Freedom of Expression in the EU?

Nothing new. The RCC have been censoring opinions for a long, long time. In fact, if you're complaining about freedom of speech, a fundamentalist religious denomination who used to try to ban books isn't the best example.

This Oko sounds an utter creep, an obsessed polemicist, one who spews hatred to the intellectually gullible.

He should find something better to do than prating on about non-existent 'lobbies' and 'cliques'.

I wonder what the Pope thinks of his hate-filled screeds.

What EU?

Yeah...I got that in the meantime, you are right...he ist not a priest!


Well.....if I call another group of people "cancer" and "parasites" etc. what do you think that looks like?

Why should the german media lie about that? The german priest putting the theologian to court over that didn't do it out of the blue sky, didn't he?


In Germany there too is a huge discussion about abuse of children by the church, it did already costs the german churches an enormous loss of standing and millions of members, its also a big part of the continuing loss of christian influence in Germany generally...proof that you can fight children abuse in the church without dehumanizing all homosexuals.

Not at least because the worst abuse of homosexuals often came from the church itself, for centuries....that is the sad irony of that!

"Little Wolfgang" has taken it upon himself to support homos in his position as a priest...more the article doesn't say...

Here a link to the german catholic website with a long article about that in English:

translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=katholisch.de/artikel/30714-polnischer-theologe-oko-in-koeln-wegen-volksverhetzung-verurteilt


Well...it seems he never denied saying what he did....his supporter only say that he was quoted "out of context"....


I agree and I think that's what this affair is about....just a reminder:

....In the article, Oko referred to homosexual clergymen as "a colony of parasites", "cancerous growth" and "homosexual plague", among other things,....

But true, it would be nice to have the original article...


That's what the EU treaties are about....there are some fundamentals ALL members had to subscribe to before accession, these count then in all countries for all people, to break them gets judged and punished everywhere...this EU charter is part of this, the german law about Volksverhetzung not so much!

I would say you sound like someone who is spreading hate, on the other hand is very close to slander.


If you call Sicilian mafia 'concern' is that spreading hatred to all Sicilians? Unless homosexuals are under a special protection of the german law....


I don't know what german media say about it but judging by what you say they haven't done a very good job in conveying what it has been said. Unless it is all you. lol


That because that issue is not clear and pretty much confusing..

If I add "like" before "cancer", am I safe with the German authorities?
BTW, is hating illegal in Germany? What if I really feel hate? Is there a pill to make hate into love?

@jon357

The RCC never banned or tried to ban books. It's another one of those myths about the RCC that floats in the aether that the intellectual gullible like to gobble up. The Index Librorum Prohibitorum contained books that were judged theologically erroneous or immoral that was incongruent with the faith of the Church and a corruption of morals. It didn't outright forbid the reading of these books.


It's a good question. It does seem odd that the German priest filed the suit. Did Oko attack Rothe directly? If not, why would Rothe file the suit?


That's good to hear. But, before I take your assertion and run with it, can you provide the basis for your claim? Where does your expertise in this matter lie? Are you a member or on staff of a local or Vatican RCC curia? Have you spent significant time investigating whether or not there are homosexual cliques and lobbies within the RCC? Because, I happen to know people who are, and they conclude something different than you, based on experience or the evidence they have been privy. Plus, Pope Benedict (who I am positive is exponentially more knowledgable about the inner life of the Church than you and me put together) even acknowledged homosexual cliques within seminaries in an essay he wrote somewhat recently about the church and sex abuse.


Support in the form of blessing homosexual couples, which is contrary to the clear teachings of the Church. Again, you can disagree with the Church on this, but I'd hope it'd be evident that this priest is in conflict with the Church he is ministering in and representing. The Church clearly teaches that homosexual acts are grave sin, to minister in a fashion that condones homosexual acts by blessing it is clearly in violation of Church teaching. This does cause confusion, tension, and erodes confidence within the Church--like a cancer or a plague.

I think what Oko is guilty of is confidently shedding a bright light on homosexuality within the the Church (no one has offered proof to the contrary, all you get is proclamations of "there is no cliques and lobbies" without proving the claims there are cliques and lobbies are false or explaining how so many prelates and clergy kept keeping on (some ascending high up the ecclesial ranks) as accusations of sexual impropriety mounted against these guys) and offending the sensitivities of the over-sensitive.


Firstly, have you read anything by this guy? I have and he doesn't say anything hate-filled in what I've read and heard from him. Secondly, it is believed by some (including members of the College of Cardinals) that one of the reasons Benedict XVI resigned was because he realized how big a problem this was in the Church and he didn't have the energy to tackle it--B16 never said that, so it's conjecture, but we he did address this issue several times and was met with a lot of interference, including from Cdl McCarrick here in the US who repeatedly downplayed the Vatican's directive of tighter scrutiny of seminary candidates and disallowing guys with deep-seated homosexual tendencies from entering seminary.


I'm glad it's not just me.

It's not a myth. The Index Librorum Prohibitorum lasted until the 60s. It was a de facto ban, as you'd know if you tried to buy books on it from bookshops in a number of countries.


You first referred to these non-existent 'lobbies' and 'cliques'' that this person alleges Therefore if you want this Oko person to be discussed in terms other than that he is a fantasist, it's on you to prove he isn't. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


So are most things.

The big question is why the Polish government is getting involved. He isn't a state employee and the crime was committed in Germany,

Not that the Polish regime have a great record themselves for upholding freedom of expression.

And as I said before, I wonder what the Pope thinks of this.

Hmm....not really....not if you are rather conservative, don't like illegal immigration, head scarves and muslims....then you get alot of hate....so no, it isn't forbidden! :)


Germany has since the Reformation TWO churches, and it seems many german Christians would like to see another reformation...some are really self proclaimed "progressive"!

I don't really agree or disagree nor am I an expert on church matters as I'm not part of it....but it seems like an inner-church conflict between the very leftist german churches (at least a big part of it) which is all for female priests and homosexual blessings and what not and the conservative catholic church ala Poland which would keep the church as it has been for the last millennia.

A culture clash so to speak...Germany had had Luther after all, it wouldn't be the first break up!

If they "didn't outright forbid" their reading, then they certainly chose a name that suggested strongly that they ih fact did prohibit them.


And more besides.

And the church is really doing its' best for that to happen.... I used to defend the church as an institution, because of how much good they were doing, even though some of its' teachings were completely detached from reality (like banning contraceptions, which no one really follows).

But the recent revelations about the abuse scandal in Germany changed that. The more one finds out, the worse it looked. Like how they allowed confessed child rapists to work again as priests with children... how they ignored or even silecend warnings and destroyed evidence .... or how they have so far not even once excommunicated an offender, even though this is an explicit possibility. They will excommunicate you if you dispite the infallibility of the pope, but not if you rape repeatedly children.

If the article in question is an indication on how the discussion within the church goes, then I fear it is truly lost. Repeating the old hateful lies and linking pedophilia to homosexuality is just sickening. Someone should check if they still think that Jews murder christian babys and use their blood for rituals.

This proves that they were afraid of the cops but not of God - an admission that they don't believe that God exists. If they did, they would be petrified of going to Hell forever.

As it stands today, they are only afraid of the worldly prisons - in Germany, vacation resorts by comparison.

I just noticed that staggering statement. Hard to know what "deep-seated" means here; is it like "deep-seated" heterosexual tendencies?

All priests have their sexuality, even celibate ones. Even the Pope. If they've become celibate, all will still struggle, whether they like it or don't; that is part of celibacy. Eastern Orthodoxy seems to have got it less wrong; celibate monastic orders for those who choose, and marriage for secular priests serving in parishes.


Yes. Basically, a particularly nasty polemic from the extreme fringe of the church.

I feel like this is an excuse made up by those who want to their behaviour. If you really feel sexually deprived, there are other ways to live out your urges, especially in Germany where prostitution is legal (and if you worry about being recognized, just go to a different city). There is no reason why raping a child would be an "easier" solution.

*nods*

That looks more like a desperate try to absolve the failing inner structures of the Church from the children abuse and blame it all on the old "enemy", the homos!

But as I see it:
Homosexuality was successfully demonized and forbidden for many centuries by the Church...but it never stopped the child rapists inside the Church, quite the contrary....and it probably never will.

So, if homos aren't the main problem, then what is?

Indeed. So instead of talking about homophobia I would rather look at the statistics.


To me looks it likes there is a brave dude who is describing a problem, not everything is about paedophilia.
That is being silenced and punished bevosue he said a taboo word - really in a free and liberal open minded society there are laws of taboo? You couldn't make that s''t up. How do you call it? Progressive? lol a bloody taboo..


people>? Church bad, Big Government with taboos good. Hey what if a religion and especially RCC is not the problem? oh no !What you gonna do>?

A priest who is sexually aroused by a boy is both pedo and homo. Yes, it's double sickening.

I think Iron is right.

BB and Tacitus, it seems like you are going off the rails. Have you read the article Oko authored (not an article about the article, but the actual article written by Oko)? Did he say that homosexuals are the cause of pedophilia? I thought this guy's "offense" was saying that there is a gay clique and lobby within the church that is acting as a cancer, a plague, etc on the church.

