# A Letter To The Catholic Church's clergy

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-letter-to-the-catholic-churchs-clergy/193108>\
**Category:** The BBQ Pit\
**Created:** [August 5, 2003, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-letter-to-the-catholic-churchs-clergy/193108 "2003-08-05T13:45:30Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\
**Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-letter-to-the-catholic-churchs-clergy/193108/41 "2003-08-06T02:51:31Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by PatrickM \*  
> \*\*That’s one way of looking at it. If the American government tried that tactic I suspect it would properly be considered an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state in nothing flat. I have no idea how our friends in “Canuckistan” would consider it. \*\*

From the Criminal Code of Canda. Note the get out of jail free card for religion.

Wilful promotion of hatred

1. (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;

© if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![detop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bcef8e/32.png) [@detop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/detop)\
**Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-letter-to-the-catholic-churchs-clergy/193108/42 "2003-08-06T03:14:10Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Qadgop the Mercotan \*  
> \*\*Well, I suppose that if a man was hired for a job which required having sexual intercourse with women it would be justifiable to not hire a homosexual man. \*\*

I don’t think it would be discrimination. He would be underqualified for the job. 😛

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\
**Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-letter-to-the-catholic-churchs-clergy/193108/43 "2003-08-06T03:41:55Z")

</div>

Odd choice of words, “underqualified.”

From what I’ve read and heard – and do remember that this is third hand at best, I’d wager that a randomly chosen gay man would be able to “perform the duties of the job.” There are several examples of predominantly homosexual kings who did their duty of fathering heirs.

What he would be, compared to other candidates for the job, would be _undermotivated._

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![detop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bcef8e/32.png) [@detop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/detop)\
**Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-letter-to-the-catholic-churchs-clergy/193108/44 "2003-08-06T05:03:49Z")

</div>

I stand corrected **Poly**

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\
**Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-letter-to-the-catholic-churchs-clergy/193108/45 "2003-08-06T05:39:09Z")

</div>

Seriously, as I understand things, Ghandi and other really good people can get into heaven even though they aren’t even a Christian at all and never said a Hail Mary or took Mass or anything: yet if you merely VOTE to ALLOW the CIVIL rights of marriage to extend to homosexuals, you are putting your immortal soul in danger.

If that’s not already a downright insane mixup of priorities among traditionalists, I don’t know what is.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\
**Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-letter-to-the-catholic-churchs-clergy/193108/46 "2003-08-06T07:25:46Z")

</div>

It joins a long fuckin’ list, **Apos**.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\
**Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-letter-to-the-catholic-churchs-clergy/193108/47 "2003-08-06T12:24:09Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by PatrickM \*  
> **All right RickJay, let me see if I have it now. According to you, because the Catholic Church does not lobby for the inclusion of each and every one of its religious principles into Canadian civil law, it therefore lacks standing to assert that any one of its principles, in this case the one that forbids gay marriages, be incorporated into Canadian civil law. It’s all or nothing.**

_With respect to issues of civil freedom and equality_ you are getting closer to the truth. It is obviously hypocritical to say that a Catholic politician should be forced to vote in accordance with Catholic doctrine in one area of civil affairs and not others. I don’t know how much more simply it can be put.

“Lacks standing” isn’t the right phrase, of course; everyone in Canada has “standing” to advocate whatever they please as long as they aren’t starting riots or armed insurrection. And everyone has standing to call them assholes. Free speech and all that.

> [@](#):
>
> The gospel according to RickJay says that the Church is morally obligated to constantly expend its limited resources in order to make Canada into a wholly Roman Catholic theocracy.

Well, now you’re just making stuff up.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kingpengvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9dc877/32.png) [@kingpengvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingpengvin)\
**Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-letter-to-the-catholic-churchs-clergy/193108/48 "2003-08-06T13:32:41Z")

</div>

Ok Patrick let’s try it this way.

One of the Catholic churches sacraments is Communion.

The Catholic Church prohibits Communion to non Catholics  
I am not Catholic

The Charter allows them, under freedom of religion, to prevent me from taking communion in the Catholic church unless I am Catholic.

I am Anglican

The Anglican church also has the sacrament of Communion.

I may take Communion there.

The Catholic church has no right to tell legislators that it should be illegal for non Catholics to take the sacrament of Communion.

Now change the sacrament to Marriage and now make it civil marriage.

It is Simple. They have no right to try to forbid gay marriage outside of their own jurisdiction. The Church should concern itself with its own affairs and not put pressure on its parishioners who are politicians. I think they are behaving immorally in that the job of the Politicians (ideally) is to serve the public good not their own personal agendas or concerns, the Church is trying to currupt that.

that is wrong.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\
**Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-letter-to-the-catholic-churchs-clergy/193108/49 "2003-08-06T13:35:50Z")

</div>

Let me just make it clear that I am not in any way in favor of locking up priests or anyone else for speech. What I am in favor of is ripping the cassock off this document and exposing its purveyors and anyone else who hides behind “religion” to justify base bigotry.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\
**Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-letter-to-the-catholic-churchs-clergy/193108/50 "2003-08-06T13:59:15Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by kingpengvin \*  
> \*\*The Catholic church has no right to tell legislators that it should be illegal for non Catholics to take the sacrament of Communion. \*\*

Well, sure it does. It would be foolish of the Catholic church to do so, a bill like that wouldn’t pass, and if it did, it would be overturned in violation of the charter, but the Catholic church has the right to tell legislators that, just like any group has the right to lobby for any law or policy they think should be enacted.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kingpengvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9dc877/32.png) [@kingpengvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingpengvin)\
**Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-letter-to-the-catholic-churchs-clergy/193108/51 "2003-08-06T14:30:31Z")

</div>

You are correct, they do have the right.

I guess I find it galling that they are sticking their nose in an area (civil marriage) that has nothing to do with them and that they willingly try to pressure politicians to continue to deny others some of the freedoms the rest of us take for granted.

It annoys me that they waste time and energy on this issue when they have many more pressing and nastier issues of their own that need their fullest attention.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\
**Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-letter-to-the-catholic-churchs-clergy/193108/52 "2003-08-06T15:45:11Z")

</div>

The thing that chaps _my_ ass is that they are arguing that the definition of marriage ought tho be restricted to their religion’s definition of it. _On the grounds of freedom of religion._

Of course, that leaves me without the right to marry whom my religion says I can, but I guess _my_ freedom of religion (not to mention that of the largest Protestant denomination in the country) can go hang.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tygr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/df788c/32.png) [@Tygr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tygr)\
**Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-letter-to-the-catholic-churchs-clergy/193108/53 "2003-08-06T16:48:51Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Muffin \*  
> \*\*From the Criminal Code of Canda. Note the get out of jail free card for religion.
> 
> Wilful promotion of hatred
> 
> 1. (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
> 
> (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
> 
> (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
> 
> Defences
> 
> (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
> 
> (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
> 
> (b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;
> 
> © if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
> 
> (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada. \*\*

Wow. So a group like the Klan would be outright _illegal_ in Canada?

If so, that’s a significant disconnect between US & Canada. Worth noting for all those who think we’re alike.

re, the OP: Unfortunately, this sort of meddling in politics by the Church is a dual-edged sword. There’s a US judicial nominee being filibustered now. As I understand it, his faith underwent a significant grilling. Meaning, how much would it affect his upholding the law.

See, if the Church wants faith to supercede law, it’d best not be surprised once there’s no more faith-full lawmakers.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tygr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/df788c/32.png) [@Tygr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tygr)\
**Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-letter-to-the-catholic-churchs-clergy/193108/54 "2003-08-06T17:07:59Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Muffin \*  
> \*\*From the Criminal Code of Canda. Note the get out of jail free card for religion.
> 
> Wilful promotion of hatred
> 
> 1. (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
> 
> (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
> 
> (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
> 
> Defences
> 
> (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
> 
> (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
> 
> (b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;
> 
> © if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
> 
> (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada. \*\*

Wow. So a group like the Klan would be outright _illegal_ in Canada?

If so, that’s a significant disconnect between US & Canada. Worth noting for all those who think we’re alike.

re, the OP: Unfortunately, this sort of meddling in politics by the Church is a dual-edged sword. There’s a US judicial nominee being filibustered now. As I understand it, his faith underwent a significant grilling. Meaning, how much would it affect his upholding the law.

See, if the Church wants faith to supercede law, it’d best not be surprised once there’s no more faith-full lawmakers.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\
**Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-letter-to-the-catholic-churchs-clergy/193108/55 "2003-08-06T17:26:45Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> the Catholic church has the right to tell legislators that, just like any group has the right to lobby for any law or policy they think should be enacted.

And exactly how many lobbying groups attempt to threaten Canadians with eternal damnation if they vote a certain way?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tisiphone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tisiphone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tisiphone)\
**Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-letter-to-the-catholic-churchs-clergy/193108/56 "2003-08-06T18:46:18Z")

</div>

I don’t think the KKK are 'zackly illegal, they’re just not allowed to say anything that could be construed as promoting hatred. Which doesn’t leave 'em much to say.

Haven’t heard much from them or groups like them since Ernst Zundl was squelched and thrown out.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\
**Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-letter-to-the-catholic-churchs-clergy/193108/57 "2003-08-06T19:01:40Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Tygr \*  
> **Wow. So a group like the Klan would be outright _illegal_ in Canada?**

No, they aren’t. Freedom of association and all that.

If you read the law, exclusion © pretty much allows as much latitude as you want to give. The law is barely applied and is generally assumed to be meant to stop people from inciting hatred in a way that would lead to a disturbance of the peace. Just saying “I think black people are inferior” wouldn’t get you arrested.

> [@](#):
>
> If so, that’s a significant disconnect between US & Canada. Worth noting for all those who think we’re alike.

There are hate crime laws in the United States, too.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\
**Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-letter-to-the-catholic-churchs-clergy/193108/58 "2003-08-06T19:02:27Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> As I understand it, his faith underwent a significant grilling. Meaning, how much would it affect his upholding the law.

I haven’t been following the latest round of judicial nominees but I believe you’re talking about our old pal, much discussed on this board, AG William “Drop Them Dildos” Pryor. The issue was not his religious beliefs but the extent to which he would inject his beliefs into his rulings to the detriment of precedent and the Constitution, and also an ad campaign which claimed that he was opposed by Democrats because of his Catholicism. A democratic senator on the Judiciary Committee, himself a lifelong Catholic, was deeply pissed that Republicans would claim that the Democrats were engaging in anti-Catholic discrimination.[Cite](http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=18982)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\
**Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-letter-to-the-catholic-churchs-clergy/193108/59 "2003-08-06T19:05:00Z")

</div>

Here’s [more detailed information](http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/politics/6369159.htm) on the Pryor issue and his hearing. Orrin Hatch is a dick.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\
**Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-letter-to-the-catholic-churchs-clergy/193108/60 "2003-08-06T19:17:27Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by iampunha \*  
> \*\*And exactly how many lobbying groups attempt to threaten Canadians with eternal damnation if they vote a certain way? \*\*

Admittedly, probably not that many, but it seems to me that most legislators who believe they’ll be going to hell if they support gay marriage because the Catholic Church says so, already oppose it.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-letter-to-the-catholic-churchs-clergy/193108.md?page=2)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-letter-to-the-catholic-churchs-clergy/193108.md?page=4)