Isn't it Ironic #conscienceclause

Today the Catholic Bishop of Down and Connor Noel Treanor met with Paul Givan to discuss the conscience clause.

I will give him his due, while he did say it was widely supportive of the essence of the Conscience Bill he did add a caveat:

"any change to the law would have to be carefully defined, to prevent it from leading to spurious claims of religious conscience."

He also said that

"it would be wrong to swap one form of discrimination for another."

The ironic bit is of course the marriage equality debate that seems to have sparked this whole thing off.

The equal marriage motion, and the second (if amended thus) and the third time it has come before Stormont would meet both the Bishops caveat and his call not to swap one form of discrimination with another. In each of the three occasions as with the Acts passed by Holyrood and Westminster there was no discrimination on the basis on anyone's interpretation of faith, nor their freedom from those of faith. It replaced the discrimination of those in same sex relationships having a relationship, viewed by some (mainly those of faith) as substandard to marriage. It endeavoured to put in place legislation not to discriminate against people of faith.

But of course we know in Northern Ireland the DUP lodged a petition of concern, and again and again.

So the irony is that the Bishop is right there is a real problem that needs to be addressed. But those of us who have sought to bring about equal marriage legislation have done what we can to protect those with strongly held religious beliefs both those opposed and those in favour, as well as those who want freedom from religion. The issue is of course that the DUP, Catholic Church, Presbyterian Church, Church of Ireland and others didn't see it this way and have opposed it officially.

Yes we have an problem that needs to be addressed. The irony is that even when accommodating certain views from certain people of faith when it comes to LGBT equality isn't enough to appease them and they can't see beyond the fact that Northern Ireland has differing views both from people of faith and those without.

In the words of Alanis Morissette, "Isn't it Ironic"?.

 

New Archbishop hops straight into innuendo and ignorance on LGBT health

Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted Matthew 5:4

Though not necessarily from Archbishop Philip Tartaglia, the newly appointed Catholic Archbishop for the Diocese of Glasgow.

I first encountered acute pancreatitis, the disease which struck down David Cairns MP, during my running days, when it struck down one of the men I knew from the long distance road racing circuit. You see on of the less common causes is repeated marathon running and back in the early 90s that was even more of a craze for people. That particular man was in his mid thirties and left a wife and two young children behind when he too died of the disease. He was in very good health you would assume judging by the times he was able to run. Yet his body also succumbed at a young age.

The new Archbishop in his statement says:

"If what I have heard is true about the relationship between physical and mental health of gay men, if it is true, then society has been very quiet about it.

"Recently in Scotland there was a gay Catholic MP who died at the age of 44 or so and nobody said anything and why his body should just shut down at that age, obviously he could have had a disease which would have killed anyone, but you seem to hear so many stories about this kind of thing.

"But society won't address it."

So firstly yes Your Eminence it is a disease that could have killed anyone. So well done on upsetting that man's family, also other sufferers of acute pancreatitis and a great many other people who have family that die young. Medicine is great, but not 100% guaranteed to help up all live to Cardinal retirement age.

As for the mental health problems in gay men. Yes there is a higher prevalence of it. But it is societal issues that cause it. It is churches denying that there are young gay men and women in their midst which leave each individual to struggle on alone until they realise differently. It is the pressure from society, from peers at school, in the workplace, on the sports field to fit in with the heterosexual experience that is freely talked about, when your own experience is often hushed up by society.

So to make his first proclamation again attacking the gay community including those within his church he has carried on adding to that anxiety, mental anguish and worry of many of his flock. Well done.

Maybe we should ask him and other church leaders to help address that.

UKIP Libertarian unless if comes against the authority of The Church* #equalmarriage #fisk

With a former Conservative councillor defecting to UKIP over the issue of equalising marriage for same-sex couples up steps David Coburn of UKIP's National Executive Committee to promptly put his foot in it by clearly not understanding the first of the big words he used. As usual I shall fisk in red.

 "We are a libertarian party Libertian n. 1.One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state. 2. One who believes in free will. adj. of, relating to, or characteristic of a libertarian which doesn't believe in the government interfering in how people live their lives. We support civil partnerships, enabling gay men and women to register their long-term commitment to each other. I have fought for this all my life. 

 "But David Cameron seems to be saying that marriage is something else so much for maximising individual rights as true libertarians. If so, it is clearly in the domain of the church and other faiths – and it is none of government's business to meddle with it. Ok we come to a point here. The consultation before the people is currently for civil marriage nothing to do with how the churches conduct marriage. They are not meddling in religious marriage and have nothing to do with the church and other faiths.

