As stated during the debate of the General Assembly last year, the Holy See continues to oppose all grave violations of human rights against homosexual persons, such as the use of the death penalty, torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. The Holy See also opposes all forms of violence and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons, including discriminatory penal legislation which undermines the inherent dignity of the human person.
As raised by some of the panelists today, the murder and abuse of homosexual persons are to be confronted on all levels, especially when such violence is perpetrated by the State. While the Holy See's position on the concepts of sexual orientation and gender identity remains well known, we continue to call on all States and individuals to respect the rights of all persons and to work to promote their inherent dignity and worth.
F Young said...
Catholic Archbishop Cyprian Lwanga's endorsement of this March 9, 2010 statement by the Council of Presidents of the Inter–Religious Council of Uganda is inconsistent with the position the Holy See has taken at the United Nations in 2008 and 2009:
Vatican Statement on Sexuality and Homosexuality
Statement posted here.
The Archbishop's earlier official position on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was also inconsistent with the Holy See:
Ironically, the IRCU statement advocates "7. e. Counteracting the distortion and misrepresentation of the debate on homosexuality by the media."
Yet, the Archbishop himself appears to be distorting and misrepresenting the
Vatican's position (or has the 's position changed since December 2009?). Perhaps someone with a good understanding of the politics of the Catholic church could say whether it would be worthwhile to ask the Vatican Vaticanto correct the Archbishop's repeated public apparent misstatements of the 's position. Vatican
has already done this with respect to Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan (Cardinals are at a higher level than an Archbishop; they are second only to the Pope.): Vatican
F Young said...
I want to clarify my earlier comment about the inconsistencies between the ICRU statement and the positions of the
. See my earlier comment for the links. Vatican
Firstly, the ICRU statement fails to call for the decriminalization of adult consensual homosexual sex. This is a major element of the
Vatican's official position and a life-changing/saving omission for LGBT's in . On the contrary, the ICRU statement says that homosexuality "should not be allowed in our society," and impliedly supports section 145 of the Penal Code by using its continuation as the basis for its argument that the Bill is unnecessary. Uganda
Secondly, the ICRU statement fails to call for an end to "every sign of unjust discrimination" to homosexual persons, to "all forms of violence against homosexual persons," to "all grave violations of human rights against homosexual persons, such as , , , , , torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment," all elements of the Vatican's official position that are hugely relevant to Uganda.
Lastly, the ICRU statement deplores that the "proposed law does not provide for the rehabilitation of repentant homosexuals." When read with the criticism that "the proposed death penalty and life imprisonment do not provide the sinner an opportunity to repent" and the statements that the churches "welcome the sinners to confess, repent and seek a new beginning," and "believe homosexuals need conversion, repentance, support, and understanding and love," one is left to wonder whether the churches are calling for "conversion" "therapy" as a "get-out-of-jail" card for those condemned to prison.
Surely that is not the
's official position, but then what does the statement mean when it deplores that the "proposed law does not provide for the rehabilitation of repentant homosexuals?" Conversion therapy, but you stay in jail anyway? Vatican
What to make of all this? Has the Catholic Church changed its mind? Does it fear the government or a reduction in tithes? Does the Ugandan Catholic church disagree with the
? I don't know. Vatican
So, what do we do now? Is it best not to do anything? I don't know enough. The stakes are very high. Personally, I would appreciate input from people who are very familiar with Ugandan politics and the politics of the Catholic Church at the
and Ugandan levels. Vatican
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
A definite NOT meeting of the minds.
Now, let me answer your questions. The Catholic Church in Uganda, in my assesment, was completely ignorant of the Vatican's actual 'doctrinal guidance' on homosexuality.
Their statements have shown that. And, they were not alone. So was the rest of the churches, mosques, etc. The homophobia in Uganda is fueled by an appaling ignorance, which they reinforce by branding any contrary information as 'promotion of homosexuality'. That is a literal mindset. We see it everywhere, in legal circles, with the MPs, with the Anglican church, and with the Catholics of course.
It must have been a shock for them to even discover that the Catholic Church does have a very detailed position on homosexuality. And, that it is very contrary to what the people here believe.
No, It is not government coercion. Actually, the religious people here were the ones trying to force the government to have the bill become law as soon as possible. Minimal debate mandated.
It is just plain ignorance.
And, I bet you that they are going to need more self education. Because, even though they will not show porn in Church, [how would the Vatican react???], they still have the same.... spirit?
Hey, I am allowed to be this forthright and brutal in my assessment.
And, my assessment is that they have been ignorant, are trying to educate themselves, but are still sticking out their prejudices.
No, icearc. I don't believe the Catholics forced the others to sign that statement. I think the matter of self education is occurring because too many people are suddenly understanding that most of the religious leaders are actually hate pedalling, and ignorant at the same time.
New knowledge? They could have asked me, long time ago!!!!
I always thought the IRC was a bad idea because of the divergent interests of its corporate entities. Who does the IRC speak for? The Vatican was clear on this issue not only at the UN but in pastoral letters to all its Bishops Here. I am sure his grace Arch Bishop Dr. Cyprian Lwanga was aware of this from the start. The Vatican's stand has led to several gay catholics to join the priesthood and take the vow of celibacy as a form of chastity. In this way poor recruitment from hetero's was mitigated by the entry of celibate gay priests, hence a doctrine of necessity!
The hard line the IRC took can be attributed solely to Hid grace the Most Rev. Dr. Luke Orombi; The Mufti Sheikh Ramadhan Mubajje. Incidentally the evangelicals are not represented as an entity as a result of lack of clear organisational hierarchy.
In fact, I did remember one of the Sheikhs suggesting that all gays be exiled onto one of the numerous islands in Lake Victoria!
Post a Comment