Catholic League on some Brits lecturing the Pope

From the Catholic League:

NOTED BRITS LECTURE POPE

More than 50 British notables have signed a letter in the Guardian newspaper criticizing the visit to the U.K. by Pope Benedict XVI. Responding is Catholic League president Bill Donohue:

The pope is accused of (a) opposing condoms and thereby increasing the spread of AIDS (b) promoting segregated education (c) opposing abortion (d) opposing equal rights for homosexuals, and (e) failing to address the abuse of young people in the Catholic Church. These accusations deserve a response.

No one who ever followed the teachings of the Catholic Church on sexuality ever got AIDS voluntarily, but many who rejected these teachings have. Having separate Catholic schools for girls and boys has been one of the great educational achievements in the past century, providing unparalleled upward mobility for the poor and non-whites. The Catholic Church has always stood for the equal dignity of all persons, independent of sexual preference, but it will never lower its standards by putting every conceivable sexual relationship on par with marriage. No institution today is doing more to check the sexual abuse of youngsters than the Catholic Church, having learned its lesson when many seminaries lowered their standards during the sexual revolution.

Philip Pullman, of "The Golden Compass" fame (our boycott of his atheism-for-kids film worked beautifully), signed the letter. A few months ago, he said, "I hope the wretched Catholic Church will vanish entirely." Atheist fanatic Richard Dawkins, known for charging that the Catholic Church is "the greatest force for evil in the world," signed it as well. Gay activist Peter Tatchell, an organizer of "Protest the Pope," has said, "Several of my friends—gay and straight, male and female—had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy."

There you have it. The pope’s leading critics are imbued with hate and even associate with advocates of child rape. And they have the nerve to point fingers at the pontiff.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Pope of Christian Unity and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Catholic League on some Brits lecturing the Pope

  1. DisturbedMary says:

    This is chapter 20 in “Holy Father Meets the Wolves.”

    Thank you Bill Donohue for what we used to call “straight” talk without having to apologize for using that word.

    50 British notables out of how many notables total? 50 out of 65? 50 out 5,000?

  2. TJerome says:

    Our favorite New York pitbull has responded. Good for you, Bill.

  3. Konichiwa says:

    This is good stuff from the Catholic League!

  4. Titus says:

    Donahue is quite right, but I think his phrasing on the AIDS bit may actually be a bit misleading. Since children can contract the disease from their mothers and a chaste spouse can of course contract it from an un-chaste spouse, there undoubtedly are people who have the disease despite following the Church’s teachings on sexuality. These people surely are not in the majority, or even a large percentage (although they are the favorite sideshow exhibits of the condom distributors), but they (at least hypothetically) exist. Donahue should know better than to be even a little sloppy when smoking near that powder keg.

  5. Supertradmum says:

    Father Schall has a great article on the so-called “spirit of Assisi”, the actions of John Paul II, and the idea of false ecumenism, all which have greatly confused the vast majority of the laity and some priests.

    “Yet, John Paul’s initiative, this “spirit of Assisi,” could be “misunderstood.” How so? First of all, this or any such prayer meeting should not “lend itself to syncretist interpretation founded on a relativistic concept.” And what is a “syncretist interpretation?” It means that what was going on was a filtering out of common beliefs or prayers acceptable to everyone while dropping what is distinctive of each particular religion. This result, which many in the parliament of religion school desire, is not what is going on here. John Paul II himself was very clear on this point. The representatives are not at Assisi to “negotiate our faith convictions.” More importantly, the differences in religion cannot be settled if, as their purpose, all agree on a “common earthly project which would surpass them all.” Nor could it be founded on the thesis that all religious beliefs are based on “relativism.”

    The bog Ignatius Insight in another article states that:In Dominus Iesus (“On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church”), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made special mention of the challenge of relativism. It did not provide easy answers, but instead insisted that the only real cure was the clear and unwavering proclamation of the Gospel: “As a remedy for this relativistic mentality, which is becoming ever more common, it is necessary above all to reassert the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ” (par 5).