If he is saying pedophilia is a result of homosexuality, then, I agree, he's wrong. It may be different in other parts of the world, but from credible recorded cases in the US, less than 10% were pedophilia; most of the abused were post-pubescent boys. So, the main problem isn't even pedophilia, and I fail to see how homosexuality equals pedophilia.

But, I don't think his point has anything to do with pedophilia. His main point is homosexuality is rampant among the ordained within the RCC and they are protected by a group within the clergy and leadership of the Church.

For a Church that sees homosexual acts as contrary to the natural moral law, don't you think that those who engage in homosexual acts, accept it as it normative, live a gay lifestyle, etc may cause a corruption of the teaching and velour of hypocrisy? Again, you can disagree with the Church about its teaching all day long, but do not the men and women of the Church who agree with this teaching have the right to express it? Can they not voice their concerns and assessments of what they, at least, perceive as something that is damaging the Church, whether they characterize it as a cancer, plague etc.?

Oko isn't the only one who thinks there are gay cliques and lobbies. (And this is also answering Jon) Benedict 16 wrote an article a few years ago explicitly acknowledging there are cliques, Pope Francis has acknowledged it, Cdl Maidiaga ((sp?) who is one of Francis' closest confidants and not a "conservative" churchman) has explicitly acknowledged a gay lobby, a book, Goodbye, Good Men published in 2000ish (before the US sex scandal exploded) makes the claim--to name a few.

My major concern over this case against Oko is that, to me, it appears that freedom of expression is being diminshed to freedom to express only those things the zeitgeist approve.

Why is the causation even discussed? What's the point? Both are mental disorders and are part of the package of sexual aberrations in a sick person. Just as with criminals. Some kill, some rape, some do both. We are too busy and indifferent to analyze if rape causes murder or vice versa.

Hmm.....I can't change it Iron, it's not my hallucination...but the Church has a huge problem with child rapists....not the big government...maybe not even religion generally....but THE CHURCH!


Do you have a link? I would even take google translation at this point! :)


Honestly, to me it seems as if for some in the Church not the raped children are the problem, but the good' ol trusted sinners, the homos...


And is he wrong? Think about it Anti....an organization made by males, with power only for males...men, men, men everywhere....no marriages....no families with children...women only as outsiders, as servants....surely a dream for many homos!!!!

Is it so outlandish to think the RCC is full of them?

If we accept that as a possibility...where will this fight against homosexuality in the Church lead? If there are so many of them, maybe always have been...

Don't get me wrong here...I'm strictly speaking as an outsider....as a puzzled observer....a Christian, a devoted member of the Church will probably see it differently...

No he is not. Pedophilia is a sexual preference that is often completely seperated from other preferences, hence you have men who are attracted to prebuscent girls but won't be able to get aroused by women.

There is no basis to condemn it whatsoever and it is sad that there are still people who seek them as targets for their own gratification. That this often comes from Christians is double sickening. We call out Islam for its hateful messages but apparantly Christianity is getting a pass there.


No doubt there are people within the church who are gay, but the fact that they are deemed as a problem instead of recognizing that they are as dwvoted to the church as just reveals how morally bankrupt the church has become. Perhaps the old farts have not realized how hypocritical it appears that a religion that says "Love thy neighbour" but discriminates against LBGT, but this is going to be even more of issue, particulary with young people who are more concerned over minorities. Give it 20 years and the same will be happening in Poland and other conservative countries. The church is in real danger of losing its' believers.

....but the Church becoming like the Left or the Greens, fitting to the actual Zeitgeist, throwing 2000 year old rituals in the bin, will be its death too...

People want eternal truths, spiritualism, belief...if they want Green and Identity Politics they can (and do) vote for political parties, they don't need the Church for that....

To much modernization will kill the Church too!

Hey, BB, it's scary...You are almost like me.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo

*runs*

You can run but you can't remove that American 1st Amendment part of your DNA. Everybody has it, so it's quite normal to feel the way you do. I mean disturbed.

BB, you answered Taci excellently. The above post is representative of why you are not only my favorite German, but, also, my favorite pagan. :D


Please do not misunderstand this as some kind of attempt at mitigation, but the Church problem isn't any different than the general society according to the studies that have been done here in the US b(so, it may be different in other parts of the world, but I doubt it). It's believed that about 2 to 4% of priests have been responsible credible sexual abuse claims; which is about the same in other, for lack of a better term, sectors of society. Also, most abuse has not been rape but other gross and harmful sexual acts of abuse like fondling, exposing of genitals, showing pornography to kids--rape or not it's diabolical and damaging to the victim. So, again, please understand I'm not mitigating, only making a distinction. NO SEX ABUSE is tolerable and ALL should be punished, but most importantly it should be prevented. And, the Church has done a pretty good job in recent years to address this scourge by putting things in place to prevent this, at least here in the US.


No. I broke Rule #2 and spent more than an hour on the computer after work the last two nights looking for it and haven't come across it. Maybe my searching skills really suck! Have you searched for it using German?


I don't think he is. From what I read and hear from Catholic sources and outlets, including anecdotal things I hear from the priests and seminary professors I know in my archdiocese, what he says adds up. It seems to be more prevalent in certain dioceses than others, but there does appear a prevalence.


Good question and it's really hard to know for sure if it's always been that way. There is some possible evidence that it hasn't always been that way: after Vatican II there was a good number of priests who left the priesthood and the vast majority got married. I also recall a couple decades ago there was a petition signed by priests calling for a married priesthood. Take that for what it's worth.

Regardless, and this is my point, the church has a clear teaching on homosexuality and it is a reasoned teaching, why shouldn't a member of the church (clergy or lay) not be able to express himself in favor of this teaching and assess the damage done to the church by its members in the clergy who act contrary to that teaching by comparing it to a disease?

We are closing in on becoming imprisoned by the zeitgeist and those of us who see it differently from the zeitgeist are all going to become Bernard Marx (Brave New World) or something. Those who dig today's zeitgeist should remember that the geist changes with the zeit, it ain't static, although the purveyors of the zeitgeist may try to make it static through autocratic means, like "hate" speech laws and the such.

Anyhow, my work break is over and I got earn my daily bread.

It was mentioned that Oka published that article in "Theologisches"...that is a german catholic monthly...and some of its archive is online, but only till up to 2019 and no trace of Oka!

theologisches.net/

But I doubt that he wrote in German....so there must be the original in polish....slowly I get suspicious that this is so hard to find....


*throws helmet up in air* :)

Nobody is talking about abolishing the Lords' prayer or the Holy Communion, but aspects that were mostly added much later. At no point does e.g. Jesus condemn homosexuals, in fact it is heavily implied by the wording in the original text that the servant/slave Jesus cured (But say the word, and my servant will be healed) is a lover of the person who begs for help. Those who condemn homosexuals usually point to parts of the Old Testament, which has a lot of things we choose to ignore (like demanding the death penalty on all sorts of crimes). Clinging to one part that goes against the key message of the faith (Love thy neighbour) and one the Church wants to be associated with above all others is just stupid, especially when it is in no way a core tennet of the faith or something Jesus himself dictated.


Predators will always seek out jobs/opportunities where they can pray on others, which is why you have those working as teachers, boyscout leaders, coaches and so on. I am not blaming the church that there are pedophiles in their ranks, nobody can look into peoples souls. What I am blaming the church for is how they sheltered them and gave them again and again opportunities to harm children. We are not talking about cases that were decades ago, some of the accused have been serving as priests in Germany well past 2012! By the way, pope Benedicts' reaction to those crimes have been appalling!


Maybe, but it has been continous progress in the last 76 years or so, at least when it comes to Europe. We abolished the death penaly, improved womens' rights and now those of other minorities follow suit. The Church was often advocating those changes, e.g. in their resistance against the death penalty past WWII. Sadly their record on LBGTQ will look very mixed at best, but maybe one should not abandon hope too early. The Church has been able to adress Criticism and change their ways in the past, e.g. as response to the Reformation, maybe it can do so again. However for that they should stop listening to people of the past like the man wrote the article.

.....I've read theories about Maria Magdalena being the first pope. That the Church became only later so male dominated, that it was never planned that way.

Only theories, I know....but I wonder what that would mean for the whole Church and many of its teachings if that would be true. Could it be true???

Thoughtful post, Tacitus.

I, and millions of other Catholics, join you in blaming leaders in hiding this filth.

I don't agree that Benedict handling of sex abuse was appalling-imperfect, but not appalling.

The Church's response to change has never been about changing it's doctrine, though. Whether it was responding to the Reformation during Trent or Modernity during V2, etc.

For the Church to "come around" and accept homosexuality as normative would fundamentally be doctrinal and totally upend the Church's Christian anthropology. Many in and, especially, out of the church want that; but, the Church would cease being who she is. So, don't hold your breath.-you're better alive than dead :).

Geez, BB, the Pope Mary Mag thingy...seriously? ! :D

Well...could it???