I made a vow at my son's baptism that he brought up in the Catholic faith. I take vows seriously, but they're not making it easy.
Must Catholics deny Transsexuals and the Intersexed Human Rights?
The Magisterium has not said so.
The Congress of American Catholic Bishops has not said so. (UPDATE: As of May 19 2010, they have said so)
The Pope has said so though.
First, to show that the Vatican thinks it would be best to legally deny gays human rights:The Vatican expressed similar concerns in a 1992 letter to Bishops of the Catholic Church – authored by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI – regarding legislation to “make discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal,” which according to Ratzinger, “may in fact have a negative impact on the family and society.”-- Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
“Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved,” Cardinal Ratzinger wrote. “’Sexual orientation’ does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc., in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder and evokes moral concern.”
“Including ‘homosexual orientation’ among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate,” Ratzinger wrote, “can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights…(and)…to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality.”
What Human Rights are we talking about here? Let's look at the list of rights in the legislation ynder consideration that is deemed to have a "negative impact on the family and society".
To be allowed to use:(1) restaurants, soda fountains, and other eating or drinking places, and all places where food is sold for consumption either on or off the premises;That from Bill 23-07 in Maryland, and opposed by the Thomas More Legal Centre.
(2) inns, hotels, and motels, whether serving temporary or permanent patrons;
(3) retail stores and service establishments;
(4) hospitals and clinics;
(5) motion picture, stage, and other theaters and music, concert, or meeting halls;
(6) circuses, exhibitions, skating rinks, sports arenas and fields, amusement or recreation parks, picnic grounds, fairs, bowling alleys, golf courses,
gymnasiums, shooting galleries, billiard and pool rooms, and swimming pools;
(7) public conveyances, such as automobiles, buses, taxicabs, trolleys, trains, limousines, boats, airplanes, and bicycles;
(8) utilities, such as water and sewer service, electricity, telephone, and cable television;
(9) streets, roads, sidewalks, other public rights-of-way, parking lots or garages, marinas, airports, and hangars; and
(10) places of public assembly and entertainment of every kind.
While these do not in themselves appear to be especially dangerous, the danger is that by supporting the granting of any such rights, the church will be seen to be tolerating homosexuality. That is such a bad outcome that catholics must actively oppose such measures, by whatever means necessary. I'll talk about the means later, and give justification for my statement there.
The argument against Homosexuality has since been expanded, as being against Natural Law. Why is it against Natural Law? Because it causes confusion between the two God-ordained sexes, and anything which does that is dangerous to humanity's survival. There is a Human ecology, just as there is a Global ecology, and this must be protected against such threats to the Natural Order. Anything that confuses the sexes is dangerous, and must be legally suppressed. Well-intentioned laws granting or maintaining existing human rights for anyone who confuses the sexes are thus dangerous - and so presumably should be opposed.
About Natural Law, and the danger to human survival of Intersex - things between male and female - and a call to speak up on this issue:(The Church) must also protect man from self-destruction. What is needed is something like a human ecology, correctly understood.
If the Church speaks of the nature of the human being as man and woman, and demands that this order of creation be respected, this is not some antiquated metaphysics. What is involved here is faith in the Creator and a readiness to listen to the “language” of creation. To disregard this would be the self-destruction of man himself, and hence the destruction of God’s own work.
-- ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ROMAN CURIA FOR THE TRADITIONAL EXCHANGE OF CHRISTMAS GREETINGS 2008To carry our reflection further, we must remember that the problem of the environment is complex; one might compare it to a multifaceted prism. Creatures differ from one another and can be protected, or endangered, in different ways, as we know from daily experience. One such attack comes from laws or proposals which, in the name of fighting discrimination, strike at the biological basis of the difference between the sexes. I am thinking, for example, of certain countries in Europe or North and South America.-- ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI TO THE MEMBERS OF THE DIPLOMATIC CORPS FOR THE TRADITIONAL EXCHANGE OF NEW YEAR GREETINGS 2010
Now onto the means of opposition, and showing that opposition to the existence of Intersexed and Transsexual people is a separate but related issue to opposing Homosexuality. They're all dangerous to humanity's very survival in their own right.
First, to show that such opposition is more important than merely spreading Christ's message, and that all levels of Catholic organisations are involved in organising the opposition to human rights for these people:HAMTRAMCK (Oct. 10) – Nearly a dozen religious leaders in the City of Hamtramck and a nationally prominent lawyer will speak at a campaign kick-off rally for the group Hamtramck Citizens Voting NO to `Special Rights’ Discrimination.-- AFTAH
The rally will be held Sunday, Oct. 12th, from 5 to 6:30 p.m. at the Knights of Columbus Hall, 9632 Conant St. Admission is free.
The keynote speaker will be Brian Rooney, attorney for the Thomas More Law Center and legal expert on discriminatory “gay rights” legislation.
Below is a list of speakers scheduled…
• Rev. Andrew Wesley, pastor of St. Ladislaus Church and co-chair of the group Hamtramck Citizens Voting NO.
• Masud Khan, president of the Al Islah Islamic Center.
• Abdul Latif Azom, imam of Al Falah mosque.
• Abdul Salam, imam of Masjid Un Nur mosque.
• Adbo Zindani, secretary of Eiman Islamic Complex.
• Amin Alwagah, representing Algalazali mosque.
• Saleh Algahaim, president of Eiman Islamic Complex.
• Dzenan Kalanac, imam of Bosnia Islamic Center.
• Mohammed Shehab Khan, imam Baitul Islam mosque
Yes, that is correct, a Catholic priest leading. and the Knights of Columbus providing facilities, for an almost entirely Islamic conference to organise legal persecution.He noted the campaign was highlighted by a rally at which three Catholic priests and six Muslim imams spoke out against the proposed ordinance.-- AFTAH
“We salute Father Andy Wesley for his courage and leadership in being the first to stand against this discriminatory ordinance at a time when the city’s political establishment and news media were intent on demonizing and caricaturing anyone who dared oppose homosexual activists’ fraudulent ‘rights’ agenda,” Glenn said. “
Glenn also said the defeat of the ordinance would not have been possible without the efforts of campaign manager Jay McNally, a Catholic activist who commuted from Ypsilanti to manage the winning campaign, and the Thomas More Law Center, which provided legal counsel to the campaign and a regular speaker at campaign rallies, attorney Brian Rooney.
The point is, that it wasn't just homosexuality that was the issue here. Again, from AFTAH:Not content with adding the discriminatory “sexual orientation” language to city law, homosexual activists and their political allies succeeded in adding the words “gender identity” as well.
This “gender identity” language is so radical in its potential effects that even openly homosexual Congressman Barney Frank, D-Mass., refuses to include it in his federal “gay rights” legislation.
Yes, that's right. Many gay rights groups and prominent Gay politicians oppose human rights for Intersexed and Transsexed people. This is not a matter of "homosexuality by stealth". Neither is it a matter of Red vs Blue - Hamtramck voted for Obama 4:1.
The same day that the New Hampshire Senate voted in favour of same-sex marriage, they voted unanimously to stop Intersexed and Transsexed people from enjoying the same human rights Gays have had in that state for over a decade.
From Catholicism.org about the Catholic attitude to that bill:New Hampshire Alert: “Transgender Rights” and the “Bathroom Bill”
by Brother André Marie March 18th, 2009
Legitimizing perversity is a fetish for some legislators. New Hampshire House Bill 415, dubbed by conservatives, “the Bathroom Bill,” is an effort to protect the rights of people who voluntarily mutilate themselves in the futile pretense that they have changed their God-given gender to another one.
I await comments.
Is it the case that
a) Despite this evidence, of course the Catholic Church isn't against human rights for gays and those born with anatomy neither wholly male nor wholly female. Just because the Thomas More Legal Centre, various prominent Catholic Activists, multitudes of priests and religious, the Vatican itself in letters to bishops, and Pope Benedict himself encourage such legal persecution, that's all just matters of individual conscience. The Church itself would never condone denial of human rights, and it's insulting to say they do. Only anti-Catholics would say so.
b) That the Church does this, but is perfectly justified in doing so, because the fight against homosexuality is so important. It is unfortunate that the Transsexual and Intersexed are collateral damage.
c) That the Church does this, but is perfectly justified in doing so, as the existence of Gay, Intersexed or Transsexual people contravenes Natural Law, and they endanger all Humanity. (This appears to be the view of His Holiness).
d) Something else.
Please give URLs and quotes to justify your thesis, as I've had to do.
Saturday, 17 April 2010
I'm mirroring this from the site Catholic Answers. Many controversial posts disappear, as the poor moderators are overwhelmed by the torrent of posts about Priestly Paedophilia, so haven't been quite as careful and fair as they usually are.