Maman Poulet | Clucking away crookedly through media, politics and life

Vote no to Lisbon because a job might go to a gay athletics coach

May 30th, 2008 · 9 Comments · Irish Politics, Lisbon

The bishops hurled up their cassocks today to sit on the fence – meanwhile the ‘catholic groups’ are distributing rubbish in churches, the streets and at religious meetings on Lisbon. I was ‘lucky’ enough to pick up a copy today.

Entitled ‘9 reasons why a conscientious Catholic citizen should reject the Treaty of Lisbon‘, it includes such wonders as

– The amended Treaties impose a relativist, evolving vision of human rights, contrary to the Catholic understanding of them
– The amended Treaties considerably restrict the protection of human life and authorise abortion, embryo experimentation, non-reproductive human cloning and euthanasia
– The amended Treaties, for the first time in an international juridical document, recognise “sexual orientation? as a basis for non-discrimination
– The amended Treaties, for the first instance in an international juridical document, impose the parity between men and women in all areas
– The amended Treaties undermine the concept of family by dissociating it from the marriage between a man and a woman
– The amended Treaties impose excessive limits to the right of parents to educate their children according to their beliefs

And they’re obsessed by the gays….

As conscientious Irish Catholics, we cannot but say “No? to a Treaty that imposes on our country and on the whole of Europe, for the first instance in an international legally binding document, the prohibition of any discrimination based on sexual orientation, which will in its turn impose on us the placement of children for adoption or foster care in the hands of homosexual partners, the employment of teachers or athletic coaches with homosexual lifestyles, the obligation to grant accommodation to homosexual partners in B&B facilities, etc. and will restrict the freedom of the Church to preach the Gospel.

I haven’t seen that athletics coach thing since 1992 – I’d say there were copies of documents by Family Solidarity hanging round the place when this particular tome was written. Then I looked at the back for the references and noted that the above is based on the reading of Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-discrimination of Homosexual Persons, Vatican, July 22, 1992. which was bad then and still reads rotten now. Rattzinger wrote it!

So while I worry about qualified majority voting and privatising healthcare, some people in Ireland are still worrying about back passages as Gay Byrne once said.



9 Comments so far

  • Darragh

    Are you fukken kidding me? Seriously, this is the type of absolute crap they’re talking about?

    As conscientious Irish Catholics, we cannot but say “No? to … the prohibition of any discrimination based on sexual orientation


    I’m actually too angry to type coherently. I’ll be back. However I will say that this group *DOES NOT* represent the views of Irish Catholics or indeed the Roman Catholic Church’s views on acceptance, understanding, tolerance and love. Whatever about man-made doctrines, I doubt Jesus would have been promoting anything like this.

    Well done for bringing this to our attention.

  • tipster

    I am also curious as to what the implications for provatising education would be.

  • Sean Reynolds

    The Catholic Church members – only saw a brief RTE news clip – looked mighty uneasy during their announcement … could it be that the world is vastly different to 1992, and we actually know what its clergy have been / are capable of doing?

    In the list of dangers, did they forget to mention clerics who like ‘under eights’ after dinner?

    [That’s a ref to a gay community cartoon from the 1980’s btw, not a personal jibe!]

    Consentious Catholics – looks like an even older turn of phrase, like something out of the Carrigan Committee era (1930’s). James M Smith has a wonderful book out about the Magdalen women, and he uses the term ‘culture of containment’ to describe how people were kept in their place and everything was behind closed doors. Surely one issue with which the Church members should concern themselves (and wish to keep behind closed doors) is that new regulations about sexual rights will make the Church more open to legal challenges over child abuse… oh that’s what it’s about!

    I thought about what might motivate them to use this language now in the “noughties”. Well, the Church members can express this opinion aloud as crumply Cowen’s crew has no intention of furthering gay rights on their watch. So that’s ok then.

    Cue Darragh grinding teeth… grrrr!

  • Dan Sullivan

    As I recall the stock Catholic church answer on issues to do with sexual orientation are of the love the sinner, hate the sin type. So long as you’re non-practising everything is hunky dory. So the church should have no problem with discrimination legalisation when it comes to sexual orientation because that has nothing to do with what you do when in work. To the best of my knowledge being gay doesn’t preclude someone from being a priest.

  • Dec

    ‘- The amended Treaties, for the first instance in an international juridical document, impose the parity between men and women in all areas’

    I, for one, say ‘no’ to parity between men and women in all areas. Before you know it they’ll be wanting the vote…

  • Sabrina Dent

    My goodness, yes. God forbid we should be barred from discriminating against people on the basis of how God made them!

    OK wait. Why does that not compute?

  • derek

    I’m voting no, but cant say I’m too mad on my company on this side of the fence! Still, thats politics. I’m pro-choice, anti-homophobia, and against the “liberalisation” as IBEC put it of services like health and education.

    NO ON THE 12th!

  • Siobhan

    Well this homosexual teacher say god forbid the Catholics would want to eliminate discrimination!

  • The Lisbon Treaty: Too long; didn’t read

    […] No Side didn’t get any more loony than a particular Catholic group who campaigned on very conservative and close minded issues, including equality of men and women. […]