jump to navigation

The Vatican against french proposal to legalize homosexuality December 1, 2008

Posted by dorigo in news, politics, religion.
Tags: ,
trackback

Just a quick note to say I continue to be disgusted by the catholic church. Answering to France’s announced proposal to universally depenalize homosexuality, the Vatican shows a huge amount of hypocrisy today. Celestino Migliore, a permanent UN observer for the Vatican, says it would bring new discrimination, since countries that do not recognize gay unions would be placed in a pillory. Here are his words:

“Per esempio, gli Stati che non riconoscono l’unione tra persone dello stesso sesso come “matrimonio” verranno messi alla gogna e fatti oggetto di pressioni”.

(As an example, countries that do not recognize the union between people of the same sex as “marriage” will be placed in a pillory and be subjected to pressure)

What can I say… I said it already: please go on like that. The catholic church is going to marginalize itself by taking such idiotic stands. Migliore, be my guest.

Comments

1. Ivano - December 1, 2008

So the Vatican is only really worried about homosexuals being ghettoed, isn’t it? What a cheating bunch of liars these Catholic people are, can’t think of a more cunning way to affirm they are just too happy to keep the status quo of gay discrimination

2. mandeep gill - December 2, 2008

Excellent, Tommaso, glad to see you writing on this issue! With the passage of Prop 8 in my home state — by a razor-thin margin — because of religious fundamentalists who pushed their views on the rest of the state (and btw, lied openly in much of their advertising about the effects on children that this would have), and having some very close LGBT friends, i have made this issue one of the top priorities that i’m watching and caring about in the coming period. It is one where the opinion of American (and world) society is i’m *certain* going to be changing shifting in the coming months and years.

Obama is mixed on it — politically, he can’t openly back gay marriage, but he is very supportive of totally equivalent civil unions, and *does* take the chance to speak in support of gays whenever and wherever he is able — e.g. even in his election night speech, he did explicitly mentioned LGBT folks in his describing the inclusive American society he envisions. This to me is a good sign of where things will move in the coming future..

3. omnologos - December 3, 2008

I am not sure if everybody sees this issue from the same point of view. Is it a matter of votes (a), or a matter of rights (b)? In the former case (a), if Californians vote for Prop8 in their majority, then there isn’t much to complain about: rather, one should start working on reversing that decision via another vote of course.

If instead we are talking about personal rights (b), then they cannot be left to the vagaries of the voters, and must be set by Constitutional/Supreme Courts.

But if (a) is valid, so the Catholic Church is free to state whatever they think. What is the meaning in reprimanding them for speaking out clearly? Or for having an opinion?

Of course if (b) is valid (and that’s the way France is handling the situation at the moment) then Prop8 and the opinion of the Catholic Church are (or should be) inconsequential. Migliore’s remarks make therefore perfect sense, from his point of view.

4. Roberto - December 4, 2008

@ omnologos: I can see your point, but I think Migliore put together two different issues (and of course he knows it well).

He could have maintained that homosexuals have a personal right not to be penally prosecuted because of their sexual behaviour (b), while the right to homosexual marriage would fall in case a), or even, it should not be allowed as a matter of principle. Note that the French proposition is indeed about the first issue, and not the second. This would have been a coherent choice, and in line with the official position of the catholic church.

But he has chosen to oppose the proposal in order not to provide any potential leverage to supporters of gay marriage.

By doing so, Vatican effectively said: “we are willing to let people suffer and die for no justified reason (death penalty for homosexual behaviour still exists in many countries) rather than risk to loose just an inch of ground in the gay marriage controversy”.

How they can reconcile this with Christ’s teachings just beats me.
I would be even more upset if I were a believer.

5. Luboš Motl - December 4, 2008

Would you really expect Jesus Christ and His friends to bless institutionalized, state-supported homosexual relationships?

Leviticus 18:22, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

Leviticus 20:13, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

Deuteronomy 23:17, “There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.”

Unfortunately, the Vatican’s comment is more than realistic. We live in a world of reverse Inquisition and upside-down witch hunts. Whoever is not excited by fags having fun paid by the government is placed in a pillory and subjected to pressure.

6. almidda - December 4, 2008

The duty of the Vatican is to follow the laws and the spirit of the Bible. You may argue about the validity of this doctrine, but you cannot expect the Vatican to withdraw its missions.

7. Roberto - December 4, 2008

Lubos, don’t be childish.

Leviticus 20:10, “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.”

Leviticus 20:27, “A man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall be put to death; they shall be stoned to death, their blood is upon them.”

Leviticus 24:16, “He that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him.”

or again

Leviticus 3:17, “This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live: You must not eat any fat or any blood.”

and

Deuteronomy 23:17, “If a member of your community, whether a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you and works for you for six years, in the seventh year you shall set that person free.”

When the catholic hierarchy will not object to death penalty for adultery, wizardry or blasphemy, will forbid to eat fat or blood and accept legalization of slavery (provided the slave is freed after six years), I will acknowledge them as coherent fools rather than incoherent ones.

almidda, you said it right, the laws and the spirit of the Bible. Of course it is impossible to respect literally all Bible’s prescriptions, since many are conflicting. No existing Christian confession is advocating that. They all rely on some degree of interpretation. And many are indeed possible. My personal impression is that the spirit of the New Testament, to which I was referring, is definitely in contradiction with death penalty for homosexuals. But I may be wrong. As I said, I’m not a believer.

Let he who has never sinned cast the first stone.

dorigo - December 5, 2008

Following the book would be a very interesting exercise in contorsions. However, the Vatican is doing anything but that (they are fanatics, but they are not fools) – it is a state with a strong economic power, and its politicking is second to none. The Christ we’ve been told about would be vomiting in disgust by observing their manouvers.

Cheers,
T.

8. Darina - December 14, 2008

Oh, a pillory?! There are no limits to human stupidity!

Catholicism is just the right version of Christianity to make people atheists, I keep observing this all the time. It’s a shame.

Oh, I am a heterosexual Christian woman with lots of gay friends. What’s the big deal about homosexuality? I don’t recognize Leviticus as an authorityl.

dorigo - December 14, 2008

It’s the bishops, they want to know what kind of sex people do. I think it arouses them😉

9. Mick - January 7, 2009

The Bible was certainly meant to be taken literally. I’m sure if went back to Bible times and preached that the scripture was a loose allegory of human relationships you would have been stoned to death.

That said I’m an atheist, but I have the most intellectual respect for the literalists. At least their consistent.

dorigo - January 7, 2009

Mick, I agree. I also have more respect for those who take the bible literally, from an intellectual standpoint. That said, i pity them. As for the others, who bend the rules to their will and please, and still bring themselves to frown at things their church condemns, I rather laugh at their double standards.

Cheers,
T.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: