Cardinal Peter Turkson: Pope Contender Suggests Gay PriestsTo Blame For Child Rape Scandals

[WasteWater]

He never read the report commissioned by Catholic Church which refutes his claim.

[Dan]

TomInElPaso wrote:

It seems none of you have read this article or at least not all of it. This ignorant pig of a priest has publicly supported the killing of gays by African governments. Why would anyone even give thought this pig has a shot of becoming pope?

Tom-

Please cite Turkson's support for this Ugandan bill you refer to here.

Someone else posted this assertion on another thread and no documentation was given.

[snyper]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
Tom-
Please cite Turkson's support for this Ugandan bill you refer to here.
Someone else posted this assertion on another thread and no documentation was given.

You can start looking at his opinions here:

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal...

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines...

http://www.bilerico.com/2013/02/top_papal_can...

[Dan]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
You can start looking at his opinions here:
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal...
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines...
http://www.bilerico.com/2013/02/top_papal_can...

I have read all those before, save for the "bilerico" citation.

None indicate that Turkson has endorsed or defended the Ugandan bill inq uestion.

The "bilerico" site is an activist site and it does not provide a citation for Turkson's having supported or defended the Ugandan bill. The author makes that statement sans citation.

Turkson certainly does not approve of the homosexual lifestyle, but nowhere has he endorsed legislation to allow execution of gay people.

[TomInElPaso]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
Tom-
Please cite Turkson's support for this Ugandan bill you refer to here.
Someone else posted this assertion on another thread and no documentation was given.

Retread this article. I can't pull the quotes out on my iPad but he certainly doesn't condemn Ugandas efforts. He "understands" them.

[Dan]

TomInElPaso wrote:

<quoted text>
Retread this article. I can't pull the quotes out on my iPad but he certainly doesn't condemn Ugandas efforts. He "understands" them.

He makes no reference to the proposed law in question.

[Dan]

TomInElPaso wrote:

<quoted text>
Retread this article. I can't pull the quotes out on my iPad but he certainly doesn't condemn Ugandas efforts. He "understands" them.

....and he didn't say he "understands" them.

He said that stigma against homosexuality in Africa has a strong cultural predicate and that this cultural predicate should be understood.

[Dan]

TomInElPaso wrote:

<quoted text>
Retread this article. I can't pull the quotes out on my iPad but he certainly doesn't condemn Ugandas efforts. He "understands" them.

You made this accusation without any apparent difficulty with your iPad:

"It seems none of you have read this article or at least not all of it. This ignorant pig of a priest has publicly supported the killing of gays by African governments."

He hasn't done this, Tom.

[TomInElPaso]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
You made this accusation without any apparent difficulty with your iPad:
"It seems none of you have read this article or at least not all of it. This ignorant pig of a priest has publicly supported the killing of gays by African governments."
He hasn't done this, Tom.

As a leader of the church his job is to lead. Because he "understands" the cultural issues and doesn't condemn them indicates acceptance. He is no follower of Jesus and should be removed from his position in the church.

[Dan]

TomInElPaso wrote:

<quoted text>
As a leader of the church his job is to lead. Because he "understands" the cultural issues and doesn't condemn them indicates acceptance. He is no follower of Jesus and should be removed from his position in the church.

Turkson isn't on record as having promulgated treatment of gay people in any other manner than what the Church teaches (cited below from the article provided to me).

Your insistence on claiming otherwise without basis is puzzling at the least. Certainly, you can take a position without resorting to making false claims, yes?

From the article:

“The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. 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 fulfil 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 (2358).”

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal...

[Dan]

TomInElPaso wrote:

<quoted text>
As a leader of the church his job is to lead. Because he "understands" the cultural issues and doesn't condemn them indicates acceptance. He is no follower of Jesus and should be removed from his position in the church.

You're twsiting on this one a bit now-

Now, Turkson's charge is to do what, exactly, respective to African culture (bearing in mind that you'd certainly oppose a US Cardinal speaking in opposition to prevailing US culture should he make the fundamental error of disagreeing with your position)?

It seems you've conceded that you made a false claim about his public support for the Ugandan bill.

[snyper]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
I have read all those before, save for the "bilerico" citation.
None indicate that Turkson has endorsed or defended the Ugandan bill inq uestion.
The "bilerico" site is an activist site and it does not provide a citation for Turkson's having supported or defended the Ugandan bill. The author makes that statement sans citation.
Turkson certainly does not approve of the homosexual lifestyle, but nowhere has he endorsed legislation to allow execution of gay people.

I agree. The only direct quote that I've seen isn't specifically about Uganda, but a derision of the statement of the UN General Secretary.

More generally he restated that homosexuality (no indication that he recognizes gay orientation) is "disordered", etc.. His other statements regarding gay issues in Africa do not decry any of the mistreatment, but instead asks for understanding of their traditions.

How can one "understand" if one is dead?

[snyper]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
....and he didn't say he "understands" them.
He said that stigma against homosexuality in Africa has a strong cultural predicate and that this cultural predicate should be understood.

It's a typical misdirection.

On the one hand, he complains that it is unfair to "impose" "European mentality" upon "these poor Nations and people", while that is PRECISELY what his organization seeks to do everywhere ... and always has. He is actually complaining about competition and opposition to their attempts to define the terms of any discussions on anything. Arrogant, by definition. Deceptive in practice.

[Dan]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree. The only direct quote that I've seen isn't specifically about Uganda, but a derision of the statement of the UN General Secretary.
More generally he restated that homosexuality (no indication that he recognizes gay orientation) is "disordered", etc.. His other statements regarding gay issues in Africa do not decry any of the mistreatment, but instead asks for understanding of their traditions.
How can one "understand" if one is dead?

The direct claim made was that Turkson publicly supports the Ugandan bill.

Clearly, he hasn't supported it.

He certainly did make statements decrying some of the treatments as an "exaggeration" and stated “We [the Church] push for the rights of prisoners, the rights of others; and the last thing we want to do is infringe upon the rights of anyone".

What degree of interference in civil law would you permit Turkson to initiate, given that you certainly would oppose his US counterparts' interference in ours?

[Dan]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
It's a typical misdirection.
On the one hand, he complains that it is unfair to "impose" "European mentality" upon "these poor Nations and people", while that is PRECISELY what his organization seeks to do everywhere ... and always has. He is actually complaining about competition and opposition to their attempts to define the terms of any discussions on anything. Arrogant, by definition. Deceptive in practice.

Do you support a European mentality being imposed upon Africa? You seem to not favor it.

However you may regard Turkson, he certainly hasn't claimed things that Tom did, and you let Tom off without chatisement for his deliberate deception. You actually sought to support it by proffering the links you supplied me.

[snyper]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
The direct claim made was that Turkson publicly supports the Ugandan bill.
Clearly, he hasn't supported it.
He certainly did make statements decrying some of the treatments as an "exaggeration" and stated “We [the Church] push for the rights of prisoners, the rights of others; and the last thing we want to do is infringe upon the rights of anyone".
What degree of interference in civil law would you permit Turkson to initiate, given that you certainly would oppose his US counterparts' interference in ours?

None. But since he's going to mouth off, he'd better get himself right.

I suggest that he doesn't have the stones to go against the entrenched bigotry of his church and that of the people whose attitudes it has cultivated over the past two centuries.

If he doesn't recognize that gay people have Rights to be free of discrimination based upon their orientation (he doesn't), the statement you cite DOES NOT speak against any such behaviors. IT isn't even an equivocation. It is quite clear ... as long as you know how to read RCC-speak.

I received an elite RC education, and was trained in it.

The RCC is institutionally a past master at such non-statement statements. They call such Macchiavellianisms "diplomacy".

[snyper]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you support a European mentality being imposed upon Africa? You seem to not favor it.
However you may regard Turkson, he certainly hasn't claimed things that Tom did, and you let Tom off without chatisement for his deliberate deception. You actually sought to support it by proffering the links you supplied me.

I leave your issues with "Tom" to you and "Tom".

I deflected the conversation from "Tom" onto myself so we could discuss these issues.

[TomInElPaso]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
Turkson isn't on record as having promulgated treatment of gay people in any other manner than what the Church teaches (cited below from the article provided to me).
Your insistence on claiming otherwise without basis is puzzling at the least. Certainly, you can take a position without resorting to making false claims, yes?
From the article:
“The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. 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 fulfil 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 (2358).”
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal...

So allowing murder, jail time or the death penalty for being homosexual isn't discrimination? Interesting. His support of supposed cultural issues is like supporting canabalism because its cultural. His failure to publicly condemn says everything about his form of Christianity. No thanks.

[Dan]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
None. But since he's going to mouth off, he'd better get himself right.
I suggest that he doesn't have the stones to go against the entrenched bigotry of his church and that of the people whose attitudes it has cultivated over the past two centuries.
If he doesn't recognize that gay people have Rights to be free of discrimination based upon their orientation (he doesn't), the statement you cite DOES NOT speak against any such behaviors. IT isn't even an equivocation. It is quite clear ... as long as you know how to read RCC-speak.
I received an elite RC education, and was trained in it.
The RCC is institutionally a past master at such non-statement statements. They call such Macchiavellianisms "diplomacy".

Who would Turkson "go against"? I haven't seen any Church teaching that permits criminalization of homosexuality as described in Africa. Can you cite where that's taught? Your 'elite RC education' should mean that it's at your fingertips.

The Church teaches this about how homosexuals are to be treated:

“The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. 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 fulfil 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 (2358).”

[Dan]

TomInElPaso wrote:

<quoted text>
So allowing murder, jail time or the death penalty for being homosexual isn't discrimination? Interesting. His support of supposed cultural issues is like supporting canabalism because its cultural. His failure to publicly condemn says everything about his form of Christianity. No thanks.

It most assuredly is discrimnation.

Turkson does not support these things. He is a Cardinal of the Church.

The Church teaches that these treatments are to be avoided.

You have no argument with Turkson.