The Pope has faced a backlash after urging Catholic bishops in England and Wales to fight the UK's Equality Bill with "missionary zeal".
Pope Benedict XVI said the bill - which could end the right of the Church to ban gay people from senior positions - "violates natural law".
But gay and human rights campaigners condemned his comments, and Labour MEP Stephen Hughes said he was "appalled".
Gordon Brown said he respected the Pope but commenting would be inappropriate.
The prime minister's official spokesman said Mr Brown had "enormous admiration and respect" for the pontiff, who will this year make the first papal visit to the UK since 1982.
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.
"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."
Jonathan Finney, from gay rights group Stonewall, told BBC Radio 5 live: "People should not be denied access to services and employment purely because they are gay.
"We've got to guard against sweeping exemptions seeming to protect one person's freedom, which actually really impact on other people's."
He added: "What you can't start doing is saying that religious people have hard-won freedoms, we'll now restrict those, we won't give them to gay people, we won't give them to women."
Mr Hughes, speaking in Rome, said: "As a Catholic, I am appalled by the attitude of the Pope. Religious leaders should be trying to eradicate inequality, not perpetuate it."
He said the pontiff should ensure existing EU legislation was applied in the Vatican, rather than attacking equality in the UK.
The British Humanist Association said his "uninformed" and "homophobic" remarks came as no surprise and it would oppose his visit later in the year.
Head of public affairs, Naomi Phillips, said the Pope was seeking to discriminate against others in employment, services and education "unfettered by the laws that everyone else in society must abide by and respect".
But the head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, Archbishop Vincent Nichols, said the Pope's words would resonate with many people who felt "uneasy" about the consequences of recent legislation.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme religious belief and practice had been driven into "the sphere of the private only", and the Pope wanted to express the "unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities".
The Archbishop said: "He's [the Pope] not getting engaged in party politics... but he wants his reasoned voice - formed by the treasures of the Christian heritage which is deeply embedded in our culture - to be heard."
Religious leaders have voiced concern that the Equality Bill could force churches to employ sexually active gay people and transsexuals when hiring staff other than priests or ministers.
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 groups supporting abortion choice, 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."
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."
Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris, who sits on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, said all Britons - including Catholics and gay people - were protected by UK equality laws.
"Religious people can be reassured that there is nothing in the Equality Bill which imposes gay priests on religions, but it does protect the general workforce from prejudiced employers," he said.
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 basically, if my understanding is correct, it says the Catholic Church has to employ gay people equally in lay positions but can continue to do what it wants with its priests. It shouldn't be at all objectionable. It's appalling the things that the church comes out with sometimes to justify its bigoted positions.
Teebs wrote:So basically, if my understanding is correct, it says the Catholic Church has to employ gay people equally in lay positions but can continue to do what it wants with its priests. It shouldn't be at all objectionable. It's appalling the things that the church comes out with sometimes to justify its bigoted positions.
The Bible is inherently bigoted, so this really isn't terribly surprising. At least Ratfucker is staying consistent.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
What disgusts me is the merry-going boot-licking attitude here: the guy essentially says outright that a legislation that promotes equality without having it any effect on religious institutions is evil (or at least "actually violates the natural law" which I get as "goes againsts god's will", ie evil, correct me if I am wrong). What sort of respect does he deserve?
Oh, right, being the top of of an ivory tower of an ancient cult that ran its way trough history by burning up all opposition.
Credo!
Chat with me on Skype if you want to talk about writing, ideas or if you want a test-reader! PM for address.
Pope Douchebag wrote:"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."
"Requiring me to follow equal-hiring laws violates the natural law of equality!"
Mayabird is my girlfriend
Justice League:BotM:MM:SDnet City Watch:Cybertron's Finest "Well then, science is bullshit. "
-revprez, with yet another brilliant rebuttal.
Pope Douchebag wrote:"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."
"Requiring me to follow equal-hiring laws violates the natural law of equality!"
That's a strawman. The argument that Ratty's summarizing is a lot more subtle. In the Catholic Church's conception, there are two avenues to morality: obedience to God and the "natural law", which is the set of actions that humans instinctively know are right and wrong. Obedience to God only happens when God is revealed through scripture or the church, but everyone knows the natural law, and that's the morality that governments are built on. One part of the natural law (according to the church) is the basic equality and dignity of all people (conception to natural death, as they'd put it). Another part is the inherent perversion of homosexual behavior. So Ratzinger's point is, equal-hiring laws would force people to honor homosexual behavior, which would contradict the natural law, of which equality is a part.
I don't agree with it, and there are several weaknesses, but you didn't do it justice.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
Sure, but it's not as arbitrary as you make it sound. The Church is an institution, not a person; it acts under the heavy constraints of tradition and doctrine. It can't realistically change its collective mind on an issue without years of debate (look at how long it took to respond with institutional change to the Protestant Reformation - Luther's theses were nailed in 1517, and the Council of Trent concluded in 1564).
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
Pope Douchebag wrote:"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."
"Requiring me to follow equal-hiring laws violates the natural law of equality!"
That's a strawman. The argument that Ratty's summarizing is a lot more subtle. In the Catholic Church's conception, there are two avenues to morality: obedience to God and the "natural law", which is the set of actions that humans instinctively know are right and wrong. Obedience to God only happens when God is revealed through scripture or the church, but everyone knows the natural law, and that's the morality that governments are built on. One part of the natural law (according to the church) is the basic equality and dignity of all people (conception to natural death, as they'd put it). Another part is the inherent perversion of homosexual behavior. So Ratzinger's point is, equal-hiring laws would force people to honor homosexual behavior, which would contradict the natural law, of which equality is a part.
I don't agree with it, and there are several weaknesses, but you didn't do it justice.
"According to our definition of equality, gays aren't equal to the rest of us."
How's that?
Mayabird is my girlfriend
Justice League:BotM:MM:SDnet City Watch:Cybertron's Finest "Well then, science is bullshit. "
-revprez, with yet another brilliant rebuttal.
Surlethe wrote:That's a strawman. The argument that Ratty's summarizing is a lot more subtle. In the Catholic Church's conception, there are two avenues to morality: obedience to God and the "natural law", which is the set of actions that humans instinctively know are right and wrong. Obedience to God only happens when God is revealed through scripture or the church, but everyone knows the natural law, and that's the morality that governments are built on. One part of the natural law (according to the church) is the basic equality and dignity of all people (conception to natural death, as they'd put it). Another part is the inherent perversion of homosexual behavior. So Ratzinger's point is, equal-hiring laws would force people to honor homosexual behavior, which would contradict the natural law, of which equality is a part.
I don't agree with it, and there are several weaknesses, but you didn't do it justice.
Actually, Surlethe, I believe that the "natural law" that the Pope is referring to could easily be the formulation that's used to justify basic human rights. The notion is that there is a canon of law that always and everywhere applies (or should apply) and among the tenets of natural law is that a person has the right to speak and think without punishment and religious belief falls under the right of a person to think as they wish. I don't think the Pope is saying that homosexuality violates the laws of nature (which implies that it is a deviancy, unnatural, etc) but that making a law dictating that a religious organization take actions contrary to its tenets violates the concept of humans rights of which freedom of religion is one. If I may say, the phrase "the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed" seems to support the idea that he's talking about the basis for legal recognition of human rights. He may well be completely wrong but it seems that the assumption is being made that because the head of the Catholic Church is saying this and the Catholic Church regards homosexuality as a sin, his invocation of "natural law" must be a cloaked example of homophobia.
"Freedom is not an external truth. It exists within men, and those who wish to be free are free." - Paul Ernst
The world is black and white. People, however, are grey.
When man has no choice but to do good, there's no point in calling him moral.
Serafine666 wrote:it seems that the assumption is being made that because the head of the Catholic Church is saying this and the Catholic Church regards homosexuality as a sin, his invocation of "natural law" must be a cloaked example of homophobia.
But the Catholic Church discriminates against homosexuality as a basic point of principle. Whether he is saying homosexuality is against "natural law" or that not allowing the Catholic Church to descriminate against homosexuals is against "natural law" is surely no more than splitting hairs. Either way it is clearly an example of homophobia.
As a wider issue, it is frankly laughable hearing the head of an organisation that blatantly views one group of people (Catholics) as being superior to all others spout forth on equality.
"We're the only people who aren't going to Hell, so screw you, we don't have to let fags work for us."
Honestly, this looks like nothing more than the everyday special treatment that religions routinely demand. If there is no chance of them being forced to change their doctrine or to allow gay people into positions of authority within the Church, they have no rational leg to stand on - so they fall back on "natural law", which agrees with them largely due to the fact that they are the ones who say what is and is not "natural law" in the first place.