Mind you on the issue of the church and other faiths, some of them want to be able to offer equal marriage (Quakers, Unitarians, some Liberal Jews, and others)  but the current consultation isn't letting them because it is only focusing on civil marriage. Should the government stop meddling there and let each faith group determine what it wants to define marriage as? Surely that is the Libertarian approach.

 "It seems that, through some kind of political correctness, David Cameron is picking a fight with the millions of people whose religious faiths do not recognise same-sex marriages I state again some faith groups do, but he isn't letting them recognise same-sex marriage David Cameron is only working in the civil sphere. That, in our view, is an aggressive attack on people of faith, and an act of intolerance in itself so being Libertarians only so far as it doesn't go against the authority of say the Church of England and the Bishop of Rome (and you thought UKIP didn't want Germans and the rest of Europe to dictate to us here in the UK). 

"In addition, if the government does legislate in this way, we believe that any criticism of same-sex marriage which may be expressed by someone on the basis of their faith could be classified as a 'hate crime' whereas only calling same-sex long term commitments by some second class name so that some can talk only about married couples and ignore that other classification isn't . That would be a grotesque assault on people's freedom of conscience. But not libertarian enough to look at everyone's freedom on conscience"

Of course the problem above has arisen from UKIP claiming to be Libertarian, however that is Libertarian with provisos and caveats. Murray Rothbard describes Libertarianism thus:

"a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism."

Therefore true libertarians should be allowed to be with whomever they want. If they want to marry they should be free to do so whether it is someone of the opposite or same sex, after all that does not invade the person or property of another. If someone wishes to marry someone of the opposite sex it is not diminished by the desire of someone to marry someone of the same. However, if the person married to someone married or desiring to be married to someone of the opposite sex denies someone seeking to marry someone of the same sex and call it marriage that is an invasion.


Walter Block adds:

"The non-aggression axiom is the lynchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism. It states, simply, that it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another. That is, in the free society, one has the right to manufacture, buy or sell any good or service at any mutually agreeable terms."

So unless equalising marriage threatens to bring about violence against others it should be legalised by a libertarian.


So UKIP and especially David Coburn are you Libertarian or against against equalising gay marriage? I put it to you that you cannot be both.


* Capitalisation of 't' in the in the title is because it is the State and Roman Catholic churches that are most vocal in their opposition (there are of course others), there are other smaller churches that are not opposed to equal marriage.

Cardinal may have a point about slavery and equal marriage

Speaking on Radio 4's Today programme Cardinal O'Brien when asked wan't equating equal marriage with slavery a bit too far said:

"it is a very, very, very good example as the what might happen in our own country at this time"

So let us look at what happened in the lead up to the abolition of slavery. As you may know the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 brought and end to Slavery in the UK. What you may not be aware of is that they could have been a abolition some 26 years earlier when there was the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act 1807, however the Lords were rebellious including some of those who were Lord's Spiritual who spoke against the end of slavery. Some of those Bishops are recorded as saying slavery was indeed biblical and had provisions laid out and nothing in the Bible calling for its end.

The abolitionists started out with the non-conformist Christian people like William Wilberforce, a Quaker, like nine of the original committee of twelve for the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade. Mehtodists like John Wesley joined their cause, along with Baptists and other denominations who joined behind the call to end slavery.

The established Church dragged its heels on this issue and indeed even spoke out against the changes. Does that sound rather familiar to the cause that Cardinal O'Brien wishes to draw our attention to now? The Church of England much later in 2009 apologised for its implication in the slave trade. This was both through its ownership of slaves as part of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, and through Henry Phillpotts, Bishop of Exeter who received compensation for the 665 slaves he owned in 1834. That compensation equates to almost £1million pounds worth in today's money for the Bishop and around £500,000 for the Church itself.

So if the Cardinal's analogy truly is a reflection of where our society is heading where are the Quakers who were at the forefront of ending slavery on equal marriage?

The answer is simple, they are at the forefront of wanting to offer equal marriage, not merely civil marriage but the same religious celebration they offer to any Quaker.

So before we get to harsh on condemning the Cardinal for linking the case of slavery with equal marriage. Let us consider whose stance we in the UK followed on slavery. Maybe what might happen in this country at this time is once again to follow the path of those who worship by waiting on God, rather than hearing the sounds of their own voices repeating liturgy.

MP's long-held opinion shockingly shocks the Catholic Church at fringe event #equalmarriage

There has been uproar from the Catholic Church in Scotland about comments made by Pete Wishart MP
at a fringe event at SNP conference yesterday. Mr Wishart said:

"What I believe will happen is that our government, over the course of the next few years, after this consultation, will bring forward legislation which will ensure we will have equal marriage in this country. I'm proud of that, I'm proud that this is the party that will be leading us forward, and I look forward to that new Scotland that we're trying to build."

