Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

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

821 replies

Strix · 02/02/2010 08:43

What do you think?

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

OP posts:
ilovemydogandmrobama · 04/02/2010 22:31

Thanks for posting the Pope's words.

But it has to be a reference to homosexuality. The reference to 'unjust limitations' and 'natural law' means that there is a conflict between national law and religious law, although the term 'natural law' is frequently used as a justification to abhor homosexuality; that it doesn't fit into the 'natural law' of man.

Seems to me fairly obvious that it's about the Equalities Bill.

GrimmaTheNome · 04/02/2010 22:35

Rhubarb, I for one do realise that - I'm sure you aren't lumping all the non-catholics in this debate together either?

At this point my conclusion is that the Pope has contradicted the catechism of his own church but that a large number of its members do not agree with his stance.

Unfortunately - incomprehensibly - the govt seems to have abandoned the clarification so the interference was successful.

FreddoBaggyMac · 04/02/2010 22:42

I really don't think it is a reference to homosexuality. people are just assuming that because anything a catholic says just HAS to be linked to sex (!) He is talking about natural laws of equality being violated... that is what he says for goodness sake, those are his words!!! To say he is talking about the violation of the natural laws of sexuality is not twisting his words but actually changing them into different ones...

ilovemydogandmrobama · 04/02/2010 22:51

Oh come on, Freddo, of course it is!

Even the Catholic newspaper, The Tablet states admits it's a reference to homosexuality, and says, "nothing really new - this is part of the classic Catholic teaching on human sexuality".

Hardly changing the Pope's words

GrimmaTheNome · 04/02/2010 23:16

"natural laws of equality being violated"

If its not what everyone else interprets it as, what on earth is violating what natural laws? I can't make any other sense out of it.

I'm sorry Freddo, I can understand your desire to think the best of the leader of your church but I think on this one he's out of line with its better principles.

FreddoBaggyMac · 05/02/2010 07:55

He is not saying natural laws are being violated though, he is saying laws of equality are being violated!
ie. it is natural to have laws of equality and these laws are being violated.
'The tablet' is a liberal newspaper and not a fan of benedict - they would probably be the first to change his words.
I truly believe that you are all just following what the media have told you! PLEASE try to read what he has said with no preconceptions (pretty hard after taking part in this long debate I grant you!)
The pope is not implying, but you (and just about everyone else on here) are inferring the negative steotypical things that you assume Catholics are obsessed with.

ilovemydogandmrobama · 05/02/2010 08:09

Oh well Freddo, you'd better come down and tell the parish priest that it isn't about homosexuality as he seems to think it is too as we discussed it a few days ago, and am sure he doesn't believe what he reads. And don't think he's particularly obsessed with sex

FreddoBaggyMac · 05/02/2010 08:21

I'd be happy to discuss it with him ilovemydog!
It does refer to homosexuality, but it also refers to evrything else the Catholic faith dissaproves of. It is not an explicit statement against homosexuality which is what everyone seems to be saying.
I just don't see how you can say the words 'violating the natural laws of equality' mean the same as 'violating the natural laws of sexuality' because that is what you seem to be saying. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Now must get the children to school!

Pogleswood · 05/02/2010 08:51

"In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed."

I've read this several times and have decided I don't understand it at all,even if it does refer to homosexuality.It seems to have been deliberately written to be as obscure as possible!

Rhubarb,if you are still out there,I thought your link was very interesting,thanks for posting it!

BadgersPaws · 05/02/2010 09:11

Plucking a few over night points....

"I've never said I don't want them to have equal rights.....all I've said is you can't have openly gay people working within the catholic church and it's schools.....because homosexuality is against our religion....what is wrong with that..?"

But adultery, lying and sex outside of marriage are all against your religion.

But the Catholic Church doesn't want to be able to ignore the law with regards to them.

So can you see how be willing to follow the law over pretty much every other sin other than homosexuality looks just a tiny bit odd?

"That is fine, but not in the context of a leadership position in a catholic school (just as it would not be fine to shout about having an abortion or using condoms). In a way being forced to employ such a personwould compromise religious freedom."

The same point.

The Catholic Church is not asking to be allowed to ignore the law regarding people who use contraception.

If this were about religious freedom and the ability to not employ anyone who doesn't fit in with the Church rules then that would be one thing.

But that's not what this is about.

This isn't about the Church wanting to ignore the law of the land and reject anyone who sins.

This is about the Church wanting to ignore the law of the land and reject anyone who commits one very particular sin.

And that looks odd, very odd.

BadgersPaws · 05/02/2010 09:26

"Sorry can I just point out AGAIN that it is not only the Catholic Bible that is implying intercourse or sex, but several different Bibles so can we please stop referring to this as a 'Catholic' interpretation."

OK, to be fair the New International Version also replaces the word "may know" with the phrase "can have sex with them".

That is an American evangelical Bible which was published in the 70s and has had questions asked about it's somewhat biased translations.

"Also, the following line about the daughters certainly implies that a sexual act was intended."

Yes and what phrase does your Bible use in that sentence?

Does it stick with "know" or does it change it?

