Legal warning to church on gay stance

The Irish Times, Dublin ^ | August 2, 2003 | Liam Reid

[AFA-Michigan]

Clergy and bishops who distribute the Vatican's latest publication describing homosexual activity as "evil" could face prosecution under incitement to hatred legislation.

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) has warned that the language in the 12-page booklet is so strong it could be interpreted as being in breach of the Act.

Published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it states that Catholics have a duty to oppose the introduction and operation of legislation recognising same-sex unions. It identifies politicians as having a duty to vote against any such moves.

According to the document, Catholic teaching states that while homosexuals should be treated with "respect, compassion and sensitivity", homosexuality was "objectively disordered".

"Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimisation of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalisation of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil," it states.

It also claims that allowing children to be adopted into same-sex unions would mean "doing violence to these children". This would place them "in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development".

Ms. Aisling Reidy, director of the ICCL, warned yesterday that the statement could be in violation of the 1989 Incitement to Hatred Act. Those convicted under the Act can face jail terms of up to six months.

"The document itself may not violate the Act, but if you were to use the document to say that gays are evil, it is likely to give rise to hatred, which is against the Act," according to Ms Reidy. "The wording is very strong and certainly goes against the spirit of the legislation."

Under the Act literature which is threatening, abusive or insulting, linked with the intent of stirring up hatred, is illegal.

[Puddleglum]

Robert Burns is the national poet of Scotland.

I know - his quote just seemed appropriate. It was a little jab at this Irish "wisdom."

[Dataman]

Ha! In college, freeper Claud and myself had a running joke that someday academia would try to rehabilitate poor Caligula.

If the murderous man who dressed himself in animal skins and bit naked men in cages can be rehabilitated, Caligula is not far behind.

[Zack Nguyen]

That's what it really comes down to, but I don't think you can draw such clear denominational lines, for there are those within all denominations who are true believers...

Absolutely. And those that are true believers have a responsibility to make sure that they, their families, and their friends are not fed error. If the church will not change or the leadership will not listen, it is their responsibility to leave.

[Zack Nguyen]

My Episcopalian friends, the silent ones in the pews, are mortified!

Your friends should make sure that the leadership at their local church does not believe in the apostasy of a homosexual serving as minister. If they cannot change their church they should leave.

[sweetliberty]

" If the church will not change or the leadership will not listen, it is their responsibility to leave."

Yes, I agree. On another thread I described it this way.

[Palladin]

I believe many sincere Episcopalians will leave over this issue, just as they did thirty years ago over the abortion issue.

[AFA-Michigan]

Why would Jefferson be rolling over in his grave?

"In 1803, one year after the Danbury ("separation of church and state") letter, Jefferson made a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, wherein he pledged money to build them a Roman Catholic Church and to support their priests — all from federal funds."

http://www.churchstatelaw.com/historicalmaterials/8_8_5.asp

[Luis Gonzalez]

Jefferson was instrumental in promoting the whole idea of maintaining Church and government apart, not in the ACLU sense of the concept, which unfortunately is what come to be accepted as the current definition of his idea, but rather in the decision making and electoral process.

I can see where Jefferson could have moved to provide Federal funds to bring Christianity to the natives, and not seen it as conflictive with his idea, as it was in no way contrary to his beliefs being that it had no impact in the process of formulating Federal policy.

The ACLU has extended that thought to mean no visible signs of a connection between religion and government, which is also wrong. That is actually closer to Madison's concept, who declared that, among other things, the creation of a Congressional Chaplain was clearly unconstitutional.

[nmh]

I believe you are right. Still I don't worry about it. Where I spend eternity is what is important to me and His teachings give me hope and comfort. Never think I'm perfect ... just trying to do the best I can, ALWAYS falling short ... .

[narses]

Ping.

[sport]

Where have you been?

They are going strong here.

[battousai]

"I just cannot get rid of the feeling that this issue will divide religions and countries very shortly."

I think you hit the nail on the head, division is liberalism's (satan's) greatest tool, in all things we see it, divide parents and children, God and people, pit one group against the other (rich vs poor, black vs white), now people vs their religion and all this made easier by the dumbing down of the nation through decades of miseducation in school (is there such a word? no? well I just made it :).

[ninenot]

Good evening, Deacon.

You can't get away with that little fillip--"no jail for homos or hetero sodomites.."

You see, once the civil law no longer reflects the natural law--the moral law--the civil law no longer stands as a teacher. Believe it or not, that's one of the functions of law--to teach.

You expressly stated that the law should be struck down, based on the "inequality" of prosecuting homos for actions taken by others.

A far more sensible position would be, of course, for you to advocate "equalizing" the law--that is, making heterosexual sodomy illegal, too.

But you chose to derogate from the extant law, derogating from the natural law.

That was your position, Deacon.

[sinkspur]

A far more sensible position would be, of course, for you to advocate "equalizing" the law--that is, making heterosexual sodomy illegal, too.

So, make heterosexual sodomy illegal, too.

Or TRY to make it illegal. Then sodomy would be illegal for everybody.

Jail for all.

What IS your problem? How old is this post?

[ninenot]

As long as you'll advocate it be made illegal in every state, OK.

Rather nice of you to condition it that way. It'll keep him busy.

Of course, preaching is more in your court, Deacon.

[sinkspur]

Never mind. The damn thing's nearly a month old.

Are you dreding up stuff to pick a fight, ninenot?

If so, I'm not playing. Good night.

[AD from SpringBay]

My Episcopalian friends, the silent ones in the pews, are mortified!

And because they are silent they get what they deserve.

[ninenot]

The Pope issued "orders" from the Vatican to Catholic politicians in the US as well as the rest of the world.

PLease clarify. The Pope has no direct authority over any of these cretins.

[ninenot]

Jefferson won't DARE turn over in his grave or a homosexual will ravish him.

[Luis Gonzalez]

It seems to be a guided tour of us heathens and our posts sink...I wonder who's driving the tour bus?