The Pope opened his mouth...

[jollytiddlywink]

... and stupid came out.
Obviously the pope and the catholic church don't like the gays, but I'm not sure what 'a violation of natural law' is supposed to mean. I translated it, roughly, as 'no buttsex,' but I'm wondering where they pulled this jargon from. Is 'natural law' something that the bible spends several chapters discussing?
I found the Vatican's insistence that not all people are equal, but merely equal in dignity, to be hilariously ironic and deeply disturbing in equal measure.
Why on earth did the Pope bother to interfere (and yes, he is interfering) with domestic British politics. It is bad enough when he interferes with Spanish or Portuguese domestic politics; there is the tiny mitigating factor that they are predominantly Catholic countries (although you wouldn't know that to look at the political progress being made). But to intervene in British politics is absurd. Why does he think he has the prerogative to proclaim what British policy should be; a country that is predominantly Protestant among those who are observant, but increasingly secular overall!

Nobody is asking the church to hire gay priests. So the pope should simply shut up and accept that he is on the wrong side of history, and will lose.

Thoughts?

[Haunted]

http://www.secularism.org.uk/petition-the-pm.html

[Frank]

Wikipedia says nature is fine with homosexuality.

Not only is Pope being silly, obnoxious and interfering, he's also being categorically wrong. Again. Sillyman!

[Delts]

I personally think the Pope is in violation of natural law. A male who as far as I know had no condition that hinders his ability to mate, and yet didn't thus causing his genes to be an evolutionary dead end. Then again, it's probably a good thing he didn't procreate.

[Duggeh]

Bloody gays, coming out here, upsetting our churches.

Bloody churches, coming over here, upsetting our gays.

Bloody orphans, being put up here, used as political pawns by interest groups on both sides of this tiresome bullshit.

[jollytiddlywink]

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News ... _Doctrine/

Here's an interesting article. Essentially, research undertaken by CARA, a body strongly connected with the catholic church, indicates that catholics of our generation, born 1982 and later, tend to move away from church doctrine, namely over issues like gay marriage and abortion, and also attend Mass left often, at the end of a university education, compared to where they stood at the beginning of their degrees. 23% of Catholic students at Catholic institutions move away from the church's position on equal marriage, a larger shift away from the church than on any other issue examined by the study. A slightly higher (but similar) proportion of catholic students at non-catholic institutions moves away from church doctrine on marriage equality.

This suggests to me that education tends to bring people to see the value of equality. If catholics attending catholic universities absorb four years of education and move away from the dogmatic position of the Vatican, I can only conclude that the Pope is on the wrong side of history. Seen in this light, his outbursts on the subject, while still disturbingly narrow-minded, seem more like a petty unwillingness to recognise reality than a serious attempt to influence events.

[macgamer]

The Pope's comments were made to the Bishops of England and Wales during their Ad Limina Audience.

The Bill compromises the freedom of conscience of employers to hire employees on the basis of whether the candidates share the ethos, philosophy or belief of the organisation.

I have read the Bill, what is wrong with the Bill is what is not in it. There is no exemption made for religious organisations to choose employees on the basis of whether they are sympathetic to the organisation's ethos and philosophy. In terms of Catholic organisations whether that person is an active homosexual or a paid up member of the National Secular Society is relevant.

The lack of an exemption was addressed by Baroness O'Cathain's proposed ammendment:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 5-0004.htm

From a classical liberal point, there is this article in the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ities-bill

[wild_quinine]

I have read the Bill, what is wrong with the Bill is what is not in it. There is no exemption made for religious organisations to choose employees on the basis of whether they are sympathetic to the organisation's ethos and philosophy. In terms of Catholic organisations whether that person is an active homosexual or a paid up member of the National Secular Society is relevant.

I agree that this is the nub of the issue. I think that the problem surrounding this issue is not that people have differing opinions, it is that they do not recognise to what their own opinion amounts.

If someone thinks that religious organisations should not be able to select for employees based on their religious affiliations, then they are displaying a categorical intolerance of that religion. That is not the end of the matter, but it is the beginning of it. Sometimes it is OK, even desirable, to be intolerant in just that fashion. That's why we don't immediately recoil from such legislation, but it's also why we should be questioning it.

There's a lot to think about here, and the big picture is like a fucking Pollock. I'm certainly not going to try and offer a solution to this conundrum, let alone a soundbite.This is one of the modern complexities of a hypocritical age; when competing minority interests end up vying for our tolerance and the right to be slightly more equal than their peers.
If there is a right answer it is shrouded in clouds of grey, and is a significantly less facile argument than that the religious should just get on the right side of history.