That latter usage is a perfect example of where it's really rather clear that the word "know" is meant in it's euphemistic sense.

And that is a very good argument as to why the know in "Bring them out to us, that we may know them" does mean intercourse.

So there are good reasons for "know" meaning "intercourse".

Leaving the proper word in there doesn't take away that interpretation.

Using the word "intercourse" takes away all possibility of interpretation. It also results in people standing firm in the belief that that verse is talking about homosexuality.

We have two real possibilities here.

What's simpler.

  1. That earlier translations all decided to use a euphemism instead of the obvious translation in a book which is not known for minding it's language.

  2. The translators of the NIV and NJV decided to replace the generalism with one precise interpretation of it considering that they came from a background that taught them that that is what the verse actually meant.

jcscot · 05/02/2010 09:37

"But adultery, lying and sex outside of marriage are all against your religion.

But the Catholic Church doesn't want to be able to ignore the law with regards to them"

The key point here is that the Church can and does discriminate against such people but there is no protection in law for them. Let's say someone applies for a job with the Church and they are open about the fact that they live with someone outside of marriage and that they have no intention of getting married. If the interviewers then decide not to employ that person in favour of someone who is married or who is single or celibate, the person living in sin has no law to fall back on in order to claim discrimination.

The Equality Bill could (in theory, anyway) force the Church into employing someone who was open about the fact they had an active (homosexual) sex life because - if they didn't - that candidate could sue for discrimination.

Rights and wrongs of homosexuality aside, the Church does discriminate against people who openly flout the rules. There's a kind of "don't ask, don't tell" policy in place where the Church turns a blind eye to what people do in private and leaves it to their consciences. For example, with regard to contraception, the Church makes its position very clear but individual members make up their own minds and reconcile their actions with their faith/conscience. So, some choose to use natural methods and some use artificial methods.

However, where the Church is confronted with someone who breaks the "don't ask, don't tell" policy by openly speaking out about their sexuality or their living arrangements, then the Church wants to retain the right to say "no" to employing that person.

There's an interesting article on the topic here.

BadgersPaws · 05/02/2010 09:58

Thank you jcscot, I don't know if you're RC or not but I think that's one of the best responses I've seen in terms of trying to get the RC position across.

"However, where the Church is confronted with someone who breaks the "don't ask, don't tell" policy by openly speaking out about their sexuality or their living arrangements, then the Church wants to retain the right to say "no" to employing that person."

Does it have the right to reject for employment someone who is "living in sin"? Yes the interviewers could give a fudged reason for rejection but could they actually say "we rejected you because you are in a non-marital sexual relationship" in the same way that they want to be able to say "we rejected you because you are homosexual."

Also once employed and having it discovered that they were "living in sin" would they be able to be sacked?

Genuine employment law questions there to which I really don't know the answer.

Chandra · 05/02/2010 10:05

But isn't it incredibly easy to blame the sexual orientation discrimination in another thing? They may not like the guy is gay, and said they didn't like the cv, didn't have enough experience, or another person had a better chance to integrate with the work team, whatever.

Having said that, the above is irrelevant, because the church is aware of homosexuality on their ranks. My father had some very strong views about the church, mainly because he thought a complete disregard of his human rights to be send at the tender age of 13 to join a seminar. (now they have raised the minimum age, but at the time that was the norm and although children were far more mature 50 years ago than today, they were still pretty much... children)

Anyways, he says that pupils were separated by age and they were forbidden to be friends, play with or even talk to members of the other age groups, apparently to protect the younger. Protect them from what? I said... from older ones taking an unhealthy interest in the more vulnerable, was his answer.

FreddoBaggyMac · 05/02/2010 10:08

Pogleswood I completely agree that it is difficult to understand and I've been going over it in my head... I'd really welcome some ideas on what the following means:

''Your country is well known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society. Yet as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs. In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed.''

I am translating it as ''Britain is well known for its commitment to equality. however some laws designed to achieve equality are actually CAUSING religious inequality by not allowing religions to act according to their beliefs. This actually violates the natural law that all human beings should be treated as equal regardless of their race, religion (or sexuality!!)''

This is what I think the Pope was saying. If other people can look at the words and tell me convincingly that they mean something different I'd genuinely like to know!

So Badgerspaws in answer to some of your points I do not think the Pope is referring specifically to homosexuality, but to all of the other things you mention as well.

The equality bill is designed to protect inequality due to age, sexual orientation, religion or belief, gender reassignment and pregancy (???) I'll admit I'm no expert on it. I admit that out of those things homosexuality is the one which is relevant to any Catholic role. However the Pope is not himself referring to that, he is covering ANY legislation that might come in to affect religious freedom, the equality bill just happens to be the current one.

jcscot I agree with your post!

FreddoBaggyMac · 05/02/2010 10:15

FANTASTIC article too jcscot ... I wish I could get my thoughts in order and formulate my words as well as that journalist!!

