The Pope vs Equality

[SiHart]

From BBC News:

The Pope has urged Catholic bishops in England and Wales to fight the UK's Equality Bill with "missionary zeal".

Pope Benedict XVI said the legislation "violates natural law" and could end the right of the Catholic Church to ban gay people from senior positions.

The Pope has confirmed he will visit the UK this year, the first since Pope John Paul II in 1982.

The government said the bill, which is currently going through Parliament, would make the UK a fairer place.

And gay rights campaigners have condemned the Pope's comments.

'Unjust limitations'

The Pope told the Catholic bishops of England and Wales gathered in Rome: "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.

We believe everyone should have a fair chance in life and not be discriminated against
Government Equalities Office spokesman

"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."

Religious leaders have voiced concern that the Equality Bill may force churches to employ sexually active gay people and transsexuals when hiring staff other than priests or ministers.

No official itinerary has yet been drawn up for the Pope's visit but officials at the Vatican and in the UK told the BBC it was likely to take place in September.

A spokesman for the Catholic Communications Network said further details were expected in early March.

The Pontiff is expected to visit Birmingham - as part of the planned beatification of Cardinal John Newman - and Scotland.

The National Secular Society said it would mount a protest campaign made up of gay groups, victims of clerical abuse, feminists, family planning organisations and pro-abortion groups among others.

President Terry Sanderson said: "The taxpayer in this country is going to be faced with a bill of some £20m for the visit of the Pope.

"A visit in which he has already indicated, he will attack equal rights and promote discrimination."

Human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said the Pope's comments were a "coded attack on the legal rights granted to women and gay people".

"His ill-informed claim that our equality laws undermine religious freedom suggests that he supports the right of churches to discriminate in accordance with their religious ethos," he said.

"He seems to be defending discrimination by religious institutions and demanding that they should be above the law."

But Catholic MP Ann Widdecombe said: "This isn't a debate about homosexuality, this is a debate about religious freedom."

She told BBC Radio 5 live: "If a faith teaches, as major faiths do, that something is wrong, then quite clearly you cannot have somebody who believes that it's right actually occupying a very senior position.

"That we have accepted as natural justice for a very long time."

She added: "Nobody else is saying that the teachings of the Catholic Church should influence what non-Catholics do - this is about allowing Catholics to pursue their own faith."

Robert Mickens, Rome correspondent at the Catholic newspaper The Tablet, said the Pope's position was "nothing really new - this is part of the classic Catholic teaching on human sexuality".

"What the Pope is doing is trying to encourage the bishops to keep their resolve in very fluctuating morals in cultures and societies today."

He added: "It's not that the Pope is wading so much into the particulars of British society or British law - I think this is very much a piece of his longstanding teaching."

A spokesman for the Government Equalities Office said: "The Pope acknowledges our country's firm commitment to equality for all members of society.

"We believe everyone should have a fair chance in life and not be discriminated against. The Equality Bill will make Britain a fairer and more equal place."

So does the Pope have a point? Should the Church be exempt from this law because it disagrees with their doctrine, or is it just another way the Church is out of touch with modern life? What do you think?

Si xx

[Jamie McCrimmon]

I think religion is bound to be out of touch with modern life, but I think it's all based on superstition anyway and has been used throughout history as a means of subjugating people. I am an athiest but I do also respect other peoples right to believe in whatever they choose. The tricky thing is, is either position here fair? It's wrong to discriminate, but it's also wrong to tell people that they are not entitled to their own religious views (providing those views don't actually endorse violence or persecution). Can you actually modify a religious doctrine to accomodate social change? Perhaps there should be a new branch of the Catholic faith to accomodate more modern, enlightened people?

[Lissa]

Belief is belief whether it is the catholic church wanting to exclude gay people or the BNP wanting to exclude non-whites. It's time we stopped saying that these unaceptable beliefs are ok because they're religious but those unaceptable beliefs are wrong because they're political or racial. I don't know why a black person would want to join the BNP or a gay person would want to work for the catholic church given the inate hatred those organisations have for them but the law is not there to protect prejudices because we're scared to offend those who hold those prejudices.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

The problem is such a law to make society fairer has to apply to all. You can't allow a certain group to choose to opt out of equality for whatever reason.

I have to say I'm no fan of the Catholic church, but this guy really scares the hell out of me. Then again he was a member of the Nazi youth (did you catch his un-apology about the Catholic churches stance on the holocaust) so maybe old habits die hard.

[Rob McCow]

"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."

So - what the Pope actually said was completely incomprehensible.

What does he mean by 'Natural Law'? Does he mean god's laws? What natural laws is he referring to?

I don't think that Jesus ever spoke on 'equality'. He had plenty to say on love and charity and that god loves each of his children equally. Perhaps that's what he is on about?

[Jamie McCrimmon]

If you force the Catholic Church to embrace equality, then surely you have to apply the same law to all faiths? So in mosques, women and men aren't allowed to be separate, for example? The trouble with religion is that it's based on, and is riddled with, inequality, it's primitive in any form and serves as a means of justifying bigotry and prejudice.

