Comments on: Gays and divorced need not apply as ambassador to Vatican Religion, faith and ethics Sat, 23 Apr 2016 23:25:07 +0000 hourly 1 By: Daniel Bishop Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:14:31 +0000 Oracle, if you take the time to re-read the article and then re-read your own post, you will notice that it is you who are persecuting the Catholic Church not the other way around.

By: Charles Martel Sat, 04 Oct 2008 23:58:57 +0000 The Vatican is resistant to hectoring. I thank God that someone is.

And “Oracle”, the policy does not exist because homosexuals are “different”: it’s because they persist in sin — indeed, they actively advance it. The Church, you may have noticed, takes the opposing view.

Find another denomination to bother. Your agenda has no place here.

By: OracleSpeaks Sat, 04 Oct 2008 04:15:01 +0000 In the name of God is it not time to call time on the Vatican’s obsession with homophobia and abject prejudice?

Is it not unseemly, inappropriate and essentially a disgrace that men of ‘God’ are constantly persecuting and victimising people who happen to be different?

If homosexuality is not in God’s plan, then why oh why does it occur right through and across the animal kingdom? Are animals possessed or something? No of course they are not and only a nut would think so. Get real religious people!

Preaching condemnation is a wicked way to misrepresent the doctrine of Jesus Christ. He would have been appalled at anyone preaching condemnation about anyone, let alone those whom they have never even met or known personally. Think about that!

In truth, I have never met a religious bigot who was not an abnoxious thorn in the side of compassion and the devotion to the doctrine of Jesus Christ.

That they, including the Pope, should be ashamed of themselves has not escaped me, and yet, what can you expect from the head of a huge money-making enterprise with mafia type extortion rackets and its own secret police force and which has engaged, over the centuries, in scandalous skulduggery, covert thuggery and the shameless persecution of those who do not fit their narrow, self-serving rules and regulations.

Do they think nothing of extracting money from the poor whilst denying them contraception? Do they not sentence poor families to lives of infabt mortality and starvation? Yes they do indeed!

The grotesque and anti-Christian attitudes of the Pope and his mass of supporters only reflects the history of an organisation born out of the ancient Roman mafia families, as a way of seizing the purse-strings of every Catholic on the globe and running a racket that uses religion as a front.

In that the Catholic church remains a cynical and money obsessed organisation with a massive collection of donated, extorted and stolen art and treasures all holed-up at various repositories, we can be assured that it is business as usual.

If you want to be a Chrsitian follow Christ and his doctrine – not a megalomaniac enshrined money-making empire led by a control freak!

I have nor shame, indeed, when castigating an organisation that has prsotituted the doctrine of Jesus Christ for the sake of money and power.

By: JMT Fri, 03 Oct 2008 21:04:06 +0000 When did the official change about divorce happen?

The way I was taught in CCD classes was that divorce in & of itself was NOT a sin…the sin would only come into play IF a divorced person should re-marry w/o getting an annulment of the 1st marriage…specifically the sin would be adultery b/c officially the person is still married in the eyes of The Church as long as an annulment has not been granted. This always made perfect sense to me but apparently I understand what the sin of adultery is better than the RCC.

By: JL Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:51:03 +0000 It is the Churches position that homosexual or divorced persons should not hold this position. The Church is not a proponent of gay persons in the pulpit either. They may exist but it would be highly unlikely that they revealed this in the original job resume as these high profile persons have. It is not the Church that wants everyone conformed to it’s will, It is the Public that wants the Church to accept it’s sin. If the Church gives it’s blessing for your sin, it ceases to be the Church. As for Sarkozy and France even asking for this blessing it is arrogant and ill-considered putting the Church in the public spotlight in an attempt to embarrass the Church. I must say that God is not embarrassed and doesn’t need to defend Himself against His detractors.

By: Jeff T. Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:14:40 +0000 Moral certitude always inflames the left.

The problem is not necessarily that he is gay, the problem is that he practices homosexuality and even has a gay civil union.

To consider this man for 1/2 second reveals how far France has drifted from her Christian roots.

By: HaroldC Fri, 03 Oct 2008 03:52:23 +0000 I believe that the Vatican is right,and I say ‘hoorah’ and it’s long overdue. Just would like to know: when are they going to stop allowing rich politicians and others,to have their marriages annuled,but not poor people?

By: Joseph Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:51:48 +0000 With as many priest, bishops, and cardinals that are gay, it seems rather odd that they would object to an ambassador to the Vatican that was gay.

By: Matthew Thu, 02 Oct 2008 01:10:21 +0000 I hold no brief for the French “opposition” (I am not sure there really is one, but I presume the article is referring to the motley collection of loony lefties and tired old commies and socialists so kindly wheeled out to make up the numbers on chat shows at election time) but I must say if such a thing exists its assessment of Sharko’s “cynical pitch” is dead right. What an appalling man. I hasten to add that I hold no brief for the Vatican either – it is mere barefaced loathing of utter cant and hypocrisy that leads me to make this post – I hope I’ve made my position clear…

By: Jim Naughton Wed, 01 Oct 2008 21:46:44 +0000 I don’t doubt this is bad for Sarkozy, but rejecting a gay ambassador because he is gay doesn’t exactly leave the Vatican unscathed in the court of public opinion.