Pope Benedict attacks government over Equality Bill

[Mike182]

The government isn't interfering with the Church. This is a law for all UK employers. Why should someone's religious beliefs be cause of exemption from the law?

Quite so.

I wonder if the Catholic church will sell up and pull out of Britain entirely in a few years. Given the strong sentiment of preferring to close its adoption agencies rather than letting gays adopt kids, maybe the Pope would rather close the Catholic church in Britain rather than become a fair employer and not discriminate against gays.

One can hope at least :rainbow1:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Oh boy, are you one to talk. The Pope lies. He makes obviously hypocritical statements. It's not a great leap from there to conclude that he's a liar and a hypocrite.

I don't think that he willingly lies. He doesn't admit or promote truths that would cast him or the Church in a negative light. He sweeps things under the rug and pretends like it itsn't there.

In other words, I understand the Pope as a person who understands his role in life to be pastor to the world. Instead of wallowing in failure, he tries to give pastoral care. I think that his "lies" and "hypocrisy" are rooted in the delusion that his pastoral care and leadership is meaningful when his integrity and morality is severely questioned.

I he were an honest man, he would bow out of this game.

 

[emiliano]

That's why I don't think that Benedict can redeem himself. You can't come back from this. And it's not just Ireland, but other European countries as well.

For your information nobody can redeem him/herself, on top of this post been in error, it is also off topic

I care deeply about the Church - it could be a light for hope in the world, but the church leadership is hanging on to destructive practices and theologies.

Are you telling us that hiring a bunch of sexually immoral individuals to senior position in the Church is going to solve this great evil that the CCR Church is presently going through?

To the great misfortune of the Church, there will not be significant change for about a hundred years, unless there is a massive shift in leadership style.

​

I remind you that the topic for discussion is about the directive by the Pope to Christians to oppose a bill that would force the Church to employ practicing homosexual to senior positions in the Church.
I like the Popes proposition to remedy the problem and hope to it doesn’t turn into a one sided resolution, the victims must pursuit this through the Church and civil courts and prove their case and receive justice, this is not a thing that happens to the RCC only, the justice that can be administered by the Church is excommunion the rest must be done by the civil courts, but that happens when the allegation are proven.

Pope Benedict XVI begged forgiveness Friday from clerical abuse victims for the sins of priests and promised to "do everything possible" to ensure prelates don't rape or molest children ever again.
In his homily, Benedict lamented that during what should have been a year of joy for the priesthood the "sins of priests came to light — particularly the abuse of the little ones."
"We too insistently beg forgiveness from God and from the persons involved, while promising to do everything possible to ensure that such abuse will never occur again," he said.
He said that in admitting men into the priesthood and in forming them as clergymen "we will do everything we can to weigh the authenticity of their vocation and make every effort to accompany priests along their journey, so that the Lord will protect them and watch over them in troubled situations and amid life's dangers."
As such, Friday's comments were a public admission of the sins of priests, a request for forgiveness from their victims and God, and pledge to take action — all delivered before 15,000 priests from around the world who came to Rome for a show of support of the pontiff and the priesthood itself amid the scandal.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/06/11/2010-06-11_pope_benedict_xvi_begs_forgiveness_from_priest_abuse_victims_promises_action.html

 

[Panda]

I remind you that the topic for discussion is about the directive by the Pope to Christians to oppose a bill that would force the Church to employ practicing homosexual to senior positions in the Church.

Yes it is, it is also a political issue not a religious one. The Pope is trying to interfere in the politics of this country not the other way around. This bill was not designed specifically for the RCC but for all UK employers and the RCC is trying to interfere with this. Religion has no place what so ever in politics.

 

[emiliano]

Yes it is, it is also a political issue not a religious one. The Pope is trying to interfere in the politics of this country not the other way around. This bill was not designed specifically for the RCC but for all UK employers and the RCC is trying to interfere with this. Religion has no place what so ever in politics.

This could turn into never ending discussion. Consider that it was the UK’s government the initiated or at lest started to promote a political action that was taken by activist to deny the RCC their natural right to associate and employ senior from people that profess their tenets, if this ever becomes a law (I doubt it) the RCC has the solution, employ and promote only cleric, so if anything the Pope can be said to be overreacting. It would never happen.

This bill was not designed specifically for the RCC but for all UK employers and the RCC is trying to interfere with this. Religion has no place what so ever in politics.

But this is a proposal for the abolishment the natural right of an employer to employ those t hat they see as been an asset to their association purpose ( in this case to save from immorality). What contribution can a homosexual make?

 

[LuisDantas]

But this is a proposal for the abolishment the natural right of an employer to employ those t hat they see as been an asset to their association purpose ( in this case to save from immorality). What contribution can a homosexual make?

Doubly wrong. The right is not there to begin with; no employer in the UK is allowed to discriminate on those grounds. Nor is it a matter of morality at all.

And the last sentense of yours, well, it is just silly. The only difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual is what gender one is attracted to, after all. Unless the business is directly involved with sexual attraction, the contributions are very much the same.

 

[emiliano]

Doubly wrong. The right is not there to begin with; no employer in the UK is allowed to discriminate on those grounds. Nor is it a matter of morality at all.

And the last sentense of yours, well, it is just silly. The only difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual is what gender one is attracted to, after all. Unless the business is directly involved with sexual attraction, the contributions are very much the same.

Do you understand what the arguments are? Let recount, Panda’s replay to me was “it is also a political issue not a religious one” I answer “it was the UK’s government that initiated or at lest started to promote a political action that was taken by activist to deny the RCC their natural right to associate and employ senior staff from people that profess their tenets” I ask you what can a homosexual contribute to the RCC and the purpose of their creation? And again I must remind you that the bill has not been approved and it has very little chance of success, also if it were to be approved it will be with amendments that will exempt religious institutions, worst scenario it will became an act of parliament that will be tested and amendments made, I find ridicules that the government even consider the inclusion of religious institutions, but I am not surprise that this is happening there, just see how the previous administration left that country. Religious charitable organizations will stop their activities. Who is going to do the work they do. The government?
In the political side of the argument I can tell you that in economies such as the UK, USA and other private enterprise driven economies employer will not accept that the stated interferes with their right to select their staff and their right to dismiss any body that negatively affect their function, in the case of the RCC is that their tenets call for repentance of sin and change, what effect would the conduct of homosexual and sodomites have on the Church?

 

[Panda]

Do you understand what the arguments are? Let recount, Panda’s replay to me was “it is also a political issue not a religious one” I answer “it was the UK’s government that initiated or at lest started to promote a political action that was taken by activist to deny the RCC their natural right to associate and employ senior staff from people that profess their tenets” I ask you what can a homosexual contribute to the RCC and the purpose of their creation? And again I must remind you that the bill has not been approved and it has very little chance of success, also if it were to be approved it will be with amendments that will exempt religious institutions, worst scenario it will became an act of parliament that will be tested and amendments made, I find ridicules that the government even consider the inclusion of religious institutions, but I am not surprise that this is happening there, just see how the previous administration left that country. Religious charitable organizations will stop their activities. Who is going to do the work they do. The government?
In the political side of the argument I can tell you that in economies such as the UK, USA and other private enterprise driven economies employer will not accept that the stated interferes with their right to select their staff and their right to dismiss any body that negatively affect their function, in the case of the RCC is that their tenets call for repentance of sin and change, what effect would the conduct of homosexual and sodomites have on the Church?

Why should religious beliefs be reason for exemption from laws? That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.

 

[Panda]

This could turn into never ending discussion. Consider that it was the UK’s government the initiated or at lest started to promote a political action that was taken by activist to deny the RCC their natural right to associate and employ senior from people that profess their tenets, if this ever becomes a law (I doubt it) the RCC has the solution, employ and promote only cleric, so if anything the Pope can be said to be overreacting. It would never happen.

It is not a natural right of an employer to be allowed to discriminate on what ever grounds they want. I mean how would you feel if no US employer would employ you because you are a Christian and they felt this was clearly a sign of mental imbalance?

But this is a proposal for the abolishment the natural right of an employer to employ those t hat they see as been an asset to their association purpose ( in this case to save from immorality). What contribution can a homosexual make?

The law is not about morality, the law is about making things fairer. A homosexual could be a world class doctor in a RCC hospital or they could be the best teacher in the world in a RCC maths class. Neither of these activities have anything to do with the teachings or beliefs of the RCC.

 

[emiliano]

It is not a natural right of an employer to be allowed to discriminate on what ever grounds they want. I mean how would you feel if no US employer would employ you because you are a Christian and they felt this was clearly a sign of mental imbalance?

The law is not about morality, the law is about making things fairer. A homosexual could be a world class doctor in a RCC hospital or they could be the best teacher in the world in a RCC maths class. Neither of these activities have anything to do with the teachings or beliefs of the RCC.

This is about satisfying an employer criteria for employment, what right does the government has to set the criteria for private school, parents had the right choose the kind of educator the private school employs, patients have the right to choose their treating doctor, as for your question if the criteria of the job on offers stated that that I have to prove my sanity and if I don’t satisfy that criteria I would not apply for that position and if I can not satisfy that criteria for the duration of my employment the employer has the right to take what ever action, in the same way a gay person that do not meet the criteria will not be selected and keep if does not satisfy the employer’s criteria.

The law is not about morality, the law is about making things fairer. A homosexual could be a world class doctor in a RCC hospital or they could be the best teacher in the world in a RCC maths class. Neither of these activities have anything to do with the teachings or beliefs of the RCC

.
To the Church it is and they are the prospective employers in this case the law can not be one side. What about the employer’s right? The right of hire and fire of the employer must be respected as it is the way that the employer can move forward and employers are the ones paying a person to execute the employer’s plan, the employer’s business plan, the employer creates and develops the business the applicant to a job or promotion must satisfy the employer’s criteria, they own or represents the owners.

 

[Panda]

This is about satisfying an employer criteria for employment, what right does the government has to set the criteria for private school, parents had the right choose the kind of educator the private school employs, patients have the right to choose their treating doctor, as for your question if the criteria of the job on offers stated that that I have to prove my sanity and if I don’t satisfy that criteria I would not apply for that position and if I can not satisfy that criteria for the duration of my employment the employer has the right to take what ever action, in the same way a gay person that do not meet the criteria will not be selected and keep if does not satisfy the employer’s criteria.

All school (both public and state) have to meet the same criteria of teaching. As for your sanity what I was saying is that what if all employers took your Christian beliefs to be a state of insanity in itself.

To the Church it is and they are the prospective employers in this case the law can not be one side. What about the employer’s right? The right of hire and fire of the employer must be respected as it is the way that the employer can move forward and employers are the ones paying a person to execute the employer’s plan, the employer’s business plan, the employer creates and develops the business the applicant to a job or promotion must satisfy the employer’s criteria, they own or represents the owners.

The criteria for hiring and firing must be relevant to the job. Sexuality does not interfere with how you do a job in any way. Yes Catholics belive it is immoral but that is not relevant to how someone does as a teacher, doctor, janitor etc. Why do you think a religious belief should have special significance from any other belief?

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you understand what the arguments are?

Let's see.

Let recount, Panda’s replay to me was “it is also a political issue not a religious one” I answer “it was the UK’s government that initiated or at lest started to promote a political action that was taken by activist to deny the RCC their natural right to associate and employ senior staff from people that profess their tenets”

There is no natural (and in the UK, not even legal) right to discriminate people due to homosexuality while acting as an employer.

The RCC may want to believe otherwise, and I guess that means it will discriminate when employing people in Vatican City. It is still morally wrong and illegal in the UK.

That the RCC has tenets that disagree with the moral right only means that it must correct its own tenets, not at all that the law should be twisted into agreeint with it.

I ask you what can a homosexual contribute to the RCC and the purpose of their creation?

It can teach it humility and respect for all people regardless of sexual orientation, apparently.

As well as working just like anyone else, of course. What in the RCC's activities would demand its employees to be heterosexuals, after all?

And again I must remind you that the bill has not been approved and it has very little chance of success,

We shall see. The eventual success of it or of something else that punishes homophoby is inevitable, anyway. Fortunately so.

also if it were to be approved it will be with amendments that will exempt religious institutions,

That would be an obscenity.

worst scenario it will became an act of parliament that will be tested and amendments made, I find ridicules that the government even consider the inclusion of religious institutions,

And I find it immoral and obscene that religious exemptions are even considered. The Middle Age is gone for good.

The UK are the very country that conceived the Magna Carta, remember. They have a proud and solidy legacy of respecting people's rights even if opposing centuries of tradition.

but I am not surprise that this is happening there, just see how the previous administration left that country. Religious charitable organizations will stop their activities.

If they would do that because they can't refuse homosexuals for being homosexuals, then I call that good riddance.

Who is going to do the work they do. The government?

The sane, responsible charities? There aren't so few of them, you know.

In the political side of the argument I can tell you that in economies such as the UK, USA and other private enterprise driven economies employer will not accept that the stated interferes with their right to select their staff

It will and it does. There are even quotas on racial minorities under some jurisdictions, you know. The case for sexual minorities is, if anything, even stronger and more sensible.

and their right to dismiss any body that negatively affect their function,

Is not under discussion. They may fire Ratzinger anytime, although they probably won't, at least for a good while... or were you thinking of someone else? :sarcastic

in the case of the RCC is that their tenets call for repentance of sin and change, what effect would the conduct of homosexual and sodomites have on the Church?

Aparently not enough, if they happen to be ordained priests that disrespect their celibacy vows. Which only makes the hipocrisy of refusing to employ respecting homosexuals all the worse.

 

[emiliano]

[

quote=LuisDantas;2044285]Let's see.
There is no natural (and in the UK, not even legal) right to discriminate people due to homosexuality while acting as an employer.

This the kind of things the UK have to do to get out of the economic hole in which the are, that is encourage employers to conduct business and stop all these laws to business, why were they trying to force business people to hire people that do not meet the criteria that they set for their employer, the right to administer their enterprises.

The RCC may want to believe otherwise, and I guess that means it will discriminate when employing people in Vatican City. It is still morally wrong and illegal in the UK.

Remember that this has not passed as the gay lobby desire, there will be exceptions as all acts of parliament have to go through to be approved and it is the right of the RCC to present arguments and counter argument to the bill , as you know the politician that promoted and supported these things, have lost the last election. Surely sense will prevail, business (private enterprises the motor of the economy) must be administer by their owners, the government is elected to administer public administer public enterprises.

That the RCC has tenets that disagree with the moral right only means that it must correct its own tenets, not at all that the law should be twisted into agreeint with it.
It can teach it humility and respect for all people regardless of sexual orientation, apparently.

Ha. Ha. .Ha! So all employer would have to develop enterprises that suit gays and non hopers, good one Luis!

As well as working just like anyone else, of course. What in the RCC's activities would demand its employees to be heterosexuals, after all?

The RCC Is the a Christian religion for males and females, there is no a third gender so when they employ a person is either for a male or a female, homosexuality is a sin in Christianity, the remedy for sin is repentance and change, the obstinately disobedient are to be expelled.

We shall see. The eventual success of it or of something else that punishes homophoby is inevitable, anyway. Fortunately so.

We shall see. The ever growing powers of the state powers in that country has ruined their economy, fancy seeing these people telling business how to run their business and what criteria to use to hire and develop their staff, when they can even manage a chook raffle.

That would be an obscenity.

And I find it immoral and obscene that religious exemptions are even considered. The Middle Age is gone for good.

Just see what the political correctness of the Europeans resulted in. and you may change your mind the news tell us that 1/3 of the British population would like to migrate to Australia..

The UK are the very country that conceived the Magna Carta, remember. They have a proud and solidy legacy of respecting people's rights even if opposing centuries of tradition.

If they would do that because they can't refuse homosexuals for being homosexuals, then I call that good riddance.

The topic is referring to religious institutions been force to hire Homosexuals people to senior position .

The sane, responsible charities? There aren't so few of them, you know.