[jollytiddlywink]

I agree that this is the nub of the issue. I think that the problem surrounding this issue is not that people have differing opinions, it is that they do not recognise to what their own opinion amounts.

If someone thinks that religious organisations should not be able to select for employees based on their religious affiliations, then they are displaying a categorical intolerance of that religion. That is not the end of the matter, but it is the beginning of it. Sometimes it is OK, even desirable, to be intolerant in just that fashion. That's why we don't immediately recoil from such legislation, but it's also why we should be questioning it.

There's a lot to think about here, and the big picture is like a fucking Pollock. I'm certainly not going to try and offer a solution to this conundrum, let alone a soundbite.This is one of the modern complexities of a hypocritical age; when competing minority interests end up vying for our tolerance and the right to be slightly more equal than their peers.
If there is a right answer it is shrouded in clouds of grey, and is a significantly less facile argument than that the religious should just get on the right side of history.

I wholeheartedly agree that it is a complex issue, and I purposely avoided endorsing the provisions of the Bill in my first post (at least in part because I have not read the Bill, and do not understand its contents and import beyond the media coverage of the same), but mostly because it wasn't strictly relevant to what I was arguing. Regardless of the issue, the Pope is playing a messy game interfering in another state's domestic politics (he is a head of state, after all). But the central issue as I see it is the statement the Vatican issued, which I quoted in part, that people are not equal, but merely equal in dignity.

On the face of it, it sounds practical and realistic: some people are better looking, some more athletic, some better at mathematics, etc. But the implications of saying something like that when discussing a particular group of people, in this case homosexuals, are, I think, deeply disturbing.

The church, some people are arguing, has the right to not employ 'practising homosexuals' (a devious turn of phrase) if it so chooses, because hiring such people would be incompatible with church belief. Until recently, the BNP refused to accept 'non-indigenous' party members... in other words, a whites-only policy. That was because it was incompatible with their political beliefs. Both of these things fall, very broadly, under freedom of conscience, yet one is subject to wide-spread debate, and the other is not. I would be interested to hear what, if any, distinction people draw between these two examples of discrimination on the basis of belief. Perhaps to make the comparison more apples-to-apples, we could consider the hiring policy of the BNP, who would presumably refuse to hire non-whites and homosexuals, again on the basis of their beliefs.

I was particularly bothered by the pope's references to homosexuals being in violation of natural law. It made me wonder what natural law is. Can anyone (Macgamer, perhaps?) offer me a definition of natural law? I hope that this definition of natural law makes no reference to either human nature or the wider natural world, because even a cursory examination of the facts indicates that homosexuality and homosexual behaviour are part of human nature in every culture throughout history, and are widely documented in the animal kingdom. Using the phrase 'natural law' seemed to me like a thinly-veiled attempt to paint homosexuals as 'unnatural' and, by extension, lesser. This comes back to the remark about 'equal only in dignity', which begins to sound like "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

If we are to believe macgamer, that the pope was addressing an issue on the nexus of political and religious affairs, while speaking to a group that operates in that very political/religious nexus, it is difficult to fathom why he didn't so much address the issue as condemn homosexuals.

In short, my point is this: I agree with wild quinine that there is an important, and complex set of issues here about exactly where equality before the law ceases to be equality and begins to infringe on the rights of others, and that it would take a long and involved discussion to begin to draw out some of the issues. I did not come out in support for the provisions of the Equality Bill (although people may have inferred that I supported it based on my original post), but rather against papal intervention in British domestic politics, and also against what is a clear and persistent anti-homosexual attitude taken by the church. Had the pope confined himself to saying something like "as a church, we have to take exception to certain provisions of this bill, which we believe infringe on our religious beliefs..." and tried to set out some of the intricate arguments that wild quinine has mentioned, then we would not be having this discussion. Instead, he called for a 'crusade' (a heavily loaded word!) against the bill, and then devoted some time to gay-bashing. It is his interference and bigotry which I object to.

Incidentally, my remark that the pope and the church are on the wrong side of history is merely an observation that with each passing year, western society as a whole, christian or catholic or not, is less and less inclined to see homosexuals as deserving of less-that-equal rights, and so papal insistence that homosexuality is un-natural and wrong is just so much hot air.

