Washington is agog with celebrations of the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI this week. I hate to be a pooper at the papal party but...it is worth pointing out a visit by another holy man to the United States last week. Archbishop Desmond Tutu went to San Francisco to address a meeting of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Right Commission.
Compare the statements and actions of these two Christians and tell me which one more accurately reflects the generous and loving teachings of Jesus Christ:
Pope Benedict XVI:
"Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living-out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not."
Archbishop Desmond Tutu:
"It is impossible to keep quiet when people are frequently hounded...vilified, molested and even killed as targets of homophobia...for something they did not choose-their sexual orientation." The Nobel Peace Prize recipient praised LGBT people for being "compassionate, caring, self-sacrificing and refusing to be embittered."
He spoke critically of his Church, apologizing for the way it has ostracized lesbian and gay people, and for making them feel as if God had made a mistake by creating them to be who they are.
In December, after months of being taunted, fifteen year old Lawrence King was killed in Los Angeles by a schoolmate who hated his effeminately gay way.
Two holy men. Same God. Maybe the word of the Holy Father is not the word of God. Maybe someone should tell him.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Nicely put, Hilary.
"Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living-out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not."
Nazi Pope
He forgot to say "Except for Roman Catholic Priests."
Why do they dress the pope sooooooo gay?
Two 'holy" men, same "god"...well maybe not since the god and the words of the holy men are entirely man-made.
Make up the story and the words to fit the story.
I was raised Catholic and my parents enjoyed a long and close relationship with their church, its priests and members of the church who became their lifelong friends. They derived a lot of pleasure, peace and strength from their faith and their association with the church.
So it pains me greatly to have not only abandoned, but rejected the Catholic church because of its institutionalized discrimination of women and status as second class citizens. I would like to see one of our political leaders speak to that.
The church's handling of the sexual abuse scandal, especially here in Boston, was criminal. Has anyone asked the Pope how Cardinal Law is doing, installed in a cushy job and away from any culpability or accountability for the hurt inflicted on thousands of Catholics here in Massachussets.
What do you think about the Dalai Lama's thoughts on gay sex in that community of faith? Do you know what he's said on this? it is compassionate but it's not what you might think.
So when did CNN become "The Pope Channel"?
The Pope mentioned that religion helped with ending slavery and improving civil rights. This is not true. When Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony were fighting for women's rights and to end slavery, Christians used the bible to justify slavery and oppression of women. These two women renounced their religion, and kept fighting for their cause.
Did you know that in the early 1900's a wife could not inherit her husband's property after he died? The property was taken away from widows. Thanks Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony !
Haven't you read the accounts of the priests who marched with the suffragettes? No, because there weren't any. The Catholic Church is still stuck in the "separate spheres" phase of history, which is exemplified by their belief that women cannot enter the priesthood. They have to stake their claim to being on the side of women's rights on their principled stand against forced marriage in the Middle Ages. Yes, they were on the side of good there. But where have they been since? Not out in front, leading the charge against discrimination. As far as women's rights go, they've taken the role of the mule tied to the back of the last wagon in the train, resisting movement with all its obstinate will. When it's finally dragged into camp, no doubt the mule will take credit for finding an awesome campsite.
As a representative of the Catholic Church, the Pope stands for some good things and some bad things--exactly what you'd expect of a person who leads a human institution. Of course a human-created institution has flaws, like a police force or a charity organization. The Church doesn't demonstrate superior leadership or insight into the human condition. To me that makes it silly to give more reverence to the Pope than the leader of any other human organization, including nations. Will Bush be going to the airport to meet Sarkozy if he visits?
Do any of the critical commenters here have any proof that the Pope was a Nazi, other than Bill Maher's fantasy? How old was he during the war? He was 18 at the end of the war. He was conscripted into the army in the final months of the war.
Does anyone have any proof, other than their hatred of all things not themselves?
Semper fi
The truth is, he was a Hitler Youth. While this is a fine line of distinction, it's very easy to simplify. Here's some information: http://atheism.about.com/od/benedictxvi/i/RatzingerNazi.htm
Sorry, your link does nothing to point out any flaws in the man. It was not only expected, but demanded, that children join the Hitler Youth. Furthermore, being a member of the HY was no indicator of adherence to the National Socialist Party. At the age of 14, how many children, in the midst of a nation at widespread war, could stand aside from the demands of a totalitarian government? Unlike ours, which is free, despite the hysterical cries from the Left, there was little freedom by 1941, in Germany.
Semper fi
Did I say it pointed out flaws? No, I provided a link that explained why the Pope is referred to as a Nazi. In fact, if you look at my post, I specifically stated that it was a fine line of distinction and very easy to simplify.
And let's not start the left vs. right, which side is the most fascistic argument.
Fantastic blog, thank you so much.
In my humble opinion, it would have been much more spiritual and appropriate for Cardinal Tutu to have been chosen as Pope, than someone who carried arms for the Third Reich. The man (why not woman?) chosen as Pope should be someone who has demonstrated by his personal behaviour that morals and ethics are more than just propaganda, to be used to justify centuries of child molestation, torture (the inquisition), homophobia, sexism, and hypocrisy. Is it not a sin by the Church itself to hide the child molesters in its midst?
Many Catholics have been and are examples of "the life well spent", I just happen to believe that this current Pope is neither saintly, nor wise, nor moral, nor compassionate. Shouldn't someone chosen to serve as Pope set by his own example the best that humans are capable of? Who would Jesus Christ have preferred to choose as a disciple, Cardinal Tutu, or Pope Benedict XVI, after listening to the comments both men have made?
I too have the highest opinion of Desmond Tutu, but he is not a Cardinal, but is an Archbishop in the Anglican Church. He was recently in San Francisco speaking before a gay and lesbian group, but did not get much press coverage. He is truy one who has lived a "life well spent."
They'd have to wave the requirement for being Roman Catholic for Tutu to get the job. That might be difficult.
The Pope has spoken against American's role in the Iraq war, yet accepts the grand hospitality of the leader of that war machine--a machine that even abrogates the patina of decency in military conflicts embodied by the Geneva Conventions. Where is the Pope's modeling of moral leadership? Why is he making his first trip to the US as pope at this time? Why not wait until the next U.S. president is in office? Even secular leaders are considering absenting themselves from the Olympics to register their disdain for the abuse of human rights.
Time is also of the essence. Benedict XVI is newly 81. He might not be around past the inauguration of the next US President. Further, the next President could be someone like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, who might share his view on war, but are more at odds with him on other issues. If everyone waited for the world to be perfect before they did anything, nothing would get done.
If you've bothered to listen to the Pope's words, both live and in releases, you'll see that he has said he is not come to take part in any political machinations, but to bring the message of the Father's love, and hope for the hereafter.
Semper fi
Ryy,Which is the greatest sin in the Catholic Church's lexicon of sins, killing and genocide or perils of secularism and social issues, such as stem-cell research? Hurrying up because he is 81-years old ignores the institution of the Church and the orderly process for papal succession; if not him, there will be another. Berettassk, The Pope's presence speaks louder than his words, either live or in public relations releases. A trip to the UN and a simple meetings with his flock should be adequate to bring his message.
HuffPost's Pick
Benedict XVI and Desmond Tutu each represent institutions and/or bodies of work that are not without controversy. There will always be those, like Ms. Rosen, who will to try to define the work or worth of such men by reference to one view or another that they represent or have expressed. It's kind of easy to do and it was effective in this case in garnering featured status on Ms. Huffington's site.
However, each man is far more complex. In addition to his difficult views on homosexuality and abortion, Benedict is an ardent critic of the Iraq War and Occupation as well as a vigorous opponent of capital punishment and one of the globe's most vocal and powerful advocates for impoverished nations and the poor. Tutu is a rightly revered and respected cleric who helped lead his country out of darkness and into the light. He is also controversial for his statements on the holocaust and Israel and regarded by some as anti-Semitic (not a view that I share BTW).
So, which is the "real" Benedict? Which is the "real" Tutu? In my opinion, the answer in each case is "both." These are both highly intelligent and moral men whose nuanced views on the world and morality will be agreeable to some and jarring to others. Attempting to reduce either man to the Least Common Denominator of their most difficult or unpopular views is perhaps good for blog-time but not very good for understanding the truth.
Watched about 3 minutes of the Bush/Pope ass kissing at the airport. Made me hurl. Both of them represent evils that have been committed in the name of G-d----too many to name in so little space. This guy was previously Cardinal Ratzinger who was in charge of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith--i.e. modern version of The Inquisition. Scares the crap out of me when he decides after becoming Pope to reestablish a centuries old prayer that was long abandoned calling for the Conversion of the Jews!! I won't be watching a single second of this disgusting display of bullshit by Bush.
You should watch this then...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAxGbh_x92A
The Pope is a monster. His stand on abortion gay rights and stem research is very harmful and in fact approaches the evil level easily. Remember Evil is that which is harmful. This is not an effect to degrade religion. I am referring to the Pope and may I be struck by lightning if I am wrong.