FreddoBaggyMac · 05/02/2010 10:19

Badgerpaws I don't know the answer as to whether someone could be sacked for 'living in sin' in a Catholic school either, perhaps if they were telling all their pupils it was a great thing to do they might be disciplined on religious grounds! It would certainly make the newspaper headlines and we'd have a good old mumsnet tirade
I think the Pope is saying that they SHOULD be able to be sacked for doing so and that no law restict the religious freedom of allowing this.

jcscot · 05/02/2010 10:35

"Does it have the right to reject for employment someone who is "living in sin"? Yes the interviewers could give a fudged reason for rejection but could they actually say "we rejected you because you are in a non-marital sexual relationship" in the same way that they want to be able to say "we rejected you because you are homosexual."

I don't know. If one of the job requirements was that the candidate be someone who attended Mass regularly and was a practising Catholic, then they probably could reject explicitly for that reason as - like it or not - both those things are incompatible with Church teaching.

"Also once employed and having it discovered that they were "living in sin" would they be able to be sacked?"

I don't know, honestly, what the position in law would be but I suspect that there would be little comeback for the employee (so long as proper termination procedures were followed and so long as the requirement to be living a Catholic life was made clear at the time the employment started).

In the case you mention, lets take the example of someone working for a Catholic marriage guidance charity, where their job involves helping and advising those getting married or those whose marriages are in difficulty. Any advice/counselling would be given from a Catholic POV and would revolve around church teaching. If it then came to light that the advisor/counsellor was telling couple one thing but practising another (eg: contraception - though how that would come to light, I don't know! - adultery, living in sin etc), then there would be an inherent hypocrisy involved - something the Church would like to avoid, I'm sure.

All of this is a dilemma for all religions - society has changed dramatically and in many cases for the better but religions are much slower to change - if, indeed, they are going to change at all.

As an aside, I'm a pracising Catholic and, like many others, I sometimes struggle with my faith. The key thing I try to do is to remember that it is not for me to judge other people. If someone I knew was flouting Church rules by, say, having extramarital sex but was till taking communion I wouldn't say anything and I would try not to think badly of them - how do I know that I wouldn't act the same if I was in their shoes? The church teaches that, through confession, the individual reconciles themselves to God. There are very clear rules laid down by the Church to guide our behaviour in all aspects of our life and if we choose not to follow all of the rules, then it is up to us - as individuals - to reconcile that with our consciences. I'm not always a good person (who is?) but I try to be and I try to remember that Christ had compassion for the weak and the poor and the outcast - and that is the example I should follow.

Saying that, I would find it uncomfortable if someone was representing the Church in some capacity (as a charity worker or as a teacher etc) and was saying one thing while doing another but it would be up to the Church to take action if it wished, not up to me. Does that make sense?

FreddoBaggyMac · 05/02/2010 10:45

It makes a lot of sense to me jcscot.
What do you rthink of the current Pope?

Rhubarb · 05/02/2010 10:48

What a damn fine article!

jcscot · 05/02/2010 10:55

"What do you rthink of the current Pope? "

Honestly? He lacks the charisma of the previous Pope (who was always going to be a hard act to follow). While I agree (largely) with the Church's teaching on most things I do appreciate that Benedict has taken the hard road of rather baldly stating the Church's line and making it clear where he thinks that society has got it wrong.

That was never going to win him many friends.

However, perhaps we need to be reminded a little of where our faith ought to lead us.

The one thing I do like the sound of is the new liturgy that's supposed to be on it's way - a halfway house between the Trindentine Rite and the Novus Ordo that keeps the vernacular but makes it a more literal translation of the Latin.

Pogleswood · 05/02/2010 11:00

That makes perfect sense,jscot (though I know you weren't talking to me!) But I have problems with the overlap here,in that I can see that a priest is representing the church, but as an outsider I don't see that a teacher in a largely state funded school is representing the church.

And I recently watched a film where the lead character(a teacher in a carholic school) was under threat of dismissal because she was in a non marital sexual relationship with a muslim guy - good film but I can't remember whether she was sacked or not at the end!!

FreddoBaggyMac · 05/02/2010 11:02

OO can you please come on mumsnet lots jcscot? That is just my opinion, and you seem to be able to say calmly in two paragraphs what takes me 20 over-emotional postings!

FreddoBaggyMac · 05/02/2010 11:06

Pogleswood - then I think the real debate is whether or not we should have state funded catholic schools. After all, it would be pretty pointless to say a school was 'catholic' if the church had no say in how it was run.
From a completely selfish point of view I'd say, 'Yes we should'! But I can see the other side of the arguement.
I think the number one defence would be that whatever such schools are doing works - they regularly out-perform non-faith schools in terms of exams and league tables.

jcscot · 05/02/2010 11:12

"And I recently watched a film where the lead character(a teacher in a carholic school) was under threat of dismissal because she was in a non marital sexual relationship with a muslim guy - good film but I can't remember whether she was sacked or not at the end!! "

Was it "Ae Fond Kiss" (a Ken Loach film IIRC)? I've seen it too and I can't remember whether she was sacked or not either.

"but as an outsider I don't see that a teacher in a largely state funded school is representing the church."

If you consider that a teacher in a catholic school is required to teach the church's line and doctrine then, yes, they do represent the church.

So, the question then becomes whether or not we ought to have state-funded religious schools - always a hot topic on Mumsnet!