UK Bishops Support for Homosexualist Agenda Based on Vatican-Rejected 2005 Policy

By Hilary White

ROME, September 27, 2010 ( – Last Monday, when the head of the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales (CBEW) told a BBC interviewer that the U.K. bishops had not opposed the creation of legal civil partnerships for homosexuals, he was speaking from a longstanding policy that was published in 2005. But a source close to the CBEW has told that that policy was rejected by the Vatican for not being in line with Catholic teaching. The UK bishops, however, have implemented it without change, ignoring Vatican-mandated corrections.

During last week’s panel discussion on BBC 2, Archbishop Vincent Nichols, head of the Westminster archdiocese and reportedly in line for a cardinal’s hat this year, denied that the English Catholic hierarchy is opposed to homosexualist political goals, saying, “We did not oppose gay civil partnerships. We recognized that in English law there might be a case for those.”

His remarks follow two other occasions when Nichols was asked by interviewers whether Catholic teaching could change on homosexuality; he replied, “I don’t know.”

The archbishop’s expressions of uncertainty clash strongly with statements by Pope Benedict, who said in the lead-up to his recent visit to the UK, “The Church cannot approve of legislative initiatives that involve a re-evaluation of alternative models of married life and family. They contribute to the weakening of the principles of natural law and so the relativization of all legislation and also the confusion about values in society.”

Nichols, however, is not the first or the only U.K. bishop who has set himself in opposition to Vatican and Catholic teaching on homosexuality. Earlier this year Bishop Malcolm McMahon told the liberal Catholic magazine The Tablet that the “backgrounds” of Catholic school employees are not the concern of the Church, and that it is up to the applicants themselves to decide whether they are able to live according to Church teaching.

The Tablet quoted McMahon defending the government’s civil partnership legislation and saying the Church is not opposed to homosexual civil partnerships. “Civil partnerships are precisely what they say they are. They’re not gay marriages or lesbian marriages. They’re simply a legal arrangement between two people so that they can pass on property and other rights in which they were discriminated against before,” he said.

McMahon boasted, “We have many gay people in education and a large number of gay people in the Church, at least the same as the national average … A civil partnership is not a marriage, it’s not a conjugal relationship.”

Both McMahon’s and Nichols’ statements reflect the contents of a 2005 CBEW document, published in response to the then-Labour government’s proposed Equalities Bill - which ultimately led to the notorious Sexual Orientation Regulations and forced the total dissolution of the Catholic Church’s work in adoptions – telling Catholics that they must comply with legislation on equal employment rights of male and female homosexuals, bisexuals and “transsexuals” in Catholic institutions and structures.

During last week’s BBC 2 television program, Nichols and the CBEW’s position on homosexuality was praised by a fellow panelist, Diarmaid MacCulloch, a homosexual Anglican and Oxford professor of church history, who agreed, saying that the English Catholic Church “has rather taken its own line on this, not the Vatican’s line.”

A source close to the CBEW has informed that MacCulloch was literally correct, and that the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had not accepted CBEW’s Diversity and Equalities guidelines. The CDF, he said, had issued a list of changes to bring the document into conformity with Catholic teaching that “was ignored” by the document’s author, Archbishop Peter Smith.

In their document, the bishops said the first duty of Catholic organizations and institutions is to “to be inclusive, respectful of the human dignity of all and in tune with the spirit as well as the letter of the law.”

Using the language of the homosexualist political movement, the bishops suggested that Catholic institutions should create hiring quotas for homosexuals. It called on authorities “at all levels of the church” to “be more aware” of whether “different groups” are adequately represented in Catholic institutions such as schools, and said that “organisations, institutions and dioceses should consider appointing or entrusting someone with responsibility for diversity and equality.”

Despite allowing Catholic institutions to require applicants to “be broadly in sympathy with the vision, mission and values of the organisation,” the bishops’ policy does not require any private adherence to Catholic moral teaching. This would include requiring doctors or nurses to agree with the Church’s teaching on abortion and euthanasia, or teachers to live according to Catholic sexual teaching.

“In a society in which relationships are increasingly fractured and complicated, it is only to be expected that this may at times be reflected in the lifestyles of those who serve the Church,” the document says.

“Every applicant and employee has a right to his or her private and family life and all Catholic employers must respect that right.”

“As employers, subject to limited and narrow exceptions, Catholic organisations must ensure that no job applicant or employee receives less favourable treatment than another on the grounds of race, gender, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation or age. This is ‘direct discrimination’.”

So pleased was the Labour government with the document, that its publication and distribution was funded by the Department of Trade and Industry, the source told LSN.

Significantly, the document was later cited favorably by an EU document on the right to conscientious objection by health care workers that linked the “right” to abortion with similar putative “rights” to euthanasia and assisted suicide. The EU document agrees with the bishops that “subject to limited and narrow exceptions, Catholic organizations must ensure that no job applicant or employee receives less favourable treatment than another on the grounds of … sexual orientation”.

The favorable response from the EU prompted action from the Vatican, LSN’s source said. Last year, Pope Benedict’s two addresses to the UK bishops who were making their Ad Limina visit took a stern tone, with the pope warning them not to compromise on the life and family issues, or to take a soft approach to aggressive European secularism. Referring to the UK’s Equalities legislation, Pope Benedict urged the bishops to present Catholic moral teaching “in its entirety” and to defend it “convincingly.”

This was a direct rebuke, the source said, and was made after information on the Bishops’ Diversity and Equality guidelines had been delivered to the Cardinal Secretary of State, Tarcisio Bertone.

Currently, the CBEW, with the Scottish Catholic hierarchy, is formulating a response to the EU’s forthcoming Equal Treatment Directive that adheres to the same principles of “equality” as the UK legislation.