First off, why a gay person would want to work for an institution that is so bigoted against them is beyond me, but I must admit that like almost any other law that forces employers to employ specific groups of people, I am going to have to disagree with it on principle. It seems to me that people, more so in Europe, but increasingly in the US, view employment as a right, which I, at least, believe it is most certainly not. Employers are engaging people to perform a service for them, and it is my opinion that it should be entirely up to them who they choose. If a company so desires, it should be able to hire only left handed blondes who were born on an even day in a month that ends with Y. It's their money, it should be their decision. if do to some personal bigotry they choose not to hire the best qualified applicant, then their loss, they wont be performing as well as they otherwise could.
PKRudeBoy wrote:First off, why a gay person would want to work for an institution that is so bigoted against them is beyond me, but I must admit that like almost any other law that forces employers to employ specific groups of people, I am going to have to disagree with it on principle. It seems to me that people, more so in Europe, but increasingly in the US, view employment as a right, which I, at least, believe it is most certainly not. Employers are engaging people to perform a service for them, and it is my opinion that it should be entirely up to them who they choose. If a company so desires, it should be able to hire only left handed blondes who were born on an even day in a month that ends with Y. It's their money, it should be their decision. if do to some personal bigotry they choose not to hire the best qualified applicant, then their loss, they wont be performing as well as they otherwise could.
Well, I think what you have to take into account is that a gay person doesn't want to work for the Pope, he wants to work for St. So and So's School, or Sacred Heart Hospital, or Our Lady of Something or Other Charity, and maybe work with Father Whatshisname whose really nice. The way people experience the Catholic Church on its basic level can be very different from the way they experience its hierarchy.
PKRudeBoy wrote:First off, why a gay person would want to work for an institution that is so bigoted against them is beyond me, but I must admit that like almost any other law that forces employers to employ specific groups of people, I am going to have to disagree with it on principle. It seems to me that people, more so in Europe, but increasingly in the US, view employment as a right, which I, at least, believe it is most certainly not. Employers are engaging people to perform a service for them, and it is my opinion that it should be entirely up to them who they choose. If a company so desires, it should be able to hire only left handed blondes who were born on an even day in a month that ends with Y. It's their money, it should be their decision. if do to some personal bigotry they choose not to hire the best qualified applicant, then their loss, they wont be performing as well as they otherwise could.
And if a majority of employers all choose to not hire, say, Republicans, or Germans, or black people...how do you feel about that?
Molyneux wrote: And if a majority of employers all choose to not hire, say, Republicans, or Germans, or black people...how do you feel about that?
Then they happen to be a bigoted asshole whose establishment I wouldn't patronize, but we don't have a collective right to demand that they be fair. Their money is theirs to do with as they choose, just as I can do what I wish with mine.
Molyneux wrote: And if a majority of employers all choose to not hire, say, Republicans, or Germans, or black people...how do you feel about that?
Then they happen to be a bigoted asshole whose establishment I wouldn't patronize, but we don't have a collective right to demand that they be fair. Their money is theirs to do with as they choose, just as I can do what I wish with mine.
Let's follow that train of thought a little further. Their money is theirs to do with as they choose.
How would you feel about a chain of stores refusing to serve people of a particular race? Anyone who obviously belongs to a certain ethnic group is simply refused service. The store has every right to choose what to do with their stock, after all.
PKRudeBoy wrote:First off, why a gay person would want to work for an institution that is so bigoted against them is beyond me, but I must admit that like almost any other law that forces employers to employ specific groups of people, I am going to have to disagree with it on principle. It seems to me that people, more so in Europe, but increasingly in the US, view employment as a right, which I, at least, believe it is most certainly not. Employers are engaging people to perform a service for them, and it is my opinion that it should be entirely up to them who they choose. If a company so desires, it should be able to hire only left handed blondes who were born on an even day in a month that ends with Y. It's their money, it should be their decision. if do to some personal bigotry they choose not to hire the best qualified applicant, then their loss, they wont be performing as well as they otherwise could.
It's not about telling an employer who he has to hire; it's about not allowing an employer to descriminate against people based on their gender, race or (as in this case) their sexuality. As for the rest of your post, it's straight out of the bigot apologist's handbook.