[wild_quinine]

the statement the Vatican issued, which I quoted in part, that people are not equal, but merely equal in dignity...
the implications of saying something like that when discussing a particular group of people, in this case homosexuals, are, I think, deeply disturbing.

Agreed. And what does 'equal in dignity' even mean? I bet I can put paid to that notion.

The church, some people are arguing, has the right to not employ 'practising homosexuals' (a devious turn of phrase) if it so chooses, because hiring such people would be incompatible with church belief.

I don't think it's all that devious. The Catholic church does not want to employ people who willfully commit sexual acts that they consider immoral. On paper, it's not saying anything about people who simply want to commit those acts.

It's easy to cast that judgement in a bad light, but almost all of us draw the same kind of moral line somewhere. For example, we probably agree with the Pope on paedophillia. (That it's wrong, that is - not that we should cover it up! <ducks>).

The difference for us is that we use a different criteria from the Pope for assessing rightness and wrongness. For most of us, what takes place between consenting adults is generally not wrong, because they both wanted to do it, so who loses there?

But before we get too self satisfied, let's remember that there are lots of exceptions to this in general society. It's now illegal to photograph simulated rape, for example. It's illegal to cannibalise someone, even someone who has asked for it. And hell, it's illegal to draw a cartoon child with a stick up it's ass, even if you draw it yourself and never show anyone else. Really, who's got the stick up their ass in a world where that makes any kind of sense?

The Pope's moral criteria is that there is an absolute moral law, and it came from God. According to his interpretation of this, homosexual sex is wrong. To deny him the right to believe this is to deny him his religion. Or - worse - it is to say 'You are free to believe whatever you like, as long as it falls within our currently accepted societal parameters'.

On the other hand, to allow him to believe this is to accept that he will live as if it were true, and will force a group of people, many of whom are already vulnerable, to subvert their own values to a billion strong collective of sexual intolerance and undermine their self worth at the same time.

Which way tolerance, really?

Until recently, the BNP refused to accept 'non-indigenous' party members... in other words, a whites-only policy....Perhaps to make the comparison more apples-to-apples, we could consider the hiring policy of the BNP, who would presumably refuse to hire non-whites and homosexuals, again on the basis of their beliefs.

If the BNP were just a private club of racists, I wouldn't think there should be legislation preventing them from selecting for their own membership according to whatever odious requirements they see fit. They can have whatever members, talk whatever shit, wear whatever clothes. Fuck it, I'd be happy if the BNP made all of its members get swastika tattoos. The more easily identifiable someone is as a total cunt, the better.

However, they're a political party. A certain standard is required of them, in order to maintain fundamental democratic principles. Members of the BNP have chosen to opt into a system that already has a certain type of requirement, and all of their hateful preferences must be subservient to this.

I'm on the fence about religion. I believe it should be free, and able to determine its own policies. But this only works if it is separated from State as much as possible. Catholicism is a problem case. Oh well, at least Judaism and Islam can be relied on to keep it simple. <sigh>

I was particularly bothered by the pope's references to homosexuals being in violation of natural law. It made me wonder what natural law is. Can anyone (Macgamer, perhaps?) offer me a definition of natural law?

It's one of those tedious pseudo-academic made-to-fit explanations for why some arbitrary authority figure is right and you're wrong, which requires no formal explanation in moral terms, because it's just obvious, isn't it? What's that? It's not obvious to you? That's why you're not in charge, sunshine.

Incidentally, my remark that the pope and the church are on the wrong side of history is merely an observation that with each passing year, western society as a whole, christian or catholic or not, is less and less inclined to see homosexuals as deserving of less-that-equal rights, and so papal insistence that homosexuality is un-natural and wrong is just so much hot air.

I try to avoid the moral high ground precisely because I know how wrong we'll all look in fifty years. Probably about an issue that doesn't even seem important right now. Drugs? Porn? Copyright? Meat? Economics? Baby, we are all on the wrong side of history.

[macgamer]

I don't think it's all that devious. The Catholic church does not want to employ people who willfully commit sexual acts that they consider immoral. On paper, it's not saying anything about people who simply want to commit those acts.

Precisely, the Church wants the freedom to be able to employ people who are sympathetic and share its beliefs and philosophy. This inevitably means discriminating between candidates, in the same way any other employer does. In the case of practising homosexuals, the Church would not select them because of what they choose to do not of because of what they are.