I agree with Lissa, i don't understand why anybody would want to fight for the right to be a priest, and to represent a religion that despises them.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

I don't think that Jesus ever spoke on 'equality'.

Maybe not using that actual word, although I'm sure we're due a trendy version of the Bible which translates it that way.

However in the gospels, Jesus is very inclusive, he goes out to lepers and gentiles and tax collectors alike, who were the outcasts of Jewish society at the time.

[Lissa]

This is the same wacky pope who had this to say about climate change

Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.

The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.

The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.

I'll just highlight "any solutions [...] must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology" and "it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than [...] dogma". Very odd things for THE POPE~! to say. If people start using firm evidence and science instead of dubious ideology and dogma, he's out of a job. And there aren't many vacancies for cross dressing virgins with imaginary friends and big hats these days.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

Nice one Lissa!

[Anthony Williams]

....this is why I'm Anglican.

Ant x

[Captain Tancredi]

It's a turf war, essentially. What's at stake is whether the core beliefs of a religion which have been laid down over several thousand years (if you include the inheritance from Judaism) can be overtaken by social progress. By definition, religious beliefs can't be justified-"they just are"- but if you've spent all your life in a churchgoing family and absorb the beliefs without thinking, that can then cause problems if you later realise that you're gay.

Personally I don't have the conviction to be an atheist- I think it probably needs more conviction than most people think, and in any case it's generally more difficult to prove the non-existence of something rather than its existence.

[Lissa]

It doesn't take a lot of conviction at all - just a realisation that science can explain pretty much everything without using a magical man to make the sums add up. God is just the grown up version of Father Christmas - something invented to put a bit of magic into the world but which doesn't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny. If faith brings people comfort through a placebo effect then that's all fine and large but if you have any doubts or are wandering a woolly agnostic path then it is the work of a moment to realise that accretion made the Earth, your parents bought your Christmas presents and your lucky underpants are just underpants that have no effect whatsoever on whether you or Ian Moore score at the weekend.

[Jon Masters]

It doesn't take a lot of conviction at all - just a realisation that science can explain pretty much everything without using a magical man to make the sums add up.

Without wanting to kick off a whole new "R" debate on PS (and boy have they been fun in the past), and not wanting to play the "Anti-Richard Dawkins Advocate" there are plenty of occasions where science does exactly that, but calls it Dark Energy or M-Brane collisions or Higgs-Boson. You only had to read a recent New Scientist where they highlighted all the important questions that science didn't have an answer for. There are almost as many misleading statements and half-truths in the average GCSE science textbook as there are in the Bible.

And I'm in no way knocking science here (which goes on to try to find those answers) or supporting doctrinally restrictive religions.

At the same time I'm always intrigued by these Sunday-morning discussion programmes where a group of religious leaders are harangued by a baying mob exclaiming how can God exist when x happens or y is suffering. I've yet to see an atheist or a humanist stand up and say "Well, its just tough s#1t" or " Well, its because most of the human race won't get off their backsides to put themselves out if it harms their own way of life"

[WhiteCrowNZ]

Without wanting to kick off a whole new "R" debate on PS (and boy have they been fun in the past), and not wanting to play the "Anti-Richard Dawkins Advocate" there are plenty of occasions where science does exactly that, but calls it Dark Energy or M-Brane collisions or Higgs-Boson. You only had to read a recent New Scientist where they highlighted all the important questions that science didn't have an answer for.

It is a good point. I often say everyone has some form of belief, which gets some athiests angry. But you're right, facts go so far and even the athiest scientist has a kind of belief.

[Anthony Williams]

It is a good point. I often say everyone has some form of belief, which gets some athiests angry. But you're right, facts go so far and even the athiest scientist has a kind of belief.

To decide that you don't believe in something implies that there's the possibility that it may exist in the first place.

Ant x

[Captain Tancredi]

If faith brings people comfort through a placebo effect then that's all fine and large but if you have any doubts or are wandering a woolly agnostic path then it is the work of a moment to realise that accretion made the Earth, your parents bought your Christmas presents and your lucky underpants are just underpants that have no effect whatsoever on whether you or Ian Moore score at the weekend.

That's Ian Thomas-Moore (as of last year).

[Rob McCow]

Whatever the truth of the matter, the Pope made a woolly statement which may imply that he doesn't want gays to be employed by the church.

Of all the people in the world, if this is what he believes then he should come out and say it!

[Jon Masters]

A major religious leader, giving a clear unequivocal statement about their beliefs ?

You're 'avin a laugh, aintja ?

[MinaHarker]

there are plenty of occasions where science does exactly that, but calls it Dark Energy or M-Brane collisions or Higgs-Boson. You only had to read a recent New Scientist where they highlighted all the important questions that science didn't have an answer for. There are almost as many misleading statements and half-truths in the average GCSE science textbook as there are in the Bible.