Hail to the Pope! One of the great minds of the 16th century.
He and the Catholic church are not against the civil rights of any. How is it monstrous to stand up for the unborn child (no deflection please)...And you conveniently left out the word "embryonic" before stem research.I do agree with Bishop Tutu in the way the homosexual community has ben treated.But the Pope also is to be commended for not preaching the gospel of convenience
God, this again.
Tell you what, rwe. If the church is SO all fired up about the 'rights' of an unborn child over the rights of the mother, then how about the church take over all responsibility of the rearing of the child they so desperately wanted to live.
Once the 'precious babies' are born, the church wants nothing to do with them until they're old enough to molest or 'marry'...
Oh, did I go there? Yeah, I did.
There is a large difference between the rights of a "mother' and the righs of women. A mother is a woman who give birth,nutures and raises a child.
Not every woman is raped or in trouble of losing their life due to medical complications.
The rights of a woman to have indiscriminent sex and then decide, that the chld will be an inconvenience to their lifestyle is purely selfish.
Justifiable murder!
Oh, did I go there? Yeah, I did!
Are you really willing/eager to give up children to ANY bureaucracy? The Catholic Church wants all children to be born to a MARRIED couple. Your desire to see babies aborted does you no credit.
And, RWE is absolutely correct in saying that the Church stands up for the human rights of all people, as Jesus commanded. However, Jesus did not command that the behavior of people be accepted. Inappropriate behavior is to be condemned, and the person carrying out the behavior is to be counseled and consoled, to be brought back to the Father.
Semper fi
The Holy Father is speaking truth that you don't want to accept. Get over it.
Truth is, the world is bcoming more populated and less able to provide for the masses.
It's past time to emphasize birth control.
The Pope or whoever can spread the word.
Again, the God Delusion
Like wolves in sheeps clothing (papal robes) are capable of truth?
I guess freshmen senators with racist pastors and questionable pasts are more capable of truth?
Ratzinger does not have a clue about objectivity or truth. His responsibility with the department that was the successor to the Inquisition was to limit of exploration of truth. He was, and is, the keeper of the dogma. At times dogma happens to be the truth, more often dogma approaches the truth as an asymptote, sometimes, it is entirely fantasy.
Ratzinger is like a referee in monopoly game, he understands that game very thoroughly. He has played a role in exploring and refining the rules of Roman Catholic belief. His understandings help the church enforce its 'truth', all else is heresy. His understandings do not hold up in most Protestant Christian churches, Orthodox, Churches of God, let alone Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, and so on. As a 'monopoly referee' he has no credentials in, say, soccer.
In Catholic thinking the faithful believe the 'truth'. In the broader perspective, truth is true and need not be believed. Science is a much better approach to finding the truth than any organized religion, though the scientific method has its limitations its ideas are verifiable. The conflict between religious organizations makes it clear that 'religious truths' are often not true.
Excellent contrast between the two speakers.
With leaders who love that wrinkled worm of underaged boys, the Catholic Church has lost whatever moral high ground it once claimed. The church is corrupt, the pope is blind, and Catholics everywhere would do well to invest in logic classes.
Both men full of fairy tales, but one who also embraces a humanistic philosophy, so let's hear it for Tutu. I state without proof that all radical fundamentalists (e.g., Pentacostals, Evangelicals, Baptists, Roman Catholics, Muslims) are bound by their own religious laws to be anti-democracy, inhumane, anti-humanistic, and completely out of order with what we can find of the real cosmos, a cosmos that neither mandates nor gives a crap about temporary, illusory, contradictory "morality" and "ethics" that are irrationally based in absolutistic and indefensible shoulds and oughts and shouldn'ts and oughtn'ts. What in the world are we doing with the Pope in our White House receiving high-5's from our Pathological Liar Coward Dimwit in Chief, or if Billy Graham could make it up and back to the White House, what in the world would he be doing there except once again trying to be a king-maker (read your history). You religious fans, keep your "faith" to yourselves and others of your ilk, and keep it out of my Government and its houses. I'm with Sam Harris; and with Thomas Jefferson all the way, may he rest in peace. In other words, Tutu didn't belong in D. C., either, except as he might have come to represent a secular group or individual seeking redress.
Sorry, its as much my government as it is yours, and I want it in. How do you like them apples?
Semper fi
Stick to the math
Posted April 16, 2008 | 11:43 AM (EST)