I was particularly bothered by the pope's references to homosexuals being in violation of natural law. It made me wonder what natural law is. Can anyone (Macgamer, perhaps?) offer me a definition of natural law?

Natural Law is a collection of philosophical approaches from Aristotle to the contemporary period which have been used in the development and justification of various other philosophies particularly moral philosophy.

It involves the a priori approach, that 'laws' or moral codes can be deduced by reason without the use of experience ( a posteriori). So it can be contrasted with (legal) positivism. The Catholic Church's use of natural law draws greatly up St Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica see: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2094.htm

[the Empress]

Y'know, I've had this argument before and I can feel the rage . . . so I'm just going to go and have a nice, soothing cup of herbal tea.

[wild_quinine]

Precisely, the Church wants the freedom to be able to employ people who are sympathetic and share its beliefs and philosophy. This inevitably means discriminating between candidates, in the same way any other employer does. In the case of practising homosexuals, the Church would not select them because of what they choose to do not of because of what they are.

Agreed, that is the church's position. But what worries me, which I didn't bring up earlier for the sake of brevity, is that many gay people would say that being gay is not simply about who, how or whether you have sex. In my experience, a good few people would say that it's hardly about sex at all. It's about a lot more than that, from lifestyle through to identity. And it's not OK to ask someone to be a different person or live a different way, just because you don't understand the way they feel, or want to live. It's not OK to explain their impulses away as wrong, or unnatural. It's definitely not OK to bully them into submission.

I think that this is a strong argument. And, because it's about people's freedom to be who and how they want, it's one of the rare arguments that grows in power, the less you understand it. After all, if you don't know how the other party feels, or why, it's a bit rich telling them it's wrong.

Y'know, I've had this argument before and I can feel the rage . . .

I don't see why, unless you have an emotionally invested opinion, and you're absolutely sure you're right. In which case, you probably aren't. Enjoy the tea, though.

[macgamer]

Agreed, that is the church's position. But what worries me, which I didn't bring up earlier for the sake of brevity, is that many gay people would say that being gay is not simply about who, how or whether you have sex. In my experience, a good few people would say that it's hardly about sex at all. It's about a lot more than that, from lifestyle through to identity. And it's not OK to ask someone to be a different person or live a different way, just because you don't understand the way they feel, or want to live. It's not OK to explain their impulses away as wrong, or unnatural. It's definitely not OK to bully them into submission.

I think you're really getting to the point here. This is where the 'problem' lies: identity. The Catholic Church is very much opposed to the adoption of an identity based on sexual attraction (orientation) and/or sexuality (how they express the former) by people with same sex attraction. There are, presumably, many Catholics who have same sex attraction but acknowledge that it is intrinsically disordered (justified by moral law) and choose not to express this attraction sexually because it is immoral (neither unitive nor procreative). Therefore the Catholic Church would employ someone and even ordain someone whom accepts these tenets.

If you think about it, such a person would have to successfully accept their attraction and inclinations and integrate into their psyche in order to work within the philosophy and belief of a Catholic organisation. Submission and repression would not work successfully.

I think that this is a strong argument. And, because it's about people's freedom to be who and how they want, it's one of the rare arguments that grows in power, the less you understand it. After all, if you don't know how the other party feels, or why, it's a bit rich telling them it's wrong.

It is a strong argument, however the Catholic Church claims to preach truth. This is why it often appear to be 'on the wrong side of history'. Its morality is anchored on a rigid philosophy informed from scripture and inspired by God. It is inevitable that at times it will conflict with legal positivism or moral relativism which shift according to the customs of the age.

There is a great deal of misunderstanding on both sides. My comments on this forum regarding the Church are only an attempt to improve the understanding of its readers and reinforce my own. The Catholic Church is not 'out to get' anyone. However the presentation of its teaching in the wider world could be much better, often the media is a hindrance in this regard.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Y'know, I've had this argument before and I can feel the rage . . . so I'm just going to go and have a nice, soothing cup of herbal tea.

Yep, I'm taking note of my special ten-foot long pole hanging on the wall, where it will be staying and most certainly not being used to touch things.

[jollytiddlywink]

Agreed, that is the church's position. But what worries me, which I didn't bring up earlier for the sake of brevity, is that many gay people would say that being gay is not simply about who, how or whether you have sex. In my experience, a good few people would say that it's hardly about sex at all. It's about a lot more than that, from lifestyle through to identity. And it's not OK to ask someone to be a different person or live a different way, just because you don't understand the way they feel, or want to live. It's not OK to explain their impulses away as wrong, or unnatural. It's definitely not OK to bully them into submission.

