Comments: Equality Bill: last week's Tablet articles

Not too keen on Elena Curti's tone.She seems to imply we should keep quiet in the face of Joseph Ratzinger's criticisms. We are 'secularists and gay groups'-- anything wrong with that ? Implied : Yes, but why is only hinted at hinted at-- if only Ratzinger would stick to hinting instead of SHOUTING so.

Not all who protest at Razinger are secularits or gay though.

EC seems to think we have the temerity to question her denominational head. What cheek. Whereas I think she has a cheek impling we are 'anti-catholic'(sic)' !

Posted by Rev L Roberts at Friday, 12 February 2010 at 6:27pm GMT

'Aggressively secularist groups like the National Secular Society seized on the incident to whip up support for their campaign against Pope Benedict’s visit to Britain in September, which his address was mainly about. But the larger jury, the British public, will not yet have made up its mind and can still be persuaded either way. That is why the Church must take seriously, and ponder deeply, the underlying reasons for this week’s furore. It is a pity the bishops missed it.'

And the Tablet is supposed to be the liberal voice of the RC denomination ! Heaven help us all !

We are aggressive but Ratzinger can be as aggressive and impertinent as he likes !

I can't easily forget his Nazi past; nor that of his denomination in Spain and Latin America.

Posted by Rev L Roberts at Friday, 12 February 2010 at 6:31pm GMT

'The Catholic Church (sic), with Pope Benedict at the centre, was engulfed in a firestorm of mostly hostile media attention starting on Monday night. And the embers will not die quickly. There is every prospect that the papal visit in September will turn into one long shouting match of the same kind, with truth the first casualty.' Clifford Longley

So badly done by. Such injured innocence.

But hardly 'the Catholic Church' though --only the RC denomination --which takes too much upon itself as usual.

We hardly need templates they do it all by themselves.

I don';t often say this, but Thank God for the English Reformation !!

Posted by Rev L Roberts at Friday, 12 February 2010 at 6:35pm GMT

Interesting reads, these bits, especially from a defensive RC angle. Yet, alas, insufficient to offer resolution or a common sense way forward, let alone an intellectually respectable way forward - properly, on the presenting hot button controversies about queer folks, and related.

The first opening is supposed to be some neat, able distinction between official RC doctrine which grandly preaches entirely flat earth notions of queer folks as nothing but disturbed-pornographically sexual people - no pairbonding there, or have I misread? Then tries to sometimes go on quite differently, as if to offer some pastoral RC bending of these same nasty RC bits of heavy doctrine. What spin and gloss, mindless of the common sense and intellectual-empirical gaps involved? As if the queer folks who are nothing but pornographically immoral and disordered in the flat earthisms of settled RC doctrines, suddenly become models of committed ethical and practical love in daily life and general neighborly citizenship, per the pastoral bends.

Option one? Not going to work very well.

The other alternative is just as initially plausible seeming yet unsuitable in the long run, asking us as citizens and believers to somehow abstractly balance competing 'rights' in a big tent society. But the RC doctrines in particular continue to pride themselves upon preaching very nasty things about queer folks, far too obviously running in striking parallels to the loud and very nasty things some other institutions or groups like to preach about, say, race? Or gender?

One lovely result is that such nasty views of queer folks rather neatly support violence towards queer folks - in alleged self defense of purity, holiness, righteousness, married heterosexuality as the only possible superior good next to strict celibacy, ... if not just for general-violent because; ... and well the list of claims goes on and on and on.

How foolish, how false, to claim that you are emphasizing a wholesome childrens’ entitlement to a mother plus a father; when in fact you mainly aim to do that by shutting the doors to two mommies or two daddies (otherwise screened to a fault and deemed parents in waiting?)? The real alternative to all this spin and counter-spin is to frankly engage with the changed empirical truths about queer folks, then go on from there. The pope’s stubbornness and Canterbury’s apology are both tone deaf, not least to the music of research.

Posted by drdanfee at Friday, 12 February 2010 at 7:09pm GMT

It is important to remember that the far right reactionary elements that succeeded in seizing Vatican power in the autumn of 1978 with the election of John Paul II, moved much further to the right when Joseph Ratzinger became Bishop of Rome. We are dealing with backward thinking people here. There is a meanness that becomes most clear when it comes to women's ordination and equality and the treatment of homosexual people. The more the Vatican Spin Machine tries to stir up animosity against these two groups, the more they fail to win over the vast majority of Roman Catholics as well as people from other Christian communions. It is really a very small minority in Roman Catholicism that identifies with the far right power holders. Adding to the list of people who feel women and GLBT people are treated unfairly, the millions of people who have no association with any organized religious philosophy. The more violent the language against these two disenfranchised and poorly treated groups, the more empathy from the truly decent people on this planet. It works against the goals of Benedict to demonize and devalue these two groups. It backfires.

Posted by Chris Smith at Friday, 12 February 2010 at 11:13pm GMT

The sad thing is that unlike the spirit of generosity on this site, The Tablet will not allow a fair hearing of those opposed to their views. May Thinking Anglicans never sink to that depth and thanks for your tolerance.

Posted by Robert Ian williams at Saturday, 13 February 2010 at 3:12pm GMT

You have written something with which I can agree !

'The sad thing is that unlike the spirit of generosity on this site, The Tablet will not allow a fair hearing of those opposed to their views. May Thinking Anglicans never sink to that depth and thanks for your tolerance.'

Posted by: Robert Ian williams on Saturday, 13 February 2010 at 3:12pm GMT

May your sincere prayer ever be answered.

Posted by Rev L Roberts at Saturday, 13 February 2010 at 7:44pm GMT

"Tablet will not allow a fair hearing of those opposed to their views" - Robert I. Williams -

On the contrary Robert. I find the TABLET far more tolerant of different views than the Church of England Newspaper, for instance, or the Tablet's rival Catholic newspaper in the UK.

Perhaps it takes an Anglican Catholic like me to appreciate the Tablet's generally liberal take on Anglican initiatives towards the inclusivity of women and gays in the Church. Furthermore, I find it's critical approach to Vatican politics quite refreshing - and perhaps more realistic than the usual apologetics for the 'Magisterium'.

If you have problems with the Tablet, you may not relish the Church Times - jolly good read - and rather more eirenic than the more protestant newspapers!

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Monday, 15 February 2010 at 9:34am GMT
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.