Church directive against gay rights bill sparks furor in Italy

[Strengthandhonour]

Church directive against gay rights bill sparks furor in Italy

By Philip Pullella, Reuters | March 30, 2007
ROME -- A directive by Italian bishops ordering Catholic politicians to vote against gay rights legislation has caused a political uproar and prompted new charges of church interference in domestic affairs.
The long-awaited note, issued on Wednesday by the Italian Bishops Conference, was significant because it specifically targeted politicians as they consider a law to give homosexual and heterosexual unmarried couples more rights.
While not specifying any punishment by the church, it says Catholics could not hide behind "the principle of pluralism" or compromise on what it called the ethical needs of society.
The note said Catholic politicians had "the moral duty to clearly and publicly voice their disagreement and vote against any proposed law that would recognize homosexual couples."
While some Catholic and centrist politicians welcomed the directive as food for thought, other lawmakers and civil rights groups condemned it as outright interference. "This continuous, daily interference by the church in parliament's activity is intolerable," said leftist senator Luisa Boccia. "What's next, excommunication?"
Italians and their government are deeply split over gay rights.
Prime Minister Romano Prodi's center-left coalition has tabled a bill in Parliament that guarantees rights to unmarried couples in such areas as inheritance and health care. Some opponents fear it could eventually lead to gay marriage in Italy.
Two weeks ago, Pope Benedict said the church's opposition to gay marriage was "nonnegotiable" and that Catholic politicians had a duty to oppose it.
Prodi, a Catholic, has said the draft law should not be seen as a threat to the traditional family. But some of his ministers have vowed to fight it in Parliament, and some are expected to attend a big demonstration planned for May 12 in defense of the traditional family.
Commentators said the strongly worded note and the equally passionate reaction has raised a simmering conflict between the church and the state to a new, harsher level.
Franco Grillini, an openly gay parliamentarian in Prodi's coalition, called the bishops' note "ecclesial homophobia.



source: Church directive against gay rights bill sparks furor in Italy - The Boston Globe

[Crvena zvezda]

The long-awaited note, issued on Wednesday by the Italian Bishops Conference, was significant because it specifically targeted politicians as they consider a law to give homosexual and heterosexual unmarried couples more rights.

Such sexual deviants do not deserve rights. The only type of couple deserving rights is a married couple.

While not specifying any punishment by the church, it says Catholics could not hide behind "the principle of pluralism" or compromise on what it called the ethical needs of society.

Good to see there is still a place where Catholics will disregard political correctness.

The note said Catholic politicians had "the moral duty to clearly and publicly voice their disagreement and vote against any proposed law that would recognize homosexual couples."

While some Catholic and centrist politicians welcomed the directive as food for thought, other lawmakers and civil rights groups condemned it as outright interference. "This continuous, daily interference by the church in parliament's activity is intolerable," said leftist senator Luisa Boccia.

"What next ecommunication?"

This argument is flawed. The Catholic church is not interfering in parliamentary activity. All it is saying is that it is against the passage of this law -- I do not see them paying off MP's to vote against it or threatening to excommunicate or expel from the church the bills supporters.

If by publicly state it's right to oppose legislation is considered interference in parliamentary activity then so are all the annoying human and gay rights groups who are urging parliament in Italy to approve the bill.

Two weeks ago, Pope Benedict said the church's opposition to gay marriage was "nonnegotiable" and that Catholic politicians had a duty to oppose it.

Good to see the echelons of power in the Catholic Church having a good view on this issue.

Prodi, a Catholic, has said the draft law should not be seen as a threat to the traditional family. But some of his ministers have vowed to fight it in Parliament, and some are expected to attend a big demonstration planned for May 12 in defense of the traditional family.

How is this not a threat. This law encourages sexual deviance and makes marriage virtually meaningless.

[Milesian]

Prodi a Catholic? Even his name is a term used to describe certain Anti-Catholics here

Isn't Prodi a known Freemason?

[Errigal]

When I read "A directive by Italian bishops ordering Catholic politicians to vote against gay rights legislation" I doubted immediately that the politicians had been "ordered" to vote a certain way. A few lines later it is made clear it was not an order. Very annoying this kind of bias.

[Marcus Marulus]

It seems there's no end in inventing new absurd "rights".

Can someone explain to me (but reasonably and with arguments, not spouting politically correct phrases) what the notion "gay rights" means?

Maybe someone would consider listening to this guy?

[Franze]

Sadly, there aren´t excommunions for making real the obligation.

[Marcus Marulus]

Someone gives financial support to all these idiocies, like the gay-rights groups. It seems there is still a surplus of capital in the marvelous West...

[Susi]

I think the gay-rights movement (per se) is like the feminist movement, in a way. Because the feminists wanted more rights for women, the gays want more rights for gays. I think that's pretty much the gist of it...

Both, in my opinion, are stupid.

[Ederico]

On the "ordering" bit and bias. The news feed is from Reuters, traditionally anti-Italian and I heard that it was started by Jews so they might potentially be an anti-Catholic bias thrown in as well. Further add that it is in the English language so there could be some Protestant having anti-Catholic prejudices imbued in him.

On the leftist Senator and others like her that blather about interference et cetera. Does anyone see them blather when organizations like Amnesty International voice their views? This is merely a case of leftist secularistic bigotry which plays the card of "separation of Church and State" when convenient, then you don't see them shy away from association with the occasional cattocomunista.

Separation of Church and State is a question of institutions, not expression of positions. Nowadays the most tangible institutional interference would probably be that of the State on the Church.

The notion that the Church cannot address its Faithful (that would include self-professed nominal Catholic politicians) in questions of morality is abominant. Moreover, if freedom of expression and association is a true fundamental right in a democratic society, the Roman Catholic Church voicing its opinion is part and parcel of a properly understood liberal and democratic society. Pretending otherwise and feigning secularistic scandal, is reminiscient of anti-democratic communist regimes guilty of the greatest persecutions in history.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Ederico

Pretending otherwise and feigning secularistic scandal, is reminiscient of anti-democratic communist regimes guilty of the greatest persecutions in history.

Liberal democratic regimes are not much better than the communist ones in that respect, they only use softer methods.

One can say that they are even worse. No Communist country ever introduced such sick nonsense like gay-marriage. (There were some attempts to do that in the beginnings of the Soviet rule in the USSR, but that design was blocked.)

These are all signs of a profoundly sick, decaying and degenerated civlization, if this can still be called "civilization."

Such nonsesne should not have become a matter of discussion in the first place: gay-marriage is an oxymoron.

[Ederico]

Originally Posted by prometheus

Liberal democratic regimes are not much better than the communist ones in that respect, they only use softer methods.

When I refer to "liberal democratic" I'm specifically referring to certain constitutional principles and most importantly to a conception of rights and obligations based on natural law ethics, not incidentally the ethical system of the Roman Catholic Church.

What we have nowadays is not liberal democratic constitutionalism, but social liberalism also known as "progressivism". It is mere revolutionarism, whatever social norm prevails must be removed. The progressivist doesn't know of anything but rebellion, he is a pessimist, always focusing on the negative and attempting to solve "problems".This constant revolution, the permanent state of rebellion to instated norms coupled with a pessimistic attitude, is somewhat reminiscent of a Satanic attitude metaphorically speaking.

Anyways, the liberal democratic constitutionalism I refer to does not postulate social liberalism. This notwithstanding that the latter pretends that it has the sole claim on those constitutional principles that are properly democratic (read, popular not bureaucratic and plutocratic deliberation a la globalisation, multiculturalism and the EU) and values proper freedom and not license.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Ederico

When I refer to "liberal democratic" I'm specifically referring to certain constitutional principles and most importantly to a conception of rights and obligations based on natural law ethics, not incidentally the ethical system of the Roman Catholic Church.

Like those principles emanating from the philosophical school of Salamanca? I like that! But calling it "liberal democratic" may be misleading, because the term is usually associated with the modern, Anglo-Saxon, contractualist view of society and constitutionalism.

Originally Posted by Ederico

What we have nowadays is not liberal democratic constitutionalism, but social liberalism also known as "progressivism". It is mere revolutionarism, whatever social norm prevails must be removed. The progressivist doesn't know of anything but rebellion, he is a pessimist, always focusing on the negative and attempting to solve "problems".This constant revolution, the permanent state of rebellion to instated norms coupled with a pessimistic attitude, is somewhat reminiscent of a Satanic attitude metaphorically speaking.

Upon hearing the very word "progress" (and "progressive"), I start to vomit. You are right!

Originally Posted by Ederico

Anyways, the liberal democratic constitutionalism I refer to does not postulate social liberalism. This notwithstanding that the latter pretends that it has the sole claim on those constitutional principles that are properly democratic (read, popular not bureaucratic and plutocratic deliberation a la globalisation, multiculturalism and the EU) and values proper freedom and not license.

The modern progressives gave us only the freedom from (moral restraints, for example), but not freedom for (something valuable).

Homosexuality and capitalism: "Why are families under attack?"

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by prometheus

The modern progressives gave us only the freedom from (moral restraints, for example), but not freedom for (something valuable).

Yes, I believe that one Pope referred to it as "Liberty of Perdition"

[Susi]

Which Pope?

[Erasmus]

Originally Posted by Susi

Which Pope?

I think saint Pious X.