www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Ratzinger - "It Will Not Be Possible to State Homosexuality Objectively Disordered"

This is why the discussion of the homosexual agenda is crucial among Catholics. Pope Benedict XVI sees clearly the immediate threat posed to our Christian freedoms by refusal to fight this agenda.

Ratzinger Warned in April 1st Lecture - "Very Soon It Will Not Be Possible to State That Homosexuality...is an Objective Disorder"

ROME, Italy, July 28, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) � In the conclusion of Cardinal Ratzinger�s lecture, now Pope Benedict XVI, delivered on April 1st, the eve of John Paul II�s death, the then Cardinal strongly denounced the European Enlightenment culture and its increasing dogmatism against religion, Christianity and freedom.

The Cardinal expressed his belief that the reasons given by the architects of the EU Constitution for excluding God from the document�that the mention of God or recognition of the Christian roots of the continent might offend those of other religions�doesn�t hold up under scrutiny.

�The affirmation that the mention of the Christian roots of Europe injures the sentiments of many non-Christians who are in Europe, is not very convincing, given that it relates, first of all, to an historical fact that no one can seriously deny�It is not the mention of God that offends those who belong to other religions, but rather the attempt to build the human community absolutely without God,� said the Cardinal.

Instead, Ratzinger continued, it is obvious that the exclusion of religion from the public sphere is rather the result of the imposition of Enlightenment dogma, which dogma falsely professes the ideals of freedom and tolerance. Indeed, one of the inevitable consequences of what Ratzinger called the �Culture of Rights�, as divorced from its Judeo-Christian roots, is that �the concept of discrimination is ever more extended, and so the prohibition of discrimination can be increasingly transformed into a limitation of the freedom of opinion.�

�Very soon,� said the Cardinal in a chilling prophesy that is already coming to fulfillment in many Western nations, including Canada, �it will not be possible to state that homosexuality, as the Catholic Church teaches, is an objective disorder in the structuring of human existence.�

According to Ratzinger it is �obvious that the ill-defined or undefined concept of freedom, which is at the base of this culture, inevitably entails contradictions�A confused ideology of freedom leads to dogmatism, which is showing itself increasingly hostile to freedom.�

Ratzinger concluded by expressing his strong doubt that the Enlightenment culture will ever provide a common cause for men. �We have to ask ourselves,� says the Cardinal, �if it is really complete in itself, to the degree that it has no need of a root outside itself.� The implied answer, of course, is no, the Enlightenment culture without the firm foundation of Europe�s roots in Christianity can only devolve into a pseudo and dogmatic religion, ultimately restrictive of freedom.

jj

Some people have asked me what I do regarding the homosexual issue.

I'm just not at liberty to say what I do in my private life to minister to individual's afflicted with SSAD, but it involves victim advocacy.

Publicly, I have openly opposed the homosexual agenda, because of what I have seen being involved in victim advocacy.

Here are examples:
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/KoppHomosexuality.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36109
http://www.marysremnant.org/Friends/DBK/BKHomAids.html

If some folks here are "upset" at seeing discussions about the homosexual agenda, you need not worry.

The apathy of Christians regarding the rapid advancement of the homosexual agenda, at least according to Ratzinger, seems to indicate that soon Christians will not have the liberty to publicly oppose the homosexual agenda.

Thanks for the links Doc.

I had already complimented you on one of the articles. And looking back over it I find that I did recall correctly that you consistently used the term "homosexual" and avoided the term "sodomite".

But you wrote on the forum that:

[QUOTE...
To call them "homosexual" is a violation of their worth as an individual made in the image and likeness of God who cannot, by nature, be indentifird by a moral and psychological disorder. So a Christian, in good conscience, must not use that term.

So given the terminology available, the only two options available are "SSAD" and "sodomite." [/QUOTE]

I fully endorse the view that one of the most serious defects in the proposed "Constitution" of the European Union (which at the moment seems to want to exclude Ukraine, which is in Europe, and incorporate Turkey, which is not in Europe) is the deliberate failure to include any reference to God, and to the Judaeo-Christian religious framework of Europe.

I trust I've made it clear enough already that I am opposed to any state interfering with reasonable discourse. I have been Joseph Ratzinger's writings for more than 40 years, and I have never known him to be unreasonable; still less have I known him to preach hate against anyone. He is honest, forthright, and articulates his thought with admirable and enviable clarity. His concern for Catholic truth is exemplary. All these considerations are among the reasons why I have most sincerely rejoiced at his election to be the new Bishop of Rome. The Lord preserve him and give him life, and make him blessed upon the earth, and deliver him not to the will of his enemies.

