Outrage in U.K. Over Pope’s Anti-Equality Remarks
Comments made by Pope Benedict XVI regarding Britain's anti-discrimination laws have sparked protests and a petition condemning the pontiff's remarks.
A Feb. 3 Associated Press article on Benedict's remarks noted that the Pope, in a Feb. 1 address, had told Catholic bishops of England and Wales that British law had inflicted "unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs," a common complaint voiced by religious conservatives about anti-discrimination laws. Benedict also claimed that such laws ran counter to "the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed." Anti-gay religious conservatives often cite "natural law" when condemning homosexuals or homosexual relationships, which the Catholic Church views as "intrinsically dissolute."
The Pope's comments came in the wake of an attempt by a British politician, Harriet Harman, to sharpen the language of existing law that provides for anti-discrimination protections for GLBT British workers, but offers certain exemptions for churches, such as not requiring religious denominations to extend equitable employment practices to gays when appointing priests.
Some secular activists took umbrage, the AP reported. Said the British Humanist Association's Naomi Phillips, "What the pope, together with other religious leaders such as the [Church of England] bishops sitting in our own Parliament are actually seeking, is for religious people to be allowed to discriminate against others in employment, services, education and many other areas, unfettered by the laws that everyone else in society must abide by and respect."
Politician and GLBT equality advocate Peter Tatchell, who heads the British group OutRage!, stated that the Pope's "ill-informed claim that our equality law undermines religious freedom suggests that he supports the right of churches to discriminate in accordance with their religious ethos." Added Tatchell, "He seems to be defending discrimination by religious institutions and demanding that they should be above the law."
An op-ed article published Feb. 4 by British newspaper the Leicester Mercury sought to clarify the nub of the problem. "The controversy is over the perception that the Equality Bill attempts to force the Catholic Church to employ gay people. Some people erroneously believe this extends to priests. In fact, legislation dating from 2003 already states church staff such as youth workers and administrators cannot be refused employment on the grounds of sexual orientation. However, churches are exempt from this legislation when appointing priests," the article noted.
"What Ms Harman tried to do was introduce an amendment to the Equality Bill which clarified the existing law and reinforced the point that the exemption only applies to religious posts," the article continued. "This amendment was defeated last week in the Lords and she has now decided not to pursue it further."
Added the op-ed, "Our point is that the Catholic church is not being asked to do anything new or unreasonable. It is merely being asked to follow the existing law in the case of its non-religious staff.
"We hope this episode is not now seen as approval to discriminate against homosexuals in non-religious posts," added the article. "Church groups should respect the wider values of our society on this matter, just as the law respects their religious beliefs by exempting priests from the legislation."
A letter to the editor published in U.K. newspaper The Guardian on Feb. 4 from the Equality and Human Rights Commission's Angela Mason set out similar views. "Our legislation goes a long way to accommodate religious organizations," Mason wrote. "Churches will not be forced to appoint gay priests or vicars. But, where a job is not closely tied to the religious purposes of the organization--for example, cleaners or cooks--most people would agree that a 'no gays' policy is pretty difficult to justify. At stake here are crucial boundaries between church and state, the private and the public. For Catholic adoption agencies the prohibition relates to local authorities providing public money to organizations that discriminate against lesbians and gays. Public bodies have a duty not to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation, just as they should not discriminate against people on the grounds of their faith or race.
"Liberal values provide choices and freedoms for individuals and society, but they are never absolute," added Mason. "The real issue here is the extent to which religious organizations, where they elect to operate within the public domain, may demand a privileged position in legislation which is intended to promote values of fairness and tolerance for �everyone in society."
A Feb. 4 article at religious Web site Ekklesia noted that GLBT Christians had also spoken out against the Pope's words. The Rev. Sharon Ferguson, chief executive of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, told the media, "In criticizing British Government legislation the Pope is speaking about matters outside of the reach of core Catholic doctrine, and misunderstanding the issues at stake.
"Benedict is showing that he and the leadership of the Catholic Church have failed to engage with the experiences of the people which the Equality Bill seeks to protect and which a rigid unyielding interpretation of Scripture and tradition continues to do violence to," added Ferguson.
"Furthermore, the concern about being forced to ordain gay Bishops highlights the extent of the institutional homophobia as all Catholic clergy are required to take a vow of celibacy which makes sexual orientation irrelevant."
Condom Controversy
The Pope may be paying Britain a visit in the coming months; according to U.K. media, he may be greeted with protests if he does travel there. Already, more than 4,000 people have signed a petition against the possible visit, reported Advocate.com on Feb. 4. The petition was circulated by the National Secular Society; said Terry Sanderson, who heads the Society, "The taxpayer in this country is going to be faced with a bill of �20 million [$31.5 million] for the visit of the pope, a visit in which he has already indicated that he will attack equal rights and promote discrimination."
Before being elected to the papacy, Benedict headed up the Vatican office in charge of enforcing Catholic doctrine. In that role, Benedict attacked gay and lesbian families. Since then, the Pope has courted controversy in other areas related to human sexuality; his insistence that the distribution of condoms in AIDS-ravaged Africa as part of an effort to stem the rising incidence of HIV infections there elicited a rebuke from Harry Knox, who heads the Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.
As reported at the anti-gay Christian Web site CNS, Knox last year accused Benedict of "hurting people in the name of Jesus," a denunciation that brought Knox--who serves GLBT equality lobbying group the Human Rights Campaign as director of the group's religion and faith program--condemnation from the religious right.
In a statement issued by the HRC, Knox was quoted as saying, "On a continent where millions of people are infected with HIV, it is morally reprehensible to spread such blatant falsehoods.
"The Pope's rejection of scientifically proven prevention methods is forcing Catholics in Africa to choose between their faith and the health of their entire community," Knox continued. " Jesus was about helping the marginalized and downtrodden, not harming them further."
The CNS reported in a Feb. 3 article that one of its correspondents asked Knox about his comments at the National Press Club on Feb. 2, during a media conference on the American Prayer Hour, a national event scheduled to take place Feb. 4, the same day as The National Prayer Breakfast, an annual political event backed by a conservative organization with ties to David Bahati, the anti-gay Ugandan lawmaker who has proposed a law stipulating death as a punishment for gays in certain cases.
The CNS correspondent cited Harvard researcher Edward Green as saying that there was evidence to suggest that condoms do not inhibit the spread of HIV; responded Knox, "He is simply incorrect in his assertion. All the other evidence of science shows otherwise."
According to the CNS article, Green stated last year that, "We just cannot find an association between more condom use and lower HIV-reduction rates" in Africa.