Seeing as the Scotsman say it was hosted by Alyn Smith MEP (along with the Scottish Youth Parliament and LGBT Youth Scotland, I notice) I did what any tweeting fiend would do and check his Tweeter feed. Look what I found:

Now there you have it, there was a discussion. It was a fringe event looking at one of the political topics of the day, in this case equal marriage. Apparently it went around the houses.

Now what the Catholic Church of Scotland may not have got is that fringe meetings at party conferences are meetings where issues are discussed. No conclusions are necessarily drawn, no policy is formed, but members will be made to think and will make the political representatives present think. What is said in a fringe meeting by a speaker is not Ex Cathedra. Indeed I have found out from people who were there that the debate from the floor did cover both sides of the debate, though the overall majority were in support of the premise of equal marriage being the outcome from the consultation.


But look again at the start of Wishart's comments it is "what I believe will happen", it is not what will happen, but what he believes will happen. Now Pete Wishart is one of those MPs within the SNP who for a long time has been pro equal marriage. It is hardly surprising that he should want to see a progressive way forward being the outcome.

The shouting and gnashing of teeth is over the church fearing that they will be forced to do anything. Look at John Mason's amendment which actually wasn't an amendment as there was no obligation for any faith group to carry out same-sex marriage anyway, something backed up by John Swinney.

"There will be no compulsion here, there will be no obligation. The protection is there so that no individual within the religious community will be obliged to do this.

"I think we're right to take this course of action, we're right to make it possible for religious practitioners to conduct same-sex marriages if they wish to do so. But clearly there must be no compulsion involved in any of that."

What most people want is the possibility of religious groups coming to their own conclusions within their own governance structure. Where there are same sex couples or gay individual within that faith grouping, they may ask their leaders to look at the issue, if that is they want to get married within that faith. The laws of the churches are of course up for them and cannot be dictated to, but there are faith groups that want an enabling to carry out same-sex as well as mixed sex marriage and have already said they wish to do so.

Backward Orange

When does a political attending the funeral of a murdered police officer become a disciplinary matter? Well only if the location in Northern Ireland, the police officer Catholic and the Politicians members of the Loyal Orders.

LOL 821 St Simon's Church Total Abstinence from the Sandy Row may complain against Ulster Unionist leader Tom Elliot and minister for Regional Development for attending Constable Ronan Kerr's Requiem Mass in April. However, the majority of people in Northern Ireland were pleased to see representatives of all our parties attending such a funeral that led to a public outpouring of grief and outrage. As you can see from the picture below there was cross party support, with Alliance MLA Chris Lyttle on the left, thier MP Naomi Long just behind me and the SDLP's Conall McDevitt and DUP's Jim Wells side by side on the right.

Copyright © Kevin Cooper Photoline

The UUP leadership rather than showing political expediency as stated by the Sandy Row Lodge were actually reflecting the public mood, something that maybe the Orange Order would do well to reflect on. A funeral for someone who was serving the whole community and was murdered in cold blood should be attended by all our political leaders.

The Catholic Church lifted their restrictions on members attending other churches in the 60s to enable this to happen. I've even been to an Ordination of a new minister in Donegal at which the local catholic priest not only attended but took part. Yet the Orange Order still on paper ban their members from attending a service in a Catholic Church, even if it is a funeral. So work colleagues, friends or in this case brave police officers cannot be given the respect they deserve as human beings by Orange Order members giving their respects. They do not have to take part in the service or partake in the Mass, but merely have to sit there and they are seen as traitors.

It is time for the Orange Order to catch up with the rest of us in Northern Ireland and realise that attending a funeral isn't going to change someones political stance, but is merely how we pay respects to those who have lost their lives, their family and friends.

The sex abuse victims who will have to sue God

There is the Billy Connelly film The Man Who Sued God about a man who takes God to court when he one piece of property his boat is destroyed by a lightning strike. The reason of course is the infamous insurance company get out "an act of God".

Why am I bringing this us? Well it appears that the Catholic Church is using the defence in court that the priests involved in sex abuse are not technically employed by the church. In a Christian sense they are right, in that priests are effectively called by God to their charges. However, the training that they undergo is given by the church, the supervision is given by the church, the name above the door (or where ever it is) is that of the church. So effectively the church is a chain of franchise operations seems to be what they are saying, run by a number of self-employed or God-employed individuals.

So the church is trying to effectively use scripture to circumvent their own responsibility to remove, take action against these men, to stop them having access to opportunity whilst representing the church.

There is of course a passage of scripture that comes to mind. "Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasars" Luke 20:25. Or of course "If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him take your coat also." Matthew 5:40. Now both these are sayings of Jesus who is the recognised Head of the Church in the Roman Catholic tradition. So maybe they should listen to their boss and just get on with doing as he says.

Posted Elsewhere and the Story Rolls On - Northern Ireland Education

Over the weekend here in Northern Ireland we've had a First Minister Peter Robinson calling for an end to education apartheid then a response from the Catholic Church. Which are two stories I have posted about on Liberal Democrats in Northern Ireland.

The Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness has accused his colleague of "taking on" the Catholic Church about it's provision of education. But Mr Robinson is not taking on the provision of the provision but the state funding of them to church schools. This would apply to all church schools, though the largest group would be the Catholic schools.

McGuinness has said:

"If Peter thinks taking on the Catholic Church, the Catholic bishops and indeed the Protestant churches for that matter and other interest groups is a sensible route to go, I think that is a big mistake.

"I think what we have to do is try and achieve and continue to build a consensus within our society about the need to develop shared services.

"If you go for a head-on collision with the so-called vested interests, that is a collision course which will lead us into a total and absolute mess."

Now I do think it is heading for a collision course, indeed I've said down the years how ludicrous the provision of new dual schools on one site sectarian primary schools in Scotland have been built. The separation of children for education purposes builds in difference, a barrier, a sense of otherness.

Donal Flanagan, chief executive of CCMS (Council for Catholic Maintained Schools) added to McGuinness's comments with:

"He is certainly not speaking as an educationalist because everybody knows that ethos adds value to education.

"If Peter Robinson wants an open, honest and inclusive debate on the future of education in Northern Ireland then why would he choose a platform at the installation of a DUP mayor in Castlereagh to launch this so I have to question his motive."

Well my mother is a educationalist. What's more she is someone who was involved in that most divisive of Northern Irish board curriculum items Religious Education. Earlier today she was telling me about the Education for Mutual Understanding (EMU) element which first came into Northern Ireland in 1983.

She was saying that there are some education establishments some are in the Catholic sector, some are in the state sector in staunch loyalist areas, who only paid lip service to EMU provision to their pupils. The education equivalent to break down that barrier wasn't and isn't working. She wishes that other children could have been like me and my brother, playing with our catholic neighbours outside of school time. Learning from an early age that there is no difference in them as individuals, rather than as some have to do after a separate education and housing system only learning that when they enter the workplace.

What Peter Robinson has done is to ask us in Northern Ireland to look deep within ourselves. To ask what is the problem? Where does it stem from? Is there anything we can do? It is a bold move. It is one that is not meant to devalue educationalists but to build up our children, build up our future and make the generations to come ones that Northern Ireland will be proud of.

We haven't fully dealt with the age old problems, isn't about time that we did?

Quote of the Day: Pope Benedict XVI on Love

Wordle created by Mícheál Carchrie Campbell

I have to thank Mícheál for his regular updates of the Pope's public utterances on this trip. I know he would far rather be down in London today rather in a rather damp Belfast. However, part of that is the words that he spoke today. These ones especially stood out:

"We were made to receive love, and we have. Every day we should thank God for the love we have already known, for the love that has made us who we are, the love that has shown us what is truly important in life. We need to thank the Lord for the love we have received from our families, our friends, our teachers, and all those people in our lives who have helped us to realise how precious we are, in their eyes and in the eyes of God.

"We were also made to give love, to make it the inspiration for all we do and the most enduring thing in our lives. At times this seems so natural, especially when we feel the exhilaration of love, when our hearts brim over with generosity, idealism, the desire to help others, to build a better world. But at other times we realise that it is difficult to love; our hearts can easily be hardened by selfishness, envy and pride."

Speaking about love to an open audience is a wonderful thing. Acknowledging that we were made to receive and give love is truly a Christian attitude. It is something that reaches to the heart of the Christian message. But I'm wondering is there are caveats on just what sort of love that might be.

However, as love has made me who we are, it has made me accept that I am someone who yearns for the intimate love of another man. Yes I am wondrously made, but I'm made in that way, to love whom I love and to love my God as well. There is an exhilaration of being in love and of sharing love, agape, Eros or Platonic love (if we are going to the Greek).

Of course I am merely seeing it through my eyes, from a heart that isn't hardened too much but is open. I hope and pray that the Pope, his church and all the other churches can look at the way we should love. That we are made to give and receive that love and that the decision of which gender earns that most intimate of loves is not a socially engineered decision but part of how we were made.