I think you're really getting to the point here. This is where the 'problem' lies: identity. The Catholic Church is very much opposed to the adoption of an identity based on sexual attraction (orientation) and/or sexuality (how they express the former) by people with same sex attraction. There are, presumably, many Catholics who have same sex attraction but acknowledge that it is intrinsically disordered (justified by moral law) and choose not to express this attraction sexually because it is immoral (neither unitive nor procreative). Therefore the Catholic Church would employ someone and even ordain someone whom accepts these tenets.

If you think about it, such a person would have to successfully accept their attraction and inclinations and integrate into their psyche in order to work within the philosophy and belief of a Catholic organisation. Submission and repression would not work successfully.

Unless the church is also opposed to the adoption of an identity based on sexual attraction or sexuality for people with opposite sex attraction, this is discriminatory. There are certainly many people who were born homosexual and raised catholic, and found one to be incompatible with the other. Most struggle trying to square the circle, and then leave the church. I do not know any, nor have I heard of any, who are willing to seriously consider, let alone accept, that they are intrinsically disordered and immoral. (Because they are not, something I discuss below).
What you add after the words "if you think about it" makes it clear that you have not thought about it. Accepting their attraction would guarantee that somebody could not, by your own argument, 'work successfully within the philosophy and belief...' But you are, however, correct in asserting that submission and repression do not work successfully, because they do not. They break people.

I think that this is a strong argument. And, because it's about people's freedom to be who and how they want, it's one of the rare arguments that grows in power, the less you understand it. After all, if you don't know how the other party feels, or why, it's a bit rich telling them it's wrong.

It is a strong argument, however the Catholic Church claims to preach truth. This is why it often appear to be 'on the wrong side of history'. Its morality is anchored on a rigid philosophy informed from scripture and inspired by God. It is inevitable that at times it will conflict with legal positivism or moral relativism which shift according to the customs of the age.

There is a great deal of misunderstanding on both sides. My comments on this forum regarding the Church are only an attempt to improve the understanding of its readers and reinforce my own. The Catholic Church is not 'out to get' anyone. However the presentation of its teaching in the wider world could be much better, often the media is a hindrance in this regard.

You acknowledge that it is a strong argument, and then singularly fail to engage with it. But I shall endeavour to meet you on your own terms and tackle your reply. The scriptural anchor for the church's moral stance on homosexuality is at best the subject of serious and unresolved theological debate over the meanings of the usual passages quoted. 'Man shall not lie with man as with a woman, it is an abomination," etc.
If anyone is interested I shall look up and reference the appropriate literature, but in essence, the debate centres on the translations of the original text of those verses and how they have been (incorrectly) rendered into modern English.
According to my own understanding of 'moral relativism,' saying that some people are born 'intrinsically disordered and immoral' strikes me as a clear case of relativism. People are either equal or they are not. This formula that
"gay people are equal" *
*but only if they stop being gay

is not convincing.

I shall give you, and the church, the benefit of the doubt, and assume that it is the media which has misconstrued this event. Perhaps the pope did not really interfere in British domestic politics. Perhaps the words attributed to him regarding the 'violation of natural law' were never actually said. Perhaps the Vatican spokesman didn't really suggest that people are not equal, but equal only in dignity. Perhaps the pope didn't allow a discussion of an important (and valid) political discussion concerning political, human and religious rights, to degenerate into a papal utterance of demonstrably false accusations about homosexuals.

And, if part of the church's position on (or rather, against) homosexuality, is based on scripture (which I addressed briefly above) the rest is based on this 'natural law,' which you said took the a priori approach, and used logic alone to deduce moral laws. I would be greatly interested to see somebody deduce, from first principles, without any prior observation or experience, that homosexuality is morally indefensible... purely as an academic exercise to replicate the logical process that the church took before it adopted its stance against homosexuality.

(edited to correct a typo)

[jollytiddlywink]

Its gone un-naturally quiet (one is temped to say gaily quiet) on here...

Could it be that Macgamer has nothing to say?

[Haunted]

Its gone un-naturally quiet

Business as usual these days I'm afraid.

[Senethro]

fuck tha pope

[macgamer]

fuck tha pope

For your amusement the ubiquitous 'Hitler reacts to x' parody has one about Pope Benedict: