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

Yes, smallwhitecat's post was a good one... and I am just looking for excuses to avoid cleaning the floor

FreddoBaggyMac, I think the point is made, but I don't want to ignore you so here goes. You keep talking about flaunting and it's a loaded term implying that a gay teacher will come in and tell the class about her sex life.
I said 'might mention in passing' because there is no equivalent to 'Mrs' for gay people, but there are any number of innocent ways the sex of a partner might be revealed in casual conversation

"that's a nice cardigan Miss. Did your partner buy it for you"

"yes he did"
"yes she did"

From what you are saying I believe you'd call that flaunting if and only if the 'he/she' part of the sentence was the WRONG one.

Let me get this straight. The bill would prevent anyone from refusing to employ a person based on their religion/sexual orientation/gender/age/political views.

I would be more worried that this means that a catholic school would not be able to refuse to employ a teacher who was openly a member of the BNP. Or a catholic school employing a muslim woman who refused to remove her burkha.

I suppose it depends how the bill will be enforced.

But if gay people are happily employed in catholic schools up and down the country without a problem - then is not this homosexual argument a bit of a red herring?

Yes, but I understand that the church(es) wanted an exemption as the fear being that they would be forced to employ gay priests.

But we've been here before as far as the church wanting an exemption. The Adoption Act, the church threatened to close down adoption services for fear of not complying with legislation by placing children with gay couples. My understanding is that even the Catholic adoption services have placed children with gay couples, so it was hot air theoretical.

FreddoBaggyMac "This bill however would make it perfectly acceptable for homosexuals to flaunt their sexuality whilst in the role of catholic teacher."

Freddy where do you get this stuff from? Would you please kindly provide me with a link that explains what you mean by this as I have read the proposed bill and I could not find anything about allowing anyone of any sexuality to openly flaunt their sexuality.

It's a complete Red Herring in my opinion Rhubarb, as I've said all along the British media just don't like the current pope and are trying to find any excuse to incite hatred towards him (IMO!)

I do undersatnd what you are saying onagar and I acknowledge that it is a really tricky area. All I can say is that the catholic religion is completely idealistic with very strict ideas on right and wrong. To be truly catholic, catholic schoools should try and reflect this. Their leaders therefore need to be setting the best example possible (from a catholic point of view). At the same time the church acknowledges that we all do things which are against its teaching (and in most people's opinion being gay is a very minor and unimportant one) and we should not judge.

I appreciate that you may not agree with some catholic ideals (many of us catholics struggle) but the point is that if a school presents itself as catholic then it should promote catholic standards. The pope as the head of the church has to have the most staunch opinions in this respect - it is his job to live up to all the ideals of the faith.

Teachers therefore should be seen as trying to aspire to those ideals (even though like the rest of us, they won't be managing to do so). If they have a problem with this I don't see why they don't just choose to work in a non-catholic school.

So I suppose I am saying that yes, a gay teacher would have to be less open about their sexuality in a none catholic school. But at the same time they have chosen to work there and there must be a particular reason why.

Topher, I have to go now as I've spent far too long on this today, but I have said that 'flaunt' is a poor word (I'd be happy if someone could provide a better one, maybe 'express' their sexuality would be a better way of putting it). if you read my postings over the last few pages they will respond to your question - briefly, there are many homosexuals teaching in catholic schools currently who do not choose to faunt/ express their sexuality and just get on with doing their job. So why does the bill need to come in at all? I really am just repeating myself here so will come to a stop.

but I understand that the church(es) wanted an exemption as the fear being that they would be forced to employ gay priests.

No - they already have that exemption. The problem was some behaved as if that exemption extended to lay workers. It doesn't - as I understand it, the proposed amendment was merely meant to clarify this and stop unlawful discrimination against them.

Freddo, as far as I can work out it was just because some employers were behaving illegally.

Grimma you're absolutely right .

Really outrageous though. Can't remember the last time a Pope visited the UK, but of all the things he could lend his weight to: Darfur, Haiti, malaria, child poverty and he decides to launch a campaign against homosexuality.

Freddo: so are you happy for your kids to be taught that it's more important to protect the institution of the church by covering up child abuse, than to protect children from predatory abusers who happend to be priests? Because this appears to have been Official Catholic Policy for an awfully long time.
So it would be nice if the Pope maybe apologised for this and admitted it was wrong, before trying to suggest that such an institution has any right to be critical of sexual acts between consenting adults.

Does the Pope have responsibility for increasing the spread of Aids in Africa?

Discuss

Quattro: yes.

But really, the pope is a beacon of moderation and toleration compared to some Christians. I've just fled in horror from the room where DH was watching newsnight or suchlike reporting from Uganda where they are planning to bring in the death sentence for sodomy, with the enthusiastic support of the Anglican church there it seems.

I had 18 years of a catholic upbringing and education. I know a fair few people who still attend mass who I count as friends. I have a few friends who just go to church at Christmas and Easter or when they visit their home towns just to keep their parents happy.

I have a total schism with it all because on so many levels I find the Catholic church a non-positive thing. But I appreciate that people need it (familiarity, ritual, community etc.) or just don't abandon it because they don't feel it a particularly onerous thing to "be".

However, I increasingly feel that a lot of people must be sticking their fingers in their ears and closing their eyes because on SO many levels the catholic church's teachings are contrary to basic, tolerant attitudes. I think a complete turning point came for me when my mother talked about a lovely new parish priest that had entered their church - HE HAD A WIFE! I was completely baffled. Apparantly he was a Church of England priest that had left because of his objection to the ordination of women - and the Catholic Church had welcomed him with open arms.

I saw the Pope in Coventry in 1982 - a lovely, avuncular figure in the mist. I am going to watch this next visit with a mixture of emotions.

It's this underlying view/assumption (call it what you will) that homosexuals flaunt their sexuality that gets me. The ones I know don't, they just get on with day to day living - like the rest of us. I don't discuss my sexuality with everyone and anyone and neither do they. However, if they are discriminated against then of course they should challenge that. Which reminds me that I went for an interview in a catholic school many moons ago where I was subjected to one of the most horrendously sexist comments I think I have ever been on the receiving end of....and I said 'Would you say that to a man?'

DP's comment about "if you are a lesbian and don't flaunt it what is the point" (I paraphrase) is just plain rubbish and nonsensical.

And if you are arguing gays should not be employed in catholic schools because they are not promoting catholic standards then you need to understand we live in a secular society and your religion does not make you exempt from the laws of the land. And if you really are advocating this then you certainly should not be receiving state funding for your school.

I also take issue with the idea that denying Catholics the right to discriminate against homosexuals is " unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities" to quote PapaRazi.

Homosexuality is barely mentioned in the Bible, and certainly not by Jesus. However in the Quran, the right of a man to take 4 wives is. Yet somehow, the bigmay laws in the UK are not seen as " unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities".

Why is it OK to tell one religious group that their deeply felt religious belief is incompatible with UK laws and not another?

BD;

That's not really what I said.

You know if people actually took the time to understand what i'm saying rather than just assume i'm out for a fight....

There are people talking the biggest load of bullshit I've read in a long time on here....infact they talk so much of it, what they say just goes in one ear and out the other now ..(or should that be in one eye and out the other..?)

ie; why should I pay for the popes visit out of my taxes..?

That's how the tax system works you clowns....you all pay into the system and it gets distributed anywhere the government wants.

I have to pay for homosexuals/muslims/and loads of other groups I don't belong to...

Riven,as far as I know the only people allowed to be married Catholic priests are the anglican married clergy who left the C of E because of the ordination of women.Married non- clergy men can't be ordained.
Which is pretty illogical really - either priests must be celibate ,or not - I was saying to DH only this morning that it was a little odd to say to these men that because they were ordained priests(but I didn't think Catholicism recognised Anglicans as valid priests anyway...)already and married,it was ok for them to become Catholic priests.

DP I quote "If I was a lesbian I would want people to know...otherwise..what's the point..? "

The point is most homosexuals don't care whether you know or not......it actually isn't your business.

Perhaps the pope's visit could be scheduled for Guy Fawks, when we could put a real one on the fire.

"If I was a lesbian I would want people to know...otherwise..what's the point..? "

daftpunk,this is what you actually said,but it may not have been what you meant.Because the interpretation I am putting on that is that you assume people "become" lesbian as some sort of public statement.

Cross post,Blackduck!

Thank you Pogleswood for summing up far more eloquently than I did...