No the RCC, they remain truthful to sound doctrine, sodomy is a sin, it is an act “contra natura” It will and it does. There are even quotas on racial minorities under some jurisdictions, you know. The case for sexual minorities is, if anything, even stronger and more sensible.
I agree with this, I believe that in this times where we see so many immorality we came to see it as normal, even wort we have change from “Minorities must be respected to “ minorities must be obey”
That is an opinion I differ, and I think that the Pope got right “The Pope has urged Catholic bishops in England and Wales to fight the UK's Equality Bill with "missionary zeal".

Is not under discussion. They may fire Ratzinger anytime, although they probably won't, at least for a good while... or were you thinking of someone else?

At this time there is no chance of this happening, there will always be a Church and a Shepard. That is God’s promise.

Aparently not enough, if they happen to be ordained priests that disrespect their celibacy vows. Which only makes the hipocrisy of refusing to employ respecting homosexuals all the worse.

[/QUOTE]
What are you driving at? The Pope has embark the Church in an internal cleansing operation in the Church, in all proven cases prelates will be dismissed and put at the disposition of the secular authorities. How can there be respectful Homos if the Church when the Church forbids this behaviour? Those that are discover are offered a chance to repentance and change, the obstinately disobedient are expel from the congregation.

 

[emiliano]

Panda,

All school (both public and state) have to meet the same criteria of teaching. As for your sanity what I was saying is that what if all employers took your Christian beliefs to be a state of insanity in itself.

Not so, public schools are not allowed to teach scriptures of creation, if a pupil responds “ That is the way God created everything in a science test, he is failed, parents that wish to have their children educated in a religious environment send them to a private Catholic/Christian school, a private educational enterprise, they pay the teachers that will do their children education, thus they have all right to set the criteria for employment, that will include the condition that they can teach by knowledge and example.

The criteria for hiring and firing must be relevant to the job. Sexuality does not interfere with how you do a job in any way. Yes Catholics belive it is immoral but that is not relevant to how someone does as a teacher, doctor, janitor etc. Why do you think a religious belief should have special significance from any other belief?

Correct a Catholic/Christian school needs teachers that can teach Catholic/Christian’s moral values, this must be taught by the scriptures and example, this is what parents want from their school and as they pay for it, they have the right to demand it be so.
People that pay for private health insurances have the right to choose their treating doctors and nurses that will look after them using the criteria they choose to use. BTW as I have said before this is about senior position in a religious organization, those that are seen as representative of the organization. I hope that you get it this time! Janitors?

 

[Autodidact]

This is their HOLY GROUND. As much as they are bigoted wanktards holy ground should be respected.

-Q

How did Great Britain get to be their HOLY GROUND?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Do Catholics ask their surgeons what is their sexual orientation , before they have lifesaving surgery. people act quite differently about things that really matter.

 

[Panda]

Not so, public schools are not allowed to teach scriptures of creation, if a pupil responds “ That is the way God created everything in a science test, he is failed, parents that wish to have their children educated in a religious environment send them to a private Catholic/Christian school, a private educational enterprise, they pay the teachers that will do their children education, thus they have all right to set the criteria for employment, that will include the condition that they can teach by knowledge and example.

Eh no. All schools both public and state must meet the requirements set out by
Hey Majesty's Inspectorate of Education.

Correct a Catholic/Christian school needs teachers that can teach Catholic/Christian’s moral values, this must be taught by the scriptures and example, this is what parents want from their school and as they pay for it, they have the right to demand it be so.
People that pay for private health insurances have the right to choose their treating doctors and nurses that will look after them using the criteria they choose to use. BTW as I have said before this is about senior position in a religious organization, those that are seen as representative of the organization. I hope that you get it this time! Janitors?

No they don't. What does maths have to do with religion? Or Science? Geography? These have nothing at all to do with religion so why would you need the teacher to be a Catholic?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

This was part of the reason for the formation of the Church of England man, because England was tired of the Vatican telling them what to do.

 

[KatNotKathy]

This pope just needs to keel over and die already. I mean, the next guy will probably be just as bad, but then I can move on to wishing for his death.

The system works.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

How did Great Britain get to be their HOLY GROUND?

No one said i was talking about the entirety of England.

-Q