The Archbishop's comment about terrorism was directed toward abortion and euthanasia and not towards homosexuals. Any reading of the news stories online would reveal this fact, and especially if you look at the raw transcript of the bishop's statments. I must lament the editorial board's failure to even read the story the editorial is based upon. A letter to the editor to correct this serious mistake will be forthcoming.

Gee KUCatholic08...it sure would be helpful for you to include a link to the "raw transcripts" of Amato's statements. But, since you seem to revel in being unhelpful, let me clear things up. The "terrorism with a human face" statement was indeed about abortion...he then linked this meme with comments about how gay-marriage is a like-minded evil. I wouldn't want to draw conclusions from what the pig Amato said but I'd be willing to bet that he sees gay-marriage as a "more evil" evil then covering up for the rapists of alter-boys. The rhetoric coming from the Vatican is disgusting and should be condemned. But, seeing as how you are an apologist for Amato and his brethren, I can see what you are trying to accomplish here...I wish you (and the Catholic Church and radical Islam) all the luck in the world with turning clocks back to medieval times.

You can save your letter to the editor. We read the story carefully and closely, and debated the fine points of the Archbishop's horrific comments. s77white is correct: the tones of fear, narrow-mindedness, and homophobia penetrated all of his comments, not merely those about abortion, as you say. He decried the "parliaments of so-called civilized nations where laws contrary to the nature of the human being are being promulgated, such as the approval of marriage between people of the same sex..." This comment immediately followed his denunciation of abortion as "terrorism with a human face" and clinics as "slaughterhouses of human beings," so to ignore the obvious themes of the entire speech is dubious. The editorial board did not err in lumping these hateful comments from a man of the cloth into one category; to castigate one is to castigate all.

By criticizing the manner of our criticism, you are conveniently overlooking the heart of the matter: the Catholic Church's utter abdication of the message of Jesus. He was a great man and philosopher, and history's ultimate radical liberal. His core message was to treat others as you would like to be treated and to work for the betterment of the world around you. Today, the Church has completely failed its mission. This is not an opinion from an outsider looking in, but rather from a lifelong Catholic, educated in their schools, who has realized that the Church's failure to adapt to reality spells its eventual doom.

When the Church says that homosexuality is a disorder, or that children fare better being raised in orphanages than in same sex households, it does a disservice to others and to itself by constructing fake controversies to distract from its otherwise aimless leadership. I suggest you read the story on Benedict from the NYT magazine two weeks ago-- it puts on stark display the social, cultural, and theological problems that are ravaging the Church and breeding its impending collapse.

Continued:
The main problem is intellectual arrogance: papal infallibility on Church doctrine, refusal to acknowledge alternative points of view, condemnations of politicians who support abortion rights while supporting politicians who endorse the war, continued poverty injustice, etc. The Church and its loyal members feel that when the world around is changing for what they view is the worse, the best option is to contract within yourself. This is ludicrous, and I posit that you will find no organization in the history of the world that has succeeded with such a worldview.

The Church needs to take a serious look at itself. Instead of decrying these manufactured social outrages, how about looking inward at its troubles? Where is the outrage from members over the priest abuse scandal? The utter corruption of legions of bishops and priests, who shuttled known abusers from parish to parish for decades? How about the Church's direct responsibility for millions of deaths in Africa, stemming from its pigheaded opposition to birth control? When the Church solves its own problems, perhaps the rest of us will listen to its opinions on our lives. In the meantime, they have very little in the ethical bank from which to draw, so they can save their high-minded and condescending rhetoric.

An apologist for Amato...I don't think I apologized. Rather, I would like to say the man was right on, just to see what more hatred I can force you to spew out against him and Catholic's in general. You leftists accuse us of hateful rhetoric, but what comes back from you is hate against us for voicing an opinion you disagree with. You do a disservice to yourself.

We do criticize abortion, gay marriage, and the many other evils that exist today, but it is not, as you all believe, in hatred towards the committers of such actions. As the saying goes "Hate the sin, not the sinner." We speak out against the sins of this world, but the Catholic Church as a body does not hate on sinners. We are all sinners in need of God's mercy.

The reason the Church does not conform to the times is because to do so would be to deny the moral truth. There is but one true morality and the Church will not waver from teaching it. You can believe the Church is outmoded, but really all you are saying is that God is outmoded, and that instead of conforming your life to God and the truth, you wish God to conform to you and your distorted views of right and wrong.

The Archbishop’s comments were made in the light of this truth. They were strong and searing and poignant, as befits issues of such magnitude. When the Archbishop states that “laws contrary to the nature of the human being are being promulgated, such as the approval of marriage between people of the same sex..." he is simply referring to his belief in natural law, which shades all Catholic moral doctrine as can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. When he calls abortion clinics “slaughter houses” he is driving home the truth: abortion is murder.

That you say you were raised a Catholic saddens me. You have now rejected the Church and in so doing the truth you were raised in. I pray that God may work in you and lead you back to the Church in which he resides. I pray you will examine your soul and what you believe. I invite you receive penance and receive the unique graces that flow from that sacrament.

I will say one more thing: the Church will definitely not fall nor fail. It shall stand until the end of days as the Church that Jesus Christ established and guides onward. It will continue to guide and shepherd the Lord’s flock.

One more thing, to say Jesus "was a great man and philosopher, and history's ultimate radical liberal." is simply abhorrent. To say someone is a radical liberal means basically the following: godless, self justified, moral relativist who believes everyone should be free to do as they please. Jesus surrendered all he was for the truth. He came "TO TESTIFY TO THE TRUTH". In moral relativism, there is no truth. He definitely wasn't godless, as he was god. And to say that liberalism should be linked to compassion or mercy.....it simply means you fail in understanding of such matters.

Am I mistaken to believe that "Freedom of Religion" is one of our rights in this country? The way you people spew hate at eachother makes me wonder.

While you may disagree on interpretations of the Bible - something that is hardly new, if you'd like to count the many Christian sects that exist in this world - it is incredibly rude to attack another person's religious beliefs. It is also rude to push your own.

Religion is a private matter. Americans have managed to push it into the public sphere and somehow fooled themselves into believing that a person's religious beliefs should be relevant, newsworthy and political. You are mistaken. Your personal religious beliefs are just that - personal.

Part of showing respect to another human being is respecting their private beliefs. Many people here in Kansas seem to have incredible difficulties respecting their fellows.

Furthermore, the idea that the words "radical" and "liberal" are in some way abhorrent is simply another example of how your culture has needlessly polarized itself around words. Feminism. Christianity. Liberal. Conservative. When you look them up in the dictionary, they are not as emotionally charged as you would have us believe.

Jesus promoted a world view and a religious view that was very different from the mainstream ideas of his time. That makes him a radical. His attitudes toward the poor and women, among others, were also liberal for his time. If his views were not radically different from conservative views of his era, they would not have been noteworthy enough to have been included in the Bible.

I do understand your point of disagreement KUCatholic08. You are not alone in re-defining specific words and allowing them to make you angry, but it does take away from your argument.

In truth, it might be helpful for a lot of people to remember - a conservative is someone who prefers the old ways; a liberal is someone who would like to introduce new ideas. The meaning is entirely dependant on your outlook, your nationality, your cultural and economic ideals, and the time in which you live.

Additionally, Liberalism itself was a political idealogy that everyone should investigate as a prime example of the changing way in which we identify and label certain ideas. You may be surprised to find how much of this idealogy is now called "conservative," as well as the intense effect it has had on our society today.

So religious beliefs are personal. So I shouldn't bring them to the public table. Then what is sexual orientation, the original topic of all this? Is this not a private matter, a choice of the person (at least in modern view)? Then why should we legislate to condone their choice? Why should we legislate in either direction on any moral matter? It is because the laws of society are based on the will of the majority and not on allowing everyone to do whatever they want. It is because people do still believe in right and wrong and heaven and hell and truth and goodness.

