The Pope is coming to UK to campaign against equality: Does this make him a respectable leader of faith or a bigot?

[Strix]

What do you think?

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8492597.stm

gocha - sorry do not have much time but will try to post more later. Basically the church says that anything that goes against the natural way of doing things will ultimately lead to something bad happening... not necessarily straight away but some time. Two people of the same gender do not have bodies designed for sexual intercourse with one another, and it can be argued that a lot of diseases are caused/ spread by people going against this natural law. eg. increases in certain kind of cancers between homosexual men (google it if you don't believe me!) The church has no problem with love between people of the same sex, it's the sexual act which they believe causes problems and anything which leads towards temptation in that respect is considered wrong.
I know I'll probably get a hundred angry responses to this but I think I can back up my views... unfortunately have to sort out children and do the school run now. Will try to come back later though.

Just have to add Rhubarb that the catholic church def puts humans above animals - animals are not bound by any moral law, it's up to us humans to look after them! now really must go for a bit as children are going wild!!

Oh I dunno freddo, didn't the Pope compare stopping the moral sin of homosexuality with climate change and saving the rainforests?

The "natural law" argument suggests also that things like oral sex, mutual masturbation and even kissing is wrong.

After all, the mouth is evolved designed for eating and speech, not being squashed against someone else's mouth.

And isn't it weird how so many people who have issues with homosexuality are obsessed with the matter of anal sex? It's not even like all gay men partake in it, and of course it says very little about lesbians...

Freddo,that's how people have answered me in the past,and it drives me mad! I think it is the way my mind works but to me "it is wrong" is one argument,and "it may have bad consequences at some unspecified point" is quite another.Because apart from anything else most of these consequences are avoidable - that's not a moral issue,it's an applied knowledge/common sense issue. Actually I read an article somewhere which commented that if only reproductive sex is what nature/God intended why are other forms of sexual activity pleasurable? Surely the natural law argument applies to this too?

Basically the church says that anything that goes against the natural way of doing things will ultimately lead to something bad happening.

Celibacy isn't 'natural'. Oh well, maybe you do have a point there then. Enforced celibacy leads to bigoted old men trying to interfere in equality legislation, thats bad.

Grimma makes a good point, if the human body was designed for reproduction then why deny it that?

Snorbs I was going to say something about carpets not being made for munching but my better judgement got to me first, thank goodness I didn't post that on here!

Ok Rhubarb first a small point: as I am not a creationist can we agree 'nature' does not 'intend' or 'design'. I mean if not, who designed the penis? Did they leave an instruction manual lying around? And what about our lesbian friends?

I am glad you brought up St Thomas. He had quite a lot to say on natural law, actually. I was allowing a Catholic the chance to argue on home turf.

But still not sure what you are arguing. Clearly you think anal sex is not natural but does that mean lesbians are okay, and Granny and Grandad can't have it both ways?

I ask again -- what is wrong with homosexuality?

I seem to remember a Pope (can't remember which one, a recent one anyway) saying that sex should only be for the purpose of procreation. So sex between a married couple when the wife is not capable of conception is a sin. Also that if a man has lustful fantasies about his wife (i.e. he daydreams about having sex with his wife for fun rather than with a view to making a baby), this is a sin. I don't know about oral sex between husband and wife - perhaps the Bill Clinton defence could be used here. Certainly masturbation is a sin (Onan wasting the seed).

These celibate guys do ruminate about sex a lot, don't they?

Erm, sorry gocha but just because I is a catholic does not mean I agree wif da Pope yeah?

Check out my earlier topics on this very subject. I was stating how the church view natural law - that was not to say I agreed with it.

Anyway, who the heck is the pope to determine what constitutes what "violates natural law". His speciality is surely 'supernatural law'.

Just because he's called a Pontiff doesn't give him the right to pontificate and expect the rest of the world to respect what he says.

I thought Onan's sin was disobeying God's will ,not masturbation? Gah,this thread has sucked me in,must go and do something else!

The Pope can pontificate all he wants, that's called freedom of speech.

The dangerous thing is though, that so many people do believe him and follow his words. At one stage in Kenya, I think, progress was finally being made in getting people to use condoms to combat AIDS. Pope visits Kenya, says it's a sin to use condoms, BAM, all the good work undone in one speech.

Oh no he's allowed to pontificate, but he isn't allowed the respect for that.

Respect goes out of the window when you wear a dress and a silly hat.

True limburg - he can talk but we don't have to respect him. Unfortunately, as you point out, people do.

Which is why its important for those of us who disagree with him to exercise our freedom of speech and make it clear how unacceptable his interference is.

If sex is for reproduction then we are all fucked in trouble. Is it unnatural for the infertile to copulate?

BTW I am not sure, Freddo, if you have heard but sexually transmitted diseases are pretty rampant in the heterosexual community ... including HPV/cervical cancer (which the Church also does not want its schools vaccinating against).

I used the term 'natural law' because Aquinas used that term to distinguish divine law from the law of man, and that is what Benny has his ecclesiastical knickers in a twist about: the equality bill is in his words a law acting against natural law because it violates a precept -- that homosexuality is bad, I presume.

However Aquinas says that this kind of precept (homosexulity is bad) is so because it violates a primary precept of natural law.

I just want to know from a Catholic what precept of natural law is that is violated by homosexual sex per se?

About 20 years ago the (then) Pope visited the Netherlands for the first time in ages. He was going to land in Eindhoven, in the South, where everyone is a Catholic. They put up seating and crash barriers for 20,000 people, drafted in lots of police in case of protests, etc etc.

In the event only a couple of thousand people turned up to watch, and His Holiness was greeted by a sea of empty chairs and (largely) polite indifference.

What a fantastic way of saying: "You are irrelevant."

Hey Rhubarb, I hear congratulations are in order. 29 again?

I didn't mean to direct it at you -- just wanted to indicate that I was adressing your post. I clocked the less-than-orthodox-take on Catholic teaching . I am beginning to wonder how there are so many Catholics because nobody seems to agree with the church (church schools keeping out the riff-raff, perhaps, she said nodding to another thread).

But I am actually serious because I think this is the shaky ground Benedict is on with his opposition to this proposed law. I agree I am not fond of arguments based on what we should 'naturally' do/not do because we would have to give up a lot more than sex (yeah, Vlaai they do talk about it a lot don't they?). But I chose to ask for a specific argument in natural law because that was what Benedict was moaning about in his statement-- it's against (his words) 'natural law' to make us hire gays because if we have to hire sinners it will corrupt us.

Using his own argument, Benedict presumably believes there is a divinely-willed order which Aquinas called a 'natural law' that means being gay, or gay sex, is wrong. I just have never heard an argument from any of these bigots people that uses Aquinas' own reasoning to indicate that it's definitely a sin in the first place, on that basis, except

a) prejudice (ewww...)
b)a clause in amongst a lot of other injunctions (usury, shellfish, etc.) that they have conveniently cast aside.

Which makes them either bigots, or hypocrites/apostates.

QED -- he is a bigot.

Strix - the queen has invited him because she gets bored with Prince Philip and fancies a change now and then. Oh. Hang on a minute...

On another note, if I were a homosexual, sexually active or not, I don't think I'd want to work for the Catholic Church in any case. I can't see long queues of homosexual office workers forming at their doors...

Just skimmed the thread and don't want to get sucked into the equality debate, but why is it cost us tax payers £20m for the Pope's visit?

Protection for a Head of State - Vatican City counts.

I think he should trust God to protect him. Surely if he's doing a great job here on earth God will want to do that won't he?

Thanks gocha! Actually many catholics disagree with the Pope, the last one was loved precisely because he shook things up a bit, this one has gone into reverse and we are none too happy about it.

There are many of us liberal catholics around dontcha know ;)