    Sadly, I disagree with the notable Father Schall, as I think John Paul II’s actions did confuse two generations of Catholics and non-Catholics into thinking that all prayer to any god is equal in quality to prayer to the Triune God in sanctifying grace. How can we undo what has been done at such a high level of our hierarchy? The priest is question may be imitating the Holy Father at Assisi.

  6. Supertradmum says:

    I apologize for posting this on the wrong thread. Sometimes the window changes as I lean on something. Sorry.

  7. Huxtaby says:

    Only a small number of the signatures are well known enough i.e. two-bit comedians but most have been used because of the titles they have before their name. How sad that it should come to this. The Guardian newspaper is well known for not getting anything right!

  8. irishgirl says:

    Way to go, Bill Donohue!

    The Catholic ‘pit bull’ strikes again!

  9. Charivari Rob says:

    Excellent point, Titus.

  10. poohbear says:

    there undoubtedly are people who have the disease despite following the Church’s teachings on sexuality.

    He did use the term “voluntarily”. I think that covers your objections.

    “No one who ever followed the teachings of the Catholic Church on sexuality ever got AIDS voluntarily

  11. JARay says:

    There is a Catholic response which has been sent to that newspaper and it has far more than 50 names on it. Unfortunately I was too late to add my name as the response had already been sent when I got to know about it. It remains to be seen if that newspaper actually publishes the response.
    I do like Bill Donohue’s response also.

  12. Fr_Sotelo says:

    If these people had any class, they would write a private letter to someone whose visit to their country is unwelcome for them personally. To go to the press with open letters and multiple signatories directed personally against the pope shows a lack of manners and decency. What happened to the decorum of the English and their self-control of emotion in public? I’m sure many Brits who are non-Catholic must feel ashamed at the brazen lack of graciousness. Bill Donohue has answered their attack in such a way that is a credit to the Catholic side.

  13. Bornacatholic says:

    Gay activist..

    Is it too much to hope that Christians will return to the word homosexual instead of using the language of its enemies?

    I know this might seem like I am picking nits, but I think it does matter.

  14. pelerin says:

    ‘Fifty British NOTABLES?’ I counted only eight who I had ever heard of – and I am British!! I do hope the Guardian publishes the reply but will not be surprised if they do not.

  15. Leonius says:

    “s it too much to hope that Christians will return to the word homosexual instead of using the language of its enemies?”

    Well active sodomite and promoter of sodomy would be preferable not to mention far clearer in its definition as both the words gay and homosexual can simply refer to someone who suffers from SSAD.

  16. TJerome says:

    pelerin, is the Guardian the functional equivalent of the New York Times, e.g. a left-wing rag?

  17. Supertradmum says:

    The words “sodomy” and “sodomite” are illegal in Canada. FYI.

    TJerome,

    Yes, about The Guardian and it has gotten increasingly rabid.

  18. Bill Foley says:

    To Bornacatholic:

    We should avoid the word “homosexual” because it is used as a counterpoint to
    “heterosexual” and thus implies two normal orientations. Father Harvey of
    Courage discourages the use of the word. One with “same-sex-attraction disorder”
    is preferred.

    Bill Foley

  19. TJerome says:

    supertradmum, thanks. By the way, if I run up to Canada and scream sodomy or sodomite in public what will happen to me? I always thought that Canada was full of freedom and liberality. Could I have been mistaken?

  20. JMody says:

    50 Notables, indeed. Notably petulant? Notably incoherent? Notable is one of the truly great words, like “extraordinary” and “unique”. The pain when I sprained my ankle was “notable”, the national debt is “notable” … ad nauseum.

  21. Bornacatholic says:

    Dear Mr. Foley. To me, homosexual is more useful in that its definition is clear and of Biblical, normal, and traditional use.

    I highly respect Fr Harvey, but on this I disagree; and I also disagree with his use of “gender” when the right word is “sex.”

    Personally, I take issue with the practice of surrendering rhetorical ground to the objective enemies of The Catholic Church when it comes to moral matters.

    Let’s stick with out categories and leave the psych/medical categories to those who reject what The Catholic Church teaches with the moral authority of Jesus.

    As The Catechism teaches:

    Chastity and homosexuality

    2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

    2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

    2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.