As you can see from Mícheál's wordle at the top 'love' certainly was at the forefront of today's homily, yet has also been the matter of contention of many of those who today chose to Protest the Pope. It can't be fully right in either direction if that is the case.

Read also speaking also of love, my friend Mícheál has found a rather touching and moving letter from a gay priest which he has reposted on his blog.

It's Friday...so a little Papal (Catholic) Humour

Oops. I almost forgot the get this sorted out for this week. However, as there is a Papal Visit on guess the theme.

First up from Father Ted who's have thought that Father Jack was beaten to promotion by a Polish guy called Karol.



And Billy Connolly a Weggie and a Catholic is pleased for the Churches stance on birth control.




And the lastly Dave Allen tells us about his first remembrances of his Catholic schooling.



Of course Dave Allen always ended his shows in an ecumenical way with "Goodnight, thank you, and may your God go with you" so I wish you that today.

Gay Press in United Statement to Pope

The leading gay titles in UK publishing Attitude, Diva, GT and PinkPaper have joined together for the first time to make a joint statement:

"As our country hosts the Pope this week, we – the leading gay press – stand united against his out-dated stance on homosexuality. We oppose and challenge his view that gay people are unequal, deserve less respect and are a threat to society. Instead, we regard the hate he encourages as one of the greatest threats to fairness and freedom, which should form the foundation of any society, and indeed, religion."

As I blogged yesterday I agree that we have a right to make our concerns known about the intolerance. However, yesterday in Bellahouston Park, Glasgow the Pope said:

"The evangelization of culture is all the more important in our times, when a "dictatorship of relativism" threatens to obscure the unchanging truth about man’s nature, his destiny and his ultimate good. There are some who now seek to exclude religious belief from public discourse, to privatize it or even to paint it as a threat to equality and liberty. Yet religion is in fact a guarantee of authentic liberty and respect, leading us to look upon every person as a brother or sister."

While I'm not excluding religious belief, like my friend Caron did earlier in her outrage, there is one thing the church has been changing its truth through time. Nor do I think like the other letter in the Guardian this morning which my other friend Mícheál is a co-signatory of that highlighting only some change within the church, sexuality acceptance, while ignoring others, birth control, is truly an upholding of all of society's most vulnerable

Currently there are still those in the Catholic Church fearful of loving the person of the same gender as themselves who they love. Living in fear of being excommunicated from the faith they feel at home in. The Pope in the past has claimed behaviour beyond traditional heterosexual relations was a "destruction of God’s work". Therefore the assumption is that if you are gay the Pope is expecting you to be celibate and if you are in a relationship for that to be celibate.

However, that is not what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7: 7-9

"I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

It is one of those passages that clicked into place with me along with others, that lead me to my personal believe that I can be gay and a Christian in the one breath. It is impossible to stay a gay, passionate man and not act upon it. The same goes for heterosexual men and Paul himself only wished that all could be like him for the benefit of God's work not that all should, but that is separate issue for the Catholic church to deal with.

The assumption and the suppression is what leads to a lot of anxiety in a lot the LGBT community. It is not atheist extremism that is the problem from them but also the religious fervour of those they respect. As it is I don't wholly agree with the Fry, Dawkins et al letter. Indeed I'm actually glad that in recent months both Attitude and GT have run articles on people of faith who also happen to be gay.

Following on from the Issues issue which looked the level and causes of depression in the LGBT community Attitude’s Editor, Matthew Todd added to the above joint statement:

"We receive letters every week from young gay people trying to deal with the shame they feel trying to come to terms with their sexuality. We know that rates of suicide and depression are higher amongst gay teenagers than amongst their straight contemporaries and I believe there is a direct link to the persecution of gay people by religious leaders such as the Pope.

"I will be proudly joining Saturday’s demonstration and I urge all people who want to see equal rights for gay people and women and an end to the Catholic church’s terrifying stance on condoms to do so too."

Not that being gay is a mental condition but the struggle in parts of our society, and most especially the religious elements can lead to mental health issues. There is struggle to be accepted even if we can accept ourselves from others. It is not made easier by repression of churches who are commission to love one another as Christ has loved them and not to judge one another.

Your Holiness, Some Catholics are Gay. Get Over It!

One of my friends this morning on Facebook has posted this:

"happy to welcome the pope to Scotland but hopes that amid all the pageantry, the survivors of sexual abuse at the hands of catholic priests, will receive compassion, apology and a fair hearing. Oh and your holiness, some people are gay, get over it."

I was tempted to add the title of this blog post as a follow up, but decided it neither further expansion, so this is it.

