AmericanPapist Comments
The Vatican uses the slippery slope argument here, but what they are opposing is a UN resolution that is against countries that put homosexuals to death, or puts them in jail. The resolution says nothing about marriage, but the Vatican makes the connection, hence the accusations by the Italian newspaper.
Maybe next time you should clarify that.
Is that the case Jason (or AmP?). Could you give us a cite to pursue?
If this is the case Thomas, some clarification would be in order for your post.
Thomas,
So far all your posts for today can be filed under the "offbeat" category, FYI. It's such a shame about this one though.
I would like to point out that this is a dispute in Italy, BTW. That information alone, given the recent track record in Roman academia regarding our pontiff, should make something like this come as no surprise. Next they'll be saying that Benedict claims to have invented the question mark and accuses chestnuts of being lazy.
The Vatican shouldn't have to "clarify" that it is against an intrinsically evil act, such as imposing the death penalty on homosexuals, whatever the particular context.
The idea that anyone accusing the Vatican of being "in favor" of such a thing would be even heeded in the public forum is an embarrassment.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the issue here. But doesn't the UN bring the proposition to everyone, not just the Vatican? I don't see it as an offense to the Vatican. Merely an effort to secure support for the decriminalization of homosexuals across the world.
As I read the exchange, (did I miss something?) LOMBARDI was the first one to bring up "death penalties for homosexuals", albeit as something no one wants. Perhaps I missed it coming out earlier, but if Lombardi was the first to use the phrase in the context of the Church, it was a dumb thing to say. Granted, I hate having to rely on news reports, but my concerns about the way Lombardi has phrased some things in the past makes me wonder about this one.
Zenit wrote a more extensive piece on this which helps to put it in perspective.
Well, as I read it, it is unclear who first brought up the issue of "death penalties for homosexuals." The previous two paragraphs indicate that sodomy is a capital offense in several countries, and it is not clear what the Italian critics said in response beyond "grotesque" and "anachronistic;" it is possible that they also said the Church supports the death penalty for homosexuals, but that statement was not quoted, yet was what Lombardi was responding to.
The implication of the critics seems to be: 1) Vatican does not support policy outlawing discrimination based on sexual preference, 2) some countries discriminate against homosexuals by criminalizing homosexual behaviors such as sodomy, including as a capital offense, 3) ergo, the Vatican supports the death penalty for homosexuals. And Lombardi is saying - no, we don't support the death penalty for homosexuals (or anyone else), what concerns us is that we (and other countries) will be forced to allow gay marriage since banning it would be considered "discrimination."
That's how I read the report, anyway.
Who or what groups specifically accused the Church of being in favor of the death penalty for gays?
I only read that that some gay rights advocates criticized some remarks and that the Director of Vatican Radio said “no one wants the death penalty or jail or fines for homosexuals.”
I don't see where anyone claimed that the Church was pro-death penalty for anyone.
Here's Time's coverage of it. (Terrible as usual.)
http://www.time.com/time/world/
a...1863465,00.html
Sodomy by Priests was a capital offense in the Vatican City States.
While I am not supporting the death penalty for homosexuals, I find it annoying that people distort the Church's teaching on the Death penalty. The death penalty is far from an "intrinsic evil", and it depends entirely on the context in which it is applied.
Right now, I think there is little use for it. To establish order and protect the public in a complete governmental breakdown, there might be much more legitimate use of it.
It is not like abortion and evil by its very nature.
Papabile, I agree with your observations on the non-intrinsically evil nature of the death penalty, but, do you have a source on your claim about the VCS?
The text of the resolution the Vatican is objecting to reads as follows:
Resolution for a universal decriminalization of homosexuality
TO THE COUNCIL OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE UNITED NATIONS:
Resolution For a universal decriminalization of homosexuality
Considering The Universal declaration of Human Rights
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Considering
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966, entry into force 23 March 1976)
Article 17
1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Considering The Human Rights Committee’s decision in Toonen v. Australia (04 April 1994),
We ask the Human Rights Council to request a universal abolition of the so-called “crime of homosexuality”, of all “sodomy laws”, and laws against so-called “unnatural acts” in all the countries where they still exist.
By opposing the French sponsored resolution, the Vatican has allied itself with those states that do have criminal sanctions against homosexuality or homosexual acts. Among those states are Saudi Arabia and Iran. Those countries, and others, do enforce their laws, and yes, the punishment there can be death. Surely, one can oppose gay marriage and still also oppose criminalization of the "status crime" of being a homosexual, or the "act based crime" of engaging in homosexual acts.
Commenting by HaloScan
