the whole solar system?
Mr Patrick Bonello
Dec 29th 2012, 19:42
@Francis Saliba M.D.
'Martyrs' .. interesting choice of word there. I always assumed that the 'victims' (gays in this case) can be considered such, not the perpetrator. Or maybe you were actually referring to the gays as being the martyrs? If that's the case, your implication of the church's agenda is a bit worrying to say the least.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Dec 29th 2012, 21:09
@PatrickBonello
What you describe as my "interesting choice of the word martyr" clearly refers to Christians who suffer physical and psychological martyrdom when they spread the gospel message. Historically they are legion and include many popes. There is no comparable execution of homosexuals by faithful Christians putting into practice the authentic teaching of Christ.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Dec 30th 2012, 10:08
@EdwardMallia
Please translate into Queen's English, Maltese, Italian, Latin etc so that I would be able to discover the connection between your comment and the subject matter of this blog.
charles caruana
Dec 30th 2012, 15:05
Herr Waschnig, the 'vox populi, vox dei' is the altar before which you genuflect isn't it? Truth is established by a majority show of hands for you no? And of course your sociological and metaphysical grasp of the 'reality of nowadays' is vastly superior to that of the Pope I'm sure. You never fail to amuse me, that I grant you.
Mr E Phillips
Dec 30th 2012, 16:50
Charles Caruana,
‘And of course your sociological and metaphysical grasp of the 'reality of nowadays' is vastly superior to that of the Pope I'm sure.’
Is this not within the realm of possibility?
Francis Saliba M.D.
Dec 30th 2012, 20:08
@CharlesCaruana today 15:05
The aphorism "Vox populi, vox dei" has been debunked for centuries because those who believe in God have a higher opinion of the Almighty.
charles caruana
Dec 31st 2012, 10:58
@Mr E Phillips
certianly within the realm of possibility, but definitely not within that of probability. All you have to do confirm this is to possess a modicum of theological and sociological acumen and use it to compare any brief essay or message of the Pope with the posts of of Herr Waschnig. it is like holding a candle to the sun.
Kurt Waschnig
Dec 29th 2012, 14:53
5. Latent homosexuality can be defined as homosexual arousal which the individual is either unaware of or dent. Psychoanalysts use the concept of repressed or latent homosexuality to explain the emotional malaise and irrational attitudes displayed by some individuals who feel guilty about their erotic interests and struggle to deny and repress homosexual impulses.
Kurt Waschnig
Dec 29th 2012, 14:53
4.Although the causes of homophobia are unclear, several psychoanalytic explanations have emerged from the idea of homophobia as an anxiety-based phenomenon. One psychoanalytic explanation is that anxiety about the possibility of being or becoming a homosexual may be a major factor in homophobia.
Kurt Waschnig
Dec 29th 2012, 14:52
3.Psychologists labelled these attitudes and behaviours homophobia, which he defined as the dread of being in close quarters with homosexual men and women as well as irrational fear, hatred, and intolerance by heterosexual individuals of homosexual men and women. . . .
Kurt Waschnig
Dec 29th 2012, 14:51
2.Although negative attitudes and behaviours toward gay individuals have been assumed to be associated with rigid moralistic beliefs, sexual ignorance, and fear of homosexuality, the etiology of these attitudes and behaviours remains a puzzle.
Kurt Waschnig
Dec 29th 2012, 14:51
1. Hostility and discrimination against homosexual individuals are well-established facts. On occasion, these negative attitudes lead to hostile verbal and physical acts against gay individuals with little apparent motivation except a strong dislike.
Please choose the reason of your report below: