To embrace killing fags, they embrace armies of suicide bombers….OMFGDid this Archdiocese also cut their teeth in the Nazi Youth Group with Rattzinger?

In answer to your question: Yes

Yes, he is.WOW

Not to defend them……Because I do disagree with them wholeheartedly. But the very next sentence says “Terrorism as a way to oppose the degeneration of the culture is to be rejected completely”.
So, y’know, they’re just denying the equal humanity of a group of people. Not actively advocating their torture. (In this particular letter.)

As she says, speechless

terrorism is the method of the insurgent …… while this guy is wanting to wield state power. I wouldn’t put it past His Unholiness to state an auto-da-fé if he were governor of Guam.

What will be more telling……is if the “Holy” See does or DOES NOT condemn this statement.

Translation:

“Terrorism as a way to oppose the degeneration of the culture is to be rejected completely”.

Translation: “I’m just sayin.’”

“Terrorism as a way to oppose the degeneration of the culture is to be rejected completely”.

Gotta love the passive voice, too.  I’m sure if someone decides not to reject the notion of repression by death, he’ll say “Mistakes were made.”
Passive voice: the all-purpose plausible deniability amulet.

it is curious how Christian fundamentalists get paranoid when being compared to their Islamic counterparts. If you take out advocating violence, their reasoning in the treatment  of gays is  remarkably similar

There, I fix it!“Islamic fundamentalists clearly understand the damage that sex abuse inflicts on a culture. This is why they repress such behavior by death…”
There, fixed that for you.
Any bets on whether the Archdiocese would have signed off if THAT were the idea behind, say, someone bombing a Catholic church?
I think this officially is where my formerly-fellow progressive Catholics have to WAKE THE FUCK UP ALREADY.
What Would Jesus Do? Jesus would walk away from you murderous mo-fos saying “I don’t know you.” And then he’d probably high-five the centurion and his servant.

then don’t.I don’t suppose you’ve noticed that the people committing terrorism are often quite unwilling to define those acts as terrorism?

Here’s what Catholics will do:Nothing.
They’ll stick with their Church, deluding themselves that they’re somehow “changing things from within.”
As if.  

some of them won’t do nothingIf there’s another Inquisition they’ll pitch right in.

Kill them all. God will know his own.
– Archbishop Arnaud Amalric, at the siege of Béziers, Albigensian Crusade

The New TalibanOrganized religion is the new taliban, if they had it their way women would be barefoot, pregnant and in kitchens all over the USA. It would be the 1950′s all over again. We queers would be hiding in closets in fear and they would be letting all of their pedophile priests continue raping altar boys.

Kind of heartwarmingThey pretend to be archenemies, but once in a while, they’re able to put aside their differences when something REALLY important comes along – like hating the right group of people.  Fairly warms the cockles of me heart, it does.

Did I say something wrong?The bigot from Guam must’ve realized he put his foot in his mouth up to his hip, and is desperate to extricate it!
The following is the Bishop’s “apology” as posted in Guam’s newspaper, The Pacific News Daily.
http://www.guampdn.com/article…

I realize that.Do I think he’s a rotten bigot who would be happy if we all dropped dead? Yes. Do I think he’s unspeakably dangerous? Yes. Do I think people could use his words to justify acts of violence against LGBTQ people? Yes. Do I think he would regret that? Probably not.
But I don’t think he’s, in the actual text of this specific letter, “advocating the torture and murder of gays”. I’m not even going to say that I think he’s opposed to those things. He might well support them. But I just don’t see actual “advocating” of torture in this letter, myself.
I do see plenty to turn my stomach and make me hate Catholicism and the majority of all organized religions even more than I already do.  

Perhaps “terrorism” is just a matter of perspectiveWell, my subject hed isn’t universally true – but there is a whole class of “terrorism” that, when looked at from the point of view of the “terrorist,” is not really terrorism at all.
One extremely unpopular example could be the Oklahoma City Bomber, Timothy McVeigh.  He saw himself as a freedom fighter.  His target was a federal government agency (I think it was the Bureao of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms).  He was aiming at what he saw as a military target (attacking a government agency as a destabilizing act) as an act of what he sat as revolution (but others might see as insurrection).
In a televised interview before his execution, McVeigh explained that the deaths of the day-care children and other innocent victims was “collateral damage.”
One might well be horrified by that attitude – but it is the same attitude our own military takes when it bombs an Afghani wedding party from a remote-control drone aircraft, or when killing a school full of children somewhere in the former Yugoslavia with a bomb drop that issed the intended target.  It’s “Whoops, sorry, collateral damage!”  
There are numerous cases of American-inflicted “collateral damage” in Iraq.  And the current crop of collateral is being inflicted by a nation with the most sophisticated weaponry on earth that is designed to minimize the side effects.
McVeigh’s “terrorist” act was no different from the war crimes committed by our own military on a nearly daily basis.  He felt that the ATF was responsible for deadly attacks on his people (the paranoid survivalist/militia movement), or at least people who were allies of his people.  He was feeling oppressed by what he saw as a repressive and powerful government, and he thought that his acto of defiance was going to spur on the revolution that would topple the government and stop the perceived oppression.
It is possible to view the 9/11 attacks through a similar lens, if we try to put ourselves in the perspective of the attackers.
I am not suggesting that these attacks are objectively justifiable.  But if the only just war is one of defense against attack, then it is possible to understand the self-justification of a McVeigh or a bin Liden.
What we perceive as terrorism is often the only way oppressed people can effectively struggle against their oppressors.
Perhaps the message being sent by the Catholic Church in Guam, is a justification of the use of terrorism by the oppressor as a means of enforcing its oppressive policies, as long as one doesn’t blame the Church for doing it.  Even with the Inquisition, the Church handed over the victims to the secular authorities for torture and execution, even though it was the Church’s leadership that was motivating the terrorism.
The message to those who are oppressed by the Catholic hierarchy, or at least to those who would be willing to use violence to achieve a just end (something I would not justify except in defense), is that if LGBT people want to show that we are truly committed to the advancement of justice, then some of us should be willing to immolate ourselves in self-sacrifice in the advancement of the cause of justice.  Perhaps this is the ultimate answer to the question, “What would Jesus do?”
If the cause was truly just, would Jesus have been willing to pilot a 747 into the Pentagon, killing himself and many others in the process?
The families and culture of the PAlestinian terrorists celebrates the self-sacrifice of the suicide/homicide bombers who prey on shopping malls and civilian buses in Tel Aviv.  To them, what we see as a terror attack is a blow against the people they see as occupying their country since 1948.
The Islamists who cheered and gave candy to children to celebrate the deaths of 3,000 innocent civilians at the World Trade Center are an enemy (a misidentified target, I think – it was just a pair of tall buildings that housed New York government and Port Authority offices, as well as some brokerage firms and other businesses – though perhaps from the enemy POV as legitimate a target as Dresden or Tokyo firebombings, or Hiroshima or Nagasaki).  But they think that Americans are their enemy, because we support the right of Israel to exist.  And they know that America is too powerful to oppose on a field of battle by conventional military means.
Is there a point where I might justify myself committing a terrorist act?  And even if I could find a justification, would I have the courage of my convictions to do it myself?  Or would I inspire impressionable young people to join the noble cause of freedom and justice to do the dirty work for me?
I don’t know.  I do know that as long as there is a legal mechanism to achieve justice through the ballot box, through legislation, litigation, education and advocacy, I should not even think of striking out militarily.  My people and I may be oppressed, but there are still other avenues through which we can wage the struggle for the cause of freedom and justice, and peace, without having to resort to violence or killing.

similaritiesAw golly gee, Sally Kern is just going be tickled pink to hear that Guam’s archbishop supports her point of view. But the two of them must be green with envy over what some lawmakers are trying to pass in Uganda. Very scary.

ha!That ain’t no apology.

Let’s see… *whips out checklist*Conditional “if”? Check.
Passive voice? Check.
Yup, it’s a fail.

Befitting of the Church.We should trust the Church to come up with ‘outrageous’ statements that are befitting of a genocidal dictator.
A brutal molding of society produces suicide bombers. Suicide bombing in the name of religion isn’t sacrifice; it demonstrates to the utmost effect what is wrong with religion: intolerance based on a set of dogmas.
Glad to see the Church accept that there isn’t much difference between them and the Islamic fundamentalists who blow themselves up, and take innocent people along with them.