I think that says a lot about where some of the disquiet about this state visit, but at the same times shows a sense of balance. It leads on from the debate on Better Nation yesterday where both myself and Caron added our balance tuppenceworths. I do like it when Liberal Democrats of faith and none can reach an agreement that freedom of religious believe is also embedded in the preamble to our constitution.

Over the last few days I've been seeing a lot of my gay friends and contacts on Facebook, Twitter or other media condemn the Popes visit for whatever reason. I've also seen some of my gay, Catholic friends looking forward the the visit which I why I think these needs saying.

Just as many of us don't agree with everything that our political leaders say, so do many of us not agree with everything that our religious leaders say (even if they claim divine infallibility). There are many of us in the churches of all types who have struggled with our own sexuality and what has been said from our pulpits. Many of us have to undertake a journey on our own with our bibles and with prayer to come to an acceptance of ourselves first and foremost as both gay and Christian. There are now some more support groups out there but many of us still make that journey on our own.

We do it alone fearing being ostracised or excommunicated from a church or religion (as it applies to other faiths too) that we feel in fellowship with and part of. Gay Christians tend to have two additional families outside of their own flesh and blood, the LGBT family and the church family yet they appear like the Montagus and Capulets from Romeo and Juliet always to be at each other's throats (there are of course exceptions).

I saw another tweet that said the Pope was not welcome until the progress was made on all the aspects at which there are dispute contraception, child abuse and homosexuality. The middle one of those I think is at the start of progress being made, however it may well take time. The other two similarly. As I have blogged before it took me over a decade to reconcile my own sexuality with my faith and that was just one individual looking at it out of self interest not the generalities with with the leadership of a church looks at it. Therefore I'm prepared for the churched to take their time to come to conclusions, what I do want however is for them to start on that journey.

As I would have said, because I know, some Catholics are gay, as are some Presbyterians, Baptists, Jews, Muslims etc. We need to all get over it, acknowledge it and work with it.

I Quite Like Decaff

I quite like decaffeinated coffee.

If I drink it in copious amounts my head doesn't ache as it would if I drank the same amount of normal coffee. Also it enables me to sleep well* at night.

However, why am I a confessed tea drinker on the whole defending coffee of the decaffeinated variety? The reason is that a Vatican official Father Gonzalo Miranda, a bioethics professor at Regina Apostolorum University, travelling through Mexico has said:

"A gay relationship is like decaffeinated coffee, you do not wake up".

Other benefits of course of de-caff are you are less strung up, less irritable. Also you're less reliant on the next fix, possibly even a stronger fix to wake you up. Detoxing from caffeinated products can also bring revival to your system. For the professor in the pontifical institution to compare caffeine, a drug, and its dependency to wake you up to a heterosexual relationship shows that something is also wrong with his analogy.

He has merely looked at one aspect of coffee or indeed relationships without bearing in mind the counter argument. Of course there is bias in he words.

Can a gay relationship be as fulfilling as a heterosexual one? Of course it can. Can it be as life affirming, as cherished and as desirable as a heterosexual one? Again I say of course it can. From personal experience I'm getting to the point that I'm getting tired of the dating game, I'm looking for that one person I can lavish all my love unto, of course the only way to meet that person is go meet more people. I also don't fall in love easily so when I do that person really is special (and I guess I've probably just scared off a vast majority of potentials).

But there is a yearning a desire to find that one. It exists even in a homosexual relationship. It's not any less a desire. Maybe it is the Church both Catholic and otherwise that needs to wake up. There are members of their flocks who are gay. They need to be nurtured not picked out for singular mention from the pulpit of being sinful, while their heterosexual neighbours can breathe easily as their sinfulness is not highlighted with quite the regularity as lying with another man is.

As I said at the start there are many health benefits of decaffeinated coffee, just as there are with decaffeinated and herbal teas. Benefits that can aid the physical and mental well being of those that sup on it, rather than being forced to adhere to a caffeinated norm.

* Well being a relative term for an insomniac like myself.

Let's Talk About Sex Benny*

I have to praise Cardinal Christoph Schönborn. Whether he actually meant that there is a link between priestly celibacy and child sex abuse scandal that's inflicting the Vatican, or merely that the link needs to be examined, he has reopened the debate

The Archbishop of Vienna, who is a protégé of Pope Benedict XVI and seen as a potential future candidate for the Papacy is hardly opening a can of worms. Although his hastily released clarification may well be a sign that the church is not prepared to publicly face that discussion.

His original article in his archdiocese's magazine called on the Church to make a "unflinching examination" of the causes of the scandal. He specifically pointed out that consideration should be made on "the issue of priests' training, as well as the question of what happened in the so-called sexual revolution of the generation of 1968".

