Spanish Government: Catholic Church Must Apologise for Being Catholic

Just bizarre:

Madrid, Jan. 3, 2008 (CWNews.com) – Spanish government leaders have asked the country’s Catholic bishops to apologize for the massive pro-family rally held in Madrid on December 30, Vatican Radio reports.

Leaders of the Socialist governing party have charged that the Church intervened in partisan political affairs with the rally, which drew nearly 2 million participants. (The government is reporting that only 160,000 took part in the demonstration.) The government has asked the bishops’ conference for an apology.

Although 40 bishops took part in the pro-family event, and the hierarchy gave clear support to the event, the rally was organized primarily by lay Catholic activists. The organizers have consistently argued that the rally was not intended as a partisan political event, but as a public expression of support for the traditional family founded on Christian marriage.

This is what the secular left wants – the Church to be removed from the public square. They’ll kindly allow us to practise our faith, as long as we don’t disturb their worldview by demonstrating publically what we stand for. If we’ll just keep it off the streets, all will be well – until they arrest our priests and pastors for “hate speech” because they teach Christian morality in the pulpit.

35 thoughts on “Spanish Government: Catholic Church Must Apologise for Being Catholic

  1. liberalT January 5, 2008 / 1:14 am

    umm no Mark – also included in the rally held on Sunday were very anti gay statements such as “homosexuality is equivalent to child molestation” – that was one of the statements by one of the bishops there.
    I’m sorry – but saying that homosexuality is equivalent to child molestation to child molestation is hate speech. Would you not respond if they had a rally and said that being a practicing catholic is equivalent to being a child molestor? I am tired of being told that i have to accept bigotry …

  2. AAR January 5, 2008 / 1:41 am

    liberalT,

    I’m tired of you Liberals!

    AAR

  3. Mark Noonan January 5, 2008 / 2:22 am

    LiberalT,

    Verified translation of a bishop saying that, or apologise.

  4. Patrick L Mercer January 5, 2008 / 2:43 am

    Yes, please take your religion on down the road.

  5. Mark Noonan January 5, 2008 / 2:49 am

    Patrick,

    Sorry, no can do…you’ll just have to deal with us.

  6. js January 5, 2008 / 6:50 am

    Actually, homosexuality and pedophilia (actually pederasty) are very closely connected. Its right for the Church to stand up to defend children, so no, there should be no appology.

  7. neocon January 5, 2008 / 7:35 am

    First of all, I didn’t know “family” was exclusively Christian. Secondly, anyone who opposes a “pro-family” rally really has to re-evaluate their priorities.

    The following link may lend some insight as to why a pro-family rally was held and a glimpse into the Socialist “paradise”

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/13/news/spain.php

  8. Eric T January 5, 2008 / 8:34 am

    Once again government trying to regulate and impose its views on the church. The church has had these views for thousands of years. They have not changed. They stand for what is best for the family. Liberals want to promote homosexuality and force it on everyone as something that we all need to accept and practice.

    I stand with the church and it is not hate that we don’t accept the homosexual lifestyle. It is a choice that should be respected.

  9. Jones January 5, 2008 / 8:47 am

    From what I have found on the internet, the pro-family rally was a reaction to the gay marriage legislation, the new fast-track divorce law, and the relaxation of restrictions on abortion in Spain.

    I think Mark is 100% correct on this one. A public rally in Spain that was “organized by pro-family groups with strong support from the Catholic hierarchy”(NextNews) spoke out against government policies that they view as wrong and harmful. The government then decided to ask for an apology from the church for disagreeing with them in public.

    If this was in reverse and a government demanded an apology from a liberal group, I would think the liberals would be quite upset about how their free speech was being threatened. How is this rally in Spain any different? How come you Socialists only allow free speech when it agrees with your view point?

  10. Obama_supporter January 5, 2008 / 10:22 am

    I don’t know what occurred at this rally, but the idea that the Spanish government would want to keep the Catholic Church out of the affairs of state makes a lot of sense given the Church’s history of shameful, explicit and open support of General Franco’s fascist regime – a regime which lasted and was supported for over 40 years until Franco’s death in the 1970s and one that was responsible for the death of 100,000 – 200,000 Spaniards after the civil war.

    Mark, bone up on your history a little before you get all sanctimonious. If you want to have a debate about the Church’s role in the history in Spain then I’m ready to go. We could start with the Church’s partnership with the conquistador’s, legitimizing their role Christ’s soldiers and their mission to forcibly conquer the savage natives of South America, happily slaughtering millions while they went about their work. We could then take a look at the inquisitions of Torquemada and others, another fine example of the wonderful fruits of the Church taking a more prominent position in the “public square” you are always referring to (here the public square was often adorned with a bonfire where witches, Jews, Muslims and other heretics were frequently alive burned for the public’s edification). Perhaps we could finish up with the Pope’s recent decision to beatify hundreds of priests who died during the Spanish civil war after they had explicitly sided with the same man who bombed Guernica?

    If you do elect to debate this issue you’d better make yourself aware of a few things Mark. Perhaps, for instance, you did not know that the Church in Spain currently receives a large amount of funding from the State (another legacy of Franco’s wonderful years). Is this something you approve of? Also, did you know that the Church has until now controlled the curriculum that is taught in Spanish schools and that a large amount of this current controversy revolves around the idea of teaching (in civics classes) the concept that homosexuals should be treated as equals rather than have violence practised upon them (Spain currently has a shocking amount of anti-gay hate crime). Also Mark, were you aware that it is generally considered neccessary as a matter of law to be Catholic in order to join the Spanish military?

    The Spanish government is simply trying to remove many of the hangovers from Franco’s fascist regime, a period of grotesque mutual co-operation between a faschist regime and a power hungry Catholic Church. If you want to wade into this I’m up for it Mark, it may lead you places you don’t want to go though.

    (I’m a born and bred Irish Catholic myself by the way with plenty of clergy in my immediate family, so please don’t give me any blanket accusatiobarnns of being anti-this or anti-that, a ploy that seems to be your usual get-out-of-all-criticism card).

    freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1917860/posts

  11. Huck Fillary January 5, 2008 / 10:29 am

    Would you not respond if they had a rally and said that being a practicing catholic is equivalent to being a child molestor? I am tired of being told that i have to accept bigotry …

    Yes, libretardTHC, I’m sure Mark would respond by stating that those allegations are ridiculous. However, unlike you, he wouldn’t play the “hate speech” card, which is what you kooks try to use to censor free speech.

    The problem with bigots such as yourself is that you’re deathly afraid of religion, because religion endorses morality, which you libgressives define down on a daily basis.

    I guess a religious rally violates your phony “separation of church and state” philosophy.

    Funny story: My boss was returning from a business meeting in NC. In one of the main lobbies at BWI Airport, a booth was set up by a group advocating the impeachment of the President. Now, BWI, as most, if not all, public airports are subsidized by the government, therefore, such groups should not be allowed to set up booths on public property. Anyway, in a less-than-serious manner, my boss contacted airport officials and asked them who he should contact about setting up a KKK booth?

    They’ve yet to respond to his query.

    You, libretardTHC, want it one way. Your way. Just as you bitch about so-called separation of church and state, you have no problem with your candidates campaigning in churches. But let a Republican do the same, and you’re up in arms.

    Hypocrite…

  12. neocon January 5, 2008 / 10:52 am

    libT’s dishonesty is clearly revealed in her failure to address my question of what she thought about Obamas chuch mission statement:

    >>>We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian… Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain “true to our native land,” the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.<<<

    Evidently libT had no problem with this statement. Now, I want everyone to substitute the word “black” with “white”, and substitute Obama with Huckabee. Now let us know what you think.

  13. Rana Quijotesca January 5, 2008 / 11:14 am

    neocon-

    Well… it wouldn’t make too much sense… Whites weren’t the victims of segregation or slavery in the US, and whites have historically been the group that was most racist, rather than a historical victim of Racism. Also, whites didn’t come from Africa (at least not in the time frame that is implied by the quote). I don’t think that churches should race bait the way that Obama’s seem to, but the First Amendment protections of speech and religious practice aren’t contingent on my or your approval…

    Onto the post-

    I don’t think that the government should restrict speech in such a way, but I also don’t think that any Church should receive public funding (or be able to use public [ie: government] spaces without paying rent), nor do I think that any group should be able to claim that inciting of violence (which has been noted, without substantiation, granted [though it would not be the first time that religious authorities have sanctioned violence], by previous comments) is a form of religious expression.

    Spain just seems to be screwed up in that respect…

  14. neocon January 5, 2008 / 11:15 am

    Obama_supporter,

    So are you saying that Franco and Franco alone was responsible for the Sapnish Civil War? I thought it took two factions to constitute a civil war? Tell me your thoughts on the Popular Front.

    I also found your reference to a nearly 600 year old Spanish figure and the current relevancy to be especially religously bigoted.

    While Franco certainly wasn’t a benevolent leader, your diatribe and hatred matches his. Just on the other side. You two have a lot in common.

  15. Rana Quijotesca January 5, 2008 / 11:17 am

    … and in other news… Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead…

  16. neocon January 5, 2008 / 11:18 am

    So Rana,

    Segregation is two way street. Is it not? Wouldn’t both sides of the issue be subjected to segregation? And, while not relevant to the US, are you claming that whites have never been subjected to slavery?

    You’re dismissal of the point though reveals your cowardice when actually confronting the issue of racism. Only blacks can feel the brunt of racism, right?

    What about Asians? Hispanics?

  17. neocon January 5, 2008 / 11:20 am

    Rana,

    Would you consider the following statement to be racist?

    We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a White worship service and ministries which address the White Community.

  18. Obama_supporter January 5, 2008 / 11:22 am

    Neocon,

    Read some history. The Spanish Civil war began when Franco led a military revolt against the democratically elected republican government of Spain. So yes, I would actually blame Franco for the Spanish Civil War. Any more dumb questions?

    By the way, I note you did not make any remarks regarding the Catholic Church’s support of Franco, how so?

  19. Rana Quijotesca January 5, 2008 / 11:25 am

    Read:

    …I don’t think that churches should race bait the way that Obama’s seem to, but the First Amendment protections of speech and religious practice aren’t contingent on my or your approval…

    —Posted by me at 11:14 AM…

    You completely missed the part where I stated my opinion! Whites being enslaved in other parts of the world (which I’m sure has been done) isn’t particularly relevant to the case of racial groups in the US. Let me just clarify my view… I think that the ideas behind that quote are racist, and I don’t think that people or churches should so open race-bait in their speech… That is not to say that I think that that speech should be restricted…

  20. neocon January 5, 2008 / 11:36 am

    Obama,

    First of all, I don’t condone Francos actions nor do I excuse the churchs culpability. But the crimes of Catholicsm in years past are more indicative of the men leading that charge than it is an indictment on the doctrine. Intelligent people understand that.

    The following is an excerpt of an article you should familiarize yourself with:

    >>>but once in power the Left began a campaign of intimidation against churches, business owners, and monarchists (p. xxv). This was, after all, essentially the same movement that condoned church burnings, political murders of conservative politicians, and violent attacks on the right-wing parties defeated in the February 1936 elections.<<<

    http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=112111086514225

  21. neocon January 5, 2008 / 11:45 am

    I agree Rana. My point is that the media is quick to pounce on Romney or Huckabee, but goes out of their way to ignore Obamas faith and their doctrine.

  22. Mark Noonan January 5, 2008 / 12:05 pm

    Obama-Supporter,

    Your figure of 200,000 killed by Franco after the civil war is, I’m afraid, just not true. About 30,000 people fell victim to Franco’s executioners for political reasons during Franco’s regime (1936-1975). You are correct that Franco and the generals started the Spanish Civil War, and started it against the democratically elected Spanish government…but that government wasn’t elected on a platform of unremitting war on all things Spanish and Catholic, and that is what it was doing. It takes two to tango, and the Spanish republicans provided all sorts of reasons for the Catholics of Spain to rise in revolt.

    The growing violence against the Church and against lay Catholics was the primary reason Franco was able to generate popular support for his revolt – without which it would have been unable to sustain itself. Once the revolt was on, the violently anti-Catholic elements on the republican side were unleashed in an orgy of killings, rapes and looting. About 7,000 people in holy orders were murdered by the republicans, often with great cruelty, and mostly within the first six months of the outbreak of the civil war. The number of lay person executed by the Spanish government is less easy to determine, but given that there were far more lay people than priests in Spain, it stands to reason that the number of lay Catholics murdered or otherwise oppressed for failure to abandon the faith was very high – certainly at least as high as the number of people who fell victim to Franco’s killings – and this over a period of three years, not nearly 40.

    What was the Church supposed to do? Embrace those who raped nuns and murdered priests? Pretend that both sides were just as bad? One side proposed to exterminate Catholicism, the other proposed to end democracy…which side should Catholicism be on in such a situation?

    And while you may be born and bred in the Catholic Church, it is clear you don’t know Catholic teaching on homosexuality. I suggest you pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and learn about your faith – we are, after all, commanded in scripture to be able to give explanation for the faith that lives in us.

  23. Rana Quijotesca January 5, 2008 / 12:17 pm

    Mark-

    I personally think that Democracy is more valuable than Catholicism… that may just be me… 😛

  24. Mark Noonan January 5, 2008 / 12:46 pm

    Rana,

    You can have Catholicism without democracy, but you can’t have democracy without Catholicism…with Catholicism, you may one day also get democracy (as we see in Spain today), but if you eliminate Catholicism you can only do it in a way which ensures there will be no democracy.

Comments are closed.