Homosexuality and the Clergy
The Increasing Gay Tyranny in the US & UK
|Juan Baci Galuppi, Argentina|
For freedom of expression and religious liberty, a serious lurch backwards took place when the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a group of students do not have the right to register their religious organization. On June 28, 2010, in a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court approved the decision of the Ninth District Appeals Court that refused to recognize a group of students as an association because their statutes exclude non-Christians and those who participate in “a sexually immoral lifestyle.”|
The case reached the Supreme Court after Hastings College of Law at the University of California denied recognition to a chapter of the Christian Legal Society (CLS). The rules of the association require that all its members be Christian and have a sexually moral lifestyle. Non-compliance could result in exclusion or the loss of the right to elect officials or be elected.
Justice Ginsburg against the students
The Appeals Court ruled in favor of the University, and the Supreme Court confirmed this decision, stating that these clauses “discriminated on the grounds of religious membership and sexual orientation.”
The court’s opinion was written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, known for her eugenicist position. Last year Ginsburg told The New York Times that the landmark Rose vs. Wade decision, which permitted abortion in the United State, was to prevent the growth of groups that “we don’t want to have too many of.”
Abolishing celibacy in the Catholic clergy
Let us recall that in the United Kingdom, the former Labor Party administration of Gordon Brown tried to oblige the Catholic Church to allow women and homosexuals to be priests and to abolish the celibacy of the clergy.
Last December the Bishops of England and Wales denounced then Minster of Equality Harriet Harman, who proposed an Equality Bill that would prohibit the Catholic clergy from being composed only of celibate men.
Richard Kornicki, former senior Home Office official who serves as parliamentary coordinator for the Bishops’ Conference, said the Church could also be open to prosecution for sex discrimination if she turned away women or homosexuals who presented themselves as candidates for the priesthood. According to the Bill, priests could not be prevented from marrying (women or men), having sex change operations, living openly promiscuous lifestyles or engaging in any other activities recognized as “legal forms of sexual expression.”
Harman's radical Bill imposes changes in the Church doctrine
According to the provisions of the Bill, religious ministers would become a type of public employee, to whom the State would grant rights and demand duties. The Bishops also denounced the plan because the law could mean the end of the public celebration of Christmas, Catholic assistance centers could be obliged to close, and crucifixes and sacred images could be removed from the walls should such images “offend” the cleaning personnel.
The Bill came up for discussion in Parliament, but the protests of the Catholic Bishops – as well as many of the people – forced the government to abandon its tyrannical pretensions. The speech of Benedict XVI to the English Catholic Bishops of February 1, 2010, was significant in this regard. He said that some recent equality legislation had acted “to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs.”
He added: “In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed.”
Fired for teaching Catholic doctrine
In May, Kenneth Howell, a Catholic adjunct professor at the University of Illinois, lost his teaching job there after, in a course on Catholicism, he sent an e-mail to students that explained homosexual acts were contrary to natural and moral law. Since 2001, Howell has taught Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thinking in the Department of Religion at that University.
The e-mail was forwarded to the university’s Office of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered Concerns by an anonymous student, who claimed to be a friend of a student who was “offended” by what Howell had written, and accused him of diffusing “hate speech.” This was enough for Robert McKim, head of the Department of Religion, to give Dr. Howell his dismissal papers, without offering him any explanations about the charges or the opportunity to defend himself.
Howell: Fired for defending Catholic Morals
Consequently, Howell also lost his job as director of St. John's Catholic Newman Center's Institute of Catholic Thought, funded by the Diocese of Peoria. The Institute is charged with overseeing the Department of Religion professors teaching the Catholic religion. Howell had been with the institution for 12 years.
Howell’s case is being defended by the lawyers of the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal institute that is dedicated to the defense of religious liberty, the sanctity of human life and family values.
Closing, 'hate register' and discrimination
Last February, Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington D.C. closed an 80-year-old adoption placement program in the District. They did so in response to the passage of a bill allowing marriages between persons of the same sex, the Civil Marriage Equality Act, which made it impossible to obey an iniquitous law that demands placing children for adoption with homosexual couples.
Skirts considered as discriminatory
In March British minister Vernon Coaker announced that after September of 2010, all schools, including elementary schools for children ages 6 to 11, are required to keep ‘hate registers.’ They must include the names of all the students who commit homophobia acts, no matter how small they might be, including using anti-homosexual epithets in and out of school. The norm is an outcome of the Law of Sexual Equality of 2007.
The ‘hate register’ must be made available to authorities whenever they ask for it.
Also in the United Kingdom, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), applying the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SOR's), recommended that the government prohibit skirts in the uniforms of schools, hospitals and all governmental organizations. The EHRC considers skirts to be a discriminating element.
Under the existing legislation, schools should avoid any kind of “discrimination” for reasons of race, religion, gender, disability and sexual orientation. The Commission considers that transsexual girls and women (who suffer gender dysphoria) can suffer discrimination by being required to wear skirts that make them feel uncomfortable. (Gender dysphoria is a technical term used to designate some type of lack of conformity with a person’s assigned and perceived gender sex).
Posted July 16, 2010
Juan Baci Gallupi first published this article in Spanish on the website
An electronic bulletin for the promotion and defense of life and family
Related Topics of Interest
Religious Beliefs against Homosexuality Must Be Respected
Same-Sex Marriage and the California Bishops
Anti-Natural Law Approved in Catholic Portugal
When Liberty Becomes an Evil
Liturgical Peace or Liturgical Apartheid?
|Related Works of Interest|
Homosexuality | Hot Topics | Home | Books | CDs | Search | Contact Us | Donate
Tradition in Action, Inc. All Rights Reserved