As for talking about words, you need to keep in mind that a word has a conotation and a denotation. I am arguing its conotation in the modern world, not its denotation in the old Webster's. Why do I argue from conotation? Because that is how everyone frames their views of a word. Though I could say I am going to liberally apply ketchup to my hamburger, when I say I am going to take a liberal stance on an issue it is associated with all those who call themselves liberal today and thus associates it with their beliefs and actions. Thus, I take offense at calling Jesus a liberal due to its conotation, not denotation as the conotation is what people pick up on, not some dictionary definition.

One more thing on words. The meaning of hatred is to dislike someone to the extent of wishing bad upon them, you wish for evil to become them rather than their good. I have shown no such hatred and have no desire that evil may befall non-believers. Criticizing someone's views is not an act of hatred toward them, but if you understand from the Church's standpoint, it is rather an act of love. It wishes the good upon the person by hoping for their return to morality, their return to God. If you want to go see an act of hatred by a Christian religious group, you will not find any condoned in the Catholic Church. You ought to go knock on the door of that evil preacher Reverand Phelps, or however you spell his name. He is an example of hating the person, not the sin, not I.

You might want to pay attention to what you post online KUCatholic08, the difference between your first and second posting is very telling of your shallow world-view and damnable sense of community. How can the Catholic Church (which I am actually a fan of; if I were a Christian I'd be a Catholic) condemn gay-marriage when the precedent is clearly set by King David and Jonathan?

KUCatholic08: "It is because the laws of society are based on the will of the majority..."

You are completely and totally wrong on this point. Are you that misguided that you don't even know how American laws are set? Do they not have Western Civ courses at KU anymore? I'd be careful about throwing aspersions on Phelps if I were you KUC, he at least is honest about his opinions and beliefs and doesn't hide them behind hackneyed slogans and patronising lip-service. Don't think that your little comment about Homosexuality being a choice has gone unnoticed. That type of comment reveals much more about yourself than the hollow platitudes you heap upon this talkback. You and your kind could learn a thing or two from Phelps...I'd respect you more for the honesty alone.

I see most of my comments fell on deaf ears here. Yes, your sexual orientation is a private matter, which is why many people object to having the government legislate in a way that discriminates against them for it. Have you not heard the saying "The government has no place in the bedrooms of its citizens"?

Many people object to religious beliefs being legislated. I'm not personally interested in arguing this point, however, as I understand and respect your point of view and I don't really think I could change your mind.

"The Church is rolling in a goldmine of art, literature, property, money, etc."

Stating this like a bad thing ignores the immense historical importance of the Catholic Church, as a patron and inspiration for some of the greatest works of art known to man, as well as the source of rich literature and history. There are times in human history (ie The Dark Ages - you may have heard of it) when the Church was one of the only sources of record keeping and historical writing. The Church is also personally responsible for saving and collecting many works of literature in its libraries so that they may exist for us to read today. While I know that opponents of the Church will comment that the Church's histories were biased and that it censored writing, but those are the realities of the times. The Church is not unique in this.

Furthermore, I assume that most of you just skipped the reading in Western Civ that included Luther, because nearly every argument you seem to make against the Catholic Church has been made before - a long time before. What is it exactly that you think you're adding to this nearly 500-year-old argument?

Sure was nice of them to also save the Nazi gold while saving literature and art. Let he without sin...

Alright. I'm convinced. Your intelligent and thorough arguments have changed my entire world view. The Catholic Church is the root of all evil. Well, them and the Swiss. And George W. Bush. We can't forget video games though, or Colonialism and Globalization. Stay at home moms and gun control. Homosexuality, abortion, sex education, birth control, divorce and marriage, too.

Don't forget Liberalism - that foul idealogy that promoted the market economy, a free exchange of ideas, fair elections, a transparent government, individual rights and private enterprise and oh, the most evil of notions - equality.

Thank goodness I graduate from this university soon. There are still rational, genuine human beings in the world right? They're not all caricatures like you? Puppet students who espouse their ignorant, one-dimentional opinions which they read in a book somewhere, or saw someone argue on TV, since they aren't actually capable of an original thought of their own?

Don't you get tired of being so cartoonish? Of being some poor replica of a real person?

Take a breath and calm down Sdinges...internet talkbacks are not the place to look for rational discussion. Anonymity does that to people.