He added: "It also includes the question of priest celibacy and the question of personality development. It requires a great deal of honesty, both on the part of the Church and of society as a whole."

In fact what he said is largely biblical. Considering that the rule on Priestly celibacy is not based on the married founding Bishop of Rome Peter but on Paul who wrote in 1 Corinthians:

"I wish that all men were like me. However each man has his own gift from God, one of this kind, and another of that kind. But I say to the unmarried and to widows, it is good for them if they remain even as I am. But if they don't have self-control, let them marry. For it's better to marry than to burn with passion."

All of what Paul wrote is contained within the article and focus of Cardinal Schönborn. The issues in Ireland, USA and Germany are the most severe examples. The Pope has already gathered the senior Irish Bishops to Rome for what can be described as a ticking off. But surely some self examination is desirable. The church hasn't always been celibate and indeed other pastors in other denominations have been allowed to take wives/husbands**. I'm not saying it is a perfect solution, there are still tales on infidelity even with the marriage of Christian leaders. But maybe the need or want is less that retaining a state of celibacy even if there is a passion burning unquenched as is the only state of service in the Catholic Church. The whole context of Paul's passage was not that you must, but you must do what is right for you, he also didn't rule anyone out of the role passed purely on the nature of their marital status.

It may do the Catholic Church no harm to realise that all humans are fallible, without it there is no need for redemption. Once they realise that and start to acknowledge that then, and I fear only then, will they be able to deal with this issue in a constructive way.

Cardinal Schönborn is calling for just such an examination. Though you wonder if his call will be heeded and acted upon.

* For the title to work properly as a pun on the song lyrics I had to refer to the Pope by taking a popular truncation of his name.

** Well I'm including the female pastors with the husbands, but there are also a number of same gender relationships.

The Oxymoron of Natural Law

So the Pope is saying that the equality bill defies 'natural law' that may be his belief but it is also an oxymoron.

Natural law, think about it, what does that mean? Look at the book of Genesis to see what natural law actually means in the bible. There is lying, fratricide, stealing, cheating on wives etc. it gets so bad that at one point God wipes out mankind bar one man, his three sons and their wives in a flood.

You see natural law in the bible teaches that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" now that may be something that the Pope has forgotten. Being elevated to the level of the 'infallible' while still a mortal may do that to someone. You see there is no thing as natural law, even the church teaches natural lawlessness, if it didn't it would be out of business. So that attack stems from an oxymoron.

Somehow this country can ban religious extremists from entering this country if they want to, but the Pope is unique in that he also is a Head of State, therefore he get lavished with a £20m of taxpayers money to come and visit his flock. He can hold views that are contrary to the law of the land and expunge them from a platform in front of thousands and yet we the taxpayer will be helping to pay for him.

He claims to have the same God that I do. One that says that I am fearfully and wonderfully made. One who accepts me for who I am, yes all of me. There is no oxymoron in the fact that Christians are sinners saved by grace only in the fact that the Church can try and defy nature by placing laws on it which do not exist.

UPDATE: There now is a Downing Street Petition calling on the Government to distance itself from the Pope's comments.

Vactican Buck Passing In Extremis

The latest comment from the Vatican on the Church's child sex abuse scandal is attempting to shift blame to the gay community at large rather than at the priesthood (hattip to Daniel Edward Pitt @myinfamy). It states that it is caused by gay men preying on teenage boys not paedophiles.

Ignore for a start that paedophilia is the sexual attraction to children and therefore is gender non-specific. That is just a spin that the Church appears to be trying to say somehow that being sexually attracted to an opposite sex child is somewhat less debauched.

Now there may well be 80-90% of the paedophile instances in the Catholic Church are against boys, but those that automatically by definition place the blame on the gay community. The fact is do all the girls that have been abused by priests admit to it. Is the fact that they may have been deflowered by the church maybe something that they don't want to report. Is Thorn Birds merely a make believe or is that going on too? After all we know that there are occasions of priests fathering children with their house keepers. So is it maybe all down to the willingness and availability of personnel, housekeepers or alter boys?

The fact that the Catholic Church indoctrinates their priest that they are to be celibate and abstain from sex from women folk could well led to a deep outpouring of sexual pent up anger. Also does the restriction of the right to marriage also attract a certain type of person to the priesthood? Is it possible that the churches latest statement throws up a whole chicken or the egg kind of situation that they are not prepared to address.

Now I'm not denying that there have been instances of child abuse in other churches, I know there have been cases. Nor am I denying that some of those weren't carried out by men against boys. But they have admitted that 1.5 to 5% of priest have been abused in underage sexual abuse, this isn't accounting for affairs of an adult nature. The question does arise if the vow of celibacy a causal effect of all this?

Trying to shift the attention to gay men also doesn't negate the effect that those men were ordained and took Holy Orders in the Church. They were under its jurisdiction and supervision. We know that on occasion they were not dismissed but merely moved over elsewhere with the same responsibility, accessibility and opportunity. Trying to dust it under the carpet and attempt to shift the focus doesn't negate the Churches responsibility for the issue.

Pope's Prophylactic Fallibility

Well His Infallibleness Benny XVI's comments in Africa have come under much scrutiny, not least in the Vatican's own official website. While His Condomless was heard to say about AIDS in Africa:

"It is a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, and that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms which even aggravates the problems."

The Vatican's website changed the word for the phrase "merely risks aggravating".

There is another subtle change and dispute in the Italian text of an interview given on the flight to Angola the colloquial term from condoms is preservati this was replaced by profilattici (which covers a wider range of measures) before being changed back. Clearly in light of the comments the Holy See felt that the use of a word from the stem to preserve life wasn't in keeping with the overall effect of the message that was clearly being portrayed.

It is all very well the church trying to teach abstinence and fidelity of those who take Holy Orders were above reproach. But the failure of Priests in sexual celibacy, even to the abuse of children shows how difficult even the Church of Rome finds it difficult to practise what it preaches.

Surely now is the time for the Pope as head of the Roman Catholic world to acknowledge the help that wearing a condom can do to the quality and hope of life in areas so heavily afflicted by AIDS. If every sperm is so precious that it should be used by procreation then sadly the teenage male population would have every available womb in the world starting to create a new life before breakfast.

Ben and Johnny 2

In his first full day in Africa as Pope, Benedict XVI continues in his stance against condoms (the Johnnies of the piece) as a way to stem the HIV/AIDS epidemic ravaging the continent. He said he'd come with a 'message of hope' but where is the hope for the 22 million across Africa who are already affected, or their wives and families.

The Catholic Church is adamant that education of abstinence and family life is the way to go. He claimed that chastity outside marriage and fidelity within it had proved to be "the only sure way of preventing the spread of HIV and Aids". The problem is that in Africa a lot of the spread of the disease has been within marriage where one of the partners (normally the male) has not held their marriage vows. There have been peaks at times of the increase of the infection amongst pregnant women. And some countries have a greater than 15% presence of the infection amongst it's adult population. It is not so much a case of need to save oneself as being uncertain even if you did that you'd be safe.

The fact that as the church would like to point out the spread in many countries has stabilised at around 20% is not because of a new found fidelity but because the rate of new infections and deaths is in a morbid state of equilibrium. The problem is also that 2 million of those infected in Africa have been infected since birth or from breast feeding from their infected mother. There is a generation that will be growing up with the disease.

Of course the Church will want to spread a moral message but is not giving people the chance to life a first and foremost an abomination, especially as there is a easy chance to help. Yeah sure supplying condoms isn't the whole answer as there is education needed that using one is a selfless act, but one that could help defend each participants health. But to outright deny them because to quote Python 'every sperm is precious' yet doing all they can to help those already with life is hypocrisy of the highest magnitude and one that the Church has yet to be brought to account over.

Ben and Johnny 1

Peter Brookes Cartoon in today's Times points out a serious story of the Roman Catholic Church's attitude to Africa and the frisson over how to handle the AIDS epidemic that is sweeping that continent. I hope to write more about that later in the meantime enjoy Mr Brookes' work.

One Small Step for Rome

One giant step for Lord's reform.



The news that Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor is to take a seat with the Lords Spiritual on the red benches of the House of Lords should hardly be ground breaking news in our days of equal opportunity. After all Chief Rabbis have already had a seat (though not as a matter of course). However, the Cardinal will be treading where no Cardinal has trod since reformation times.



The ban on Catholics sitting in the Lords was finally lifted in 1829, at the same time as that on Jews and others was also lifted. But never has a senior Catholic Churchman been given a life peerage to add to the spiritual content of the upper chamber in those 180 years. There have been prominent lay Roman Catholics of course but none of equal standing to the 26 Anglican Bishops who earn their seat on appointment to their Diocese.



The 76 year old Archbishop of Westminster is setting another post-reformation precedent. He will be the first to retire that position, the rest have died in office. A move that is expected in the next couple of weeks after which it is expected he will be elevated (at least in the secular sense) to the Lords. He will therefore be the first member of the College of Cardinals to also be a member of the House of Lords since the 16th Century.