Have to disagree with you there. Science has theories, religion only has hypotheses. Science admits where it doesn't know and is making an educated guess or putting together a theory, religion just says, "We don't need proof, we have faith. G-d did it."

[Stuart Wallis]

Whatever the truth of the matter, the Pope made a woolly statement which may imply that he doesn't want gays to be employed by the church.

Of all the people in the world, if this is what he believes then he should come out and say it!

This quote from the report:-

Religious leaders have voiced concern that the Equality Bill may force churches to employ sexually active gay people and transsexuals when hiring staff other than priests or ministers.

certainly implies that certain religions at least, don't mind gay people as long as they love God before eachother, shall we say. This is sending out conflicting signals to me. Is the Pontiff saying it's alright to be gay as long as you follow these guidelines, or is he saying I hope gay men's bits fall off and lesbians' boobs implode, and may you all rot in the netherworld, damn your eyes? God's supposed to love everyone...

But then this is from a religion which lets its followers have as many kids as they like, albeit through the banning of the more successful methods of birth control, but doesn't let its priests have sex with anyone. Catholicism has always been a bit of a confused religion for me - God loves you and we've got the Inquisition and 15th-century laws which allowed Portugal to indulge in a little slavery to prove it... This is sort of similar to Kenny everett's view "I trained in a seminary. Then I realised that the Catholic Church was a very clever business. I wish I'd thought of it!"

I have nothing against religion - just some of the people in charge of it who are spoiling it for others.

[MinaHarker]

It is very confusing Stuart. Have you read the book of Leviticus? A LOT of stuff is a sin according to that book, including homosexuality. The thing is, it suggests that eating meat on a Friday or "approaching the Lord with a defect in your sight" is just a serious a sin as homosexuality. But the people who use the Bible as an excuse to hate conveniently ignore that - they pick and choose the bits they want to believe and leave inconvenient stuff out.

Fortunately there are plenty of Christians out there who act in a "Christ-like" manner - they wouldn't behave in such a ridiculous way. Our own lovely Ant is a great example of a Christian

[Jon Masters]

But the people who use the Bible as an excuse to hate conveniently ignore that - they pick and choose the bits they want to believe and leave inconvenient stuff out.

And as their Bibles clearly tell them (though they'd miss these bits out too) they are as far from God as they can ever be, and run the risk of special punishment for such behaviour. Whether the Bible is literal truth, or a guidebook to human nature of the past, or a flawed human construct trying to model an unmodelable phenomenon in a way which we might understand, is another question we could run on forever with.

But going back to the original issue, how would organisations like the Council for Racial Equality feel if they were forced by law to take people on who were white, or worse, racist ? How would Richard Dawkins feel about having to employ someone who was a creationist , even if it was only to clean his office ?
(again, let me be clear I have no issues with homosexuality in religion. It is the ability to do the job that should determine if someone gets it)

[WhiteCrowNZ]

but doesn't let its priests have sex with anyone

Unlike that famous swinging Vicar who used to go on wife swapping holidays ... she was Church of England!

Who says Anglicans are boring ...

[Andrew Curnow]

I find it, more than anything, really sad that these kinds of comments should be made. I'm no religious expert, but going from logic alone, I'd say that the Christian faith is primarily following the teachings of Christ, which in turn would suggest the New Testament being far more important than the Old (in which he doesn't even appear!). My memories of Sunday School tell me that one of Christ's most important messages was, very simply, love one another - and frankly even if you're not religious, and don't even believe Christ existed, that's still a pretty good way to try and live your life.

To find that any Church, any religious figure, could get all through the Bible, and come away thinking that a huge part of it is a definite drive against homosexuality, it truly baffles me. Yes, maybe there are verses in there that can be translated, and then interpreted that way (although again, I don't think any of them are in the New Testament) - but if it doesn't even make the Ten Commandments, it would suggest even God doesn't think it's that big a deal!

The other thing is, as I understand it, whether the Catholic Church is anti-homosexuality as one of its definite articles is as much open to debate as the 'women priests' issue in the Church of England, or the 'marrying divorced people'. That is to say, it's not a hard and fast law laid down, it's the subject of debate on which there are two sides to the argument, for and against. If it was definitely, no question, without exception, totally anti-gay then fine, the Church should refuse to hire any gay people and should fight their case in court, if that's truly what they believe. But if it's not even totally 'believed' within the Catholic Church, then what does the Pope think he's doing?

[Andrew Curnow]

Just out of interest I've just (as you do) Googled the commandments. Of particular interest I found the text of Jesus that I was referring to, which actually says:

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

To my mind that would suggest even that the Ten Commandments as they stand have been, if you like, superseded by those two very basic commands. There's so much, if you like, 'Angry God' in the Old Testament that the Catholics seem to be following, which to my mind is largely missing the point entirely (did they even get the point of the end of the Noah story, where God realises he has been too angry and has made a mistake)?