But I do recommend actually reading him, not just picking up a phrase that suits your purpose.

Incognitus

Politically it is not very productive these days to call a practicing homosexual a "Sodomite" and of course not many who are Sodomites would wish to talk with you if you did call him that. It would sort of be like trying to get through to an alcoholic by calling him or her an alcoholic. On a one to one basis I wouldn't call either a name that describes what they do but a name that describes who they are. They are both people for whom Christ died and God has a plan for them.

I suspect that Doc Brian agrees with that.

I hope that this is the point both djs and Incognitus are trying to make.

Nevertheless, an alcoholic is still disordered vis a vis alcohol and a sodomite or homosexualist is still disordered vis a vis sex.

If we all agree on the basics then perhaps future discussions will be more fruitful.

Moreover I wish to sincerely wish to completely desist from the irritating practice to redundantly split infinitives. Please, to quickly cut it out. I am wishing to unashamedly desire all to quickly judge their own actions and to abruptly stop to glowingly stick their noses into others business.

Dan L

I'm just trying to helpfully help people to quickly be better.

BTW,

Having never noticed a gay rights parade that did not feature nude prancers simulating sex acts what good does it do to arrest people acting in this way once they've already done this? Since this is normal operating procedure for these groups the only way to keep our children from being exposed to this is to not allow the parade in the first place.

Dan L

Dan,
I've never seen a gay rights parade at all, so you have the advantage of me there - and you are quite welcome to that advantage! However, arresting people who behave in public in the ways which you have described will not only inhibit the immediate offense, but will also discourage the repetition of the offense.

Enjoyed your split infinitives - but djs still has the prize in that department.

Now about the Imperial Torte ...


Incognitus

Incognitus,

I admit liking royal things but have never had a royal tart...oops...you wrote "torte" didn't you.

You have a good plan in dealing with people who act with such lewdness. Will you go to Mayor Daley's office and convince him to get the police to arrest these lewd people? You know he welcomes the lewd Olympics to come to the city in 2006 so I'm not sure you'll get very far. But perhaps you can convince him.

Dan L

Dear Dan,
That's the Imperial Torte, not the Royal Torte.
I've never heard of the lewd Olympics, but anything with such a name is best avoided. I have no particular influence with the Mayor of Chicago (I don't live in Chicago - in fact I've never lived in Chicago - and I've never met the man to the best of my knowledge). My strong suggestion, though, is to find people who DO live in Chicago to circulate a petition to the Mayor, politely, carefully and strongly worded, to the effect that public lewdness, however Olympian, is unwelcome in the Windy City. Chicago has a Catholic Cardinal, a Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Bishop, a Polish National Catholic Bishop (I think) and several Orthodox Bishops, so you might start with them.

Don't know what Chicago has in the way of an Asian population, but the Asians tend to take an utterly dim view of public lewdness. Wups! There's a substantial Muslim community in Chicago; they too will not approve of public displays of lewdness in the least and will be happy to join with others in trying to keep it out of Chicago, or throw it out of Chicago.

All of that should do for a starter. Please don't tell me what a "lewd Olympics" is; there are some things that I seriously don't wish to know!

Incognitus

Incognitus,

You've just given me another idea for Aug. 6. Thanks.

Dan L

Dear Dan,
You're quite welcome - well, almost quite welcome. My imagination is as sinful as anybody else's and I keep finding myself imagining just what sort of events might take place at a lewd Olympics. None of them sound attractive.

Now, back to the Imperial Torte. Incidentally, there's no reason why there should not be a Royal Tart into the bargain - with utterly good custard, wonderful fruit (summer berries, kosher style), chantilly cream - no, make that creme patissiere - my mouth is watering already!

For that matter we could design a Byzantine Torte and a Byzantine Tart. But I have no idea what sort of sweets were popular in the great days of Byzantium.

Incognitus

Marzipan !!

can't prove it - but it's been known for may many years

I think we need "torte" reform if you ask me.

Dan L

"Homosexual" and "Sodomite" are not synonymous. The term, "homosexual" can mean, "somebody who is sexually attracted to members of his or her own sex." Whereas "sodomite" specifically refers to, "somebody who practices anal intercourse."

A "homosexual" may have committed no sin, but a "sodomite" has objectively sinned.

Dear Incognitus,

from what I understand the ingredients for the Imperial Torte are a "closely guarded secret", but the Imperial Hotel does offer the desert for sale:

History of the Imperial Tort [imperial-torte.at]