When it comes to the EU Directive, however, the bishops have issued a caution, warning that the Directive could be turned into “an instrument of oppression” against religious groups. Under the Directive’s conditions for equal treatment, they said, the EU “would effectively be dictating to religious bodies what their faith does or does not require: a wholly unacceptable position.”

Nevertheless, Archbishop Peter Smith, chair of the Department of Christian Responsibility and Citizenship, said, “The Catholic Church supports the underlying moral principle of the draft Directive.”

European Dignity Watch (EDW), a non-Catholic EU watchdog organization, has been more forthright, saying that the “moral principle” behind the draft Directive is in reality erasing traditional morality in favor of a “newly developed”“horizontal” concept of equality, that will “seriously imperil fundamental aspects of freedom of European citizens”.

The Directive, EDW says will “undermine freedom and self determination for all Europeans and subject the private life of citizens to legal uncertainty and the control of bureaucrats.”

Read related LSN coverage:

Archbishop Nichols's Comments on Gay Unions Endanger the Souls of My Children

Share this article

Featured Image
Lianne Laurence


Jennifer Lawrence slams Christians: Kim Davis supporters use crucifixes like ‘pitchforks’

Lianne Laurence
By Lianne Laurence

November 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – It’s no surprise that yet another Hollywood star is mouthing the usual liberal platitudes, but the fact that this time around it’s Jennifer Lawrence, a mega-star and lead in blockbuster series Hunger Games, brings a particular sting of disappointment.

That’s because the 25-year-old, effervescent and immensely talented star often comes across not only as very likable, but also as someone capable of independent thought.

But apparently not.

Or at least not when it comes to Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk famously thrown in jail for refusing to obey a judge’s order that she sign marriage licenses for homosexual couples.

Davis, Lawrence tells Vogue in its November issue, is that “lady who makes me embarrassed to be from Kentucky.”

“Don’t even say her name in this house,” the actress told Vogue writer Jonathan van Meter in an interview that happened to take place the day after Davis was released from her five-day stint in jail.

Lawrence then went on a “rant” about “all those people holding their crucifixes, which may as well be pitchforks, thinking they’re fighting the good fight.”

RELATED STORY: Wrong, Jennifer Lawrence! Real men don’t need porn, and women don’t need to give it to them

She was brought up Republican, she told van Meter, “but I just can’t imagine supporting a party that doesn’t support women’s basic rights. It’s 2015 and gay people can get married and we think that we’ve come so far, so, yay! But have we? I don’t want to stay quiet about that stuff.”

After conjuring up images of Christians as bug-eyed hillbillies on a witchhunt with her reference to “crucifixes as pitchforks,” Lawrence added darkly: “I grew up in Kentucky. I know how they are.”

Perhaps one should infer that it’s lucky for Lawrence she escaped to Los Angeles and its enlightened culture. That hallowed place where, according to van Meter, Kris Jenner (former spouse of Bruce Jenner, who infamously declared himself a woman) brought Lawrence a cake for her birthday that was shaped like excrement and inscribed: “Happy birthday, you piece of sh*t!”

Lawrence is reportedly now Hollywood’s most highly paid actress. Not only is she the star of the hugely popular and lucrative Hunger Games franchise -- the last installment of which, Mockingjay, Part 2 opened November 20 -- but she won an Oscar for Silver Linings Playbook and starred in several others since her breakout role in the 2010 moving and moody indie film, Winter’s Bone.

Lawrence has every right to express her opinion, although no doubt it will be given more weight than it deserves. It is unfortunate, however, that she’s chosen to wield her fame, shall we say, as a pitchfork against Christian moral truths.


Featured Image
Antonia Tully, leader of the Safe at School initiative
Voice of the Family

, , ,

Romania holding the line against anti-family sex education

Voice of the Family

November 25, 2015 (VoiceoftheFamily) -- The battle to defend children from harmful forms of sex education was dealt a damaging blow by the 94% of cardinals and bishops attending the Ordinary Synod of the Family who voted in favour of paragraph 58 of the final report of the synod, which undermines the rights of parents as primary educators of their children.

Antonia Tully, leader of the Safe at School initiative, a project of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, was invited to Romania this month by the Metropolitan Orthodox Church of Moldova and Bukovina and pro-life groups to speak about the impact on children of graphic sex education. Here is her encouraging report about parents’ resistance in Romania which she concludes with the words: “If mandatory sex education is stopped at the Romanian border it will deal a much needed blow to the global campaign to sexualise and defile the innocent hearts and minds of the world’s children.”

The global drive to make school sex education mandatory for the world’s children is finding strong and organised resistance in Romania, where the issue currently hangs in the balance. The country’s Minister for Health favours pro-abortion/LGBT style sex education while the Minister for Education would like to see Romanian children taught the family values promoted by the pro-life lobby.

The good news is that introducing graphic sex education into Romanian schools will not be a pushover. Having recently returned from a week-long visit to Romania at the invitation of the Metropolitan See of Moldova and Bucovina, I saw parents and the Orthodox church standing shoulder to shoulder determined to protect their children from damaging sex education. The bad news is that the sex education lobby has been given access to the political and civic infrastructure to promote its position and materials.

In 2013, over 2,000 public libraries in Romania became the channel for distributing a graphic sex education programme; “Sex v the Stork”. This online resource was written by a Romanian, Adriana Radu, following a year she spent in Germany working with a pro-abortion organisation. Roundly condemned by pro-family groups, “Sex v the Stork” was launched in the Romanian parliament on national “Day of the Library”, and made available to any child visiting a library via the internet, avoiding control by parents or schools.

Speaking to packed meetings in five different towns and cities mainly in the north east of Romania, I invited people to look across Europe to Britain. Teaching children as young as five and six years old about their sexual organs, followed by detailed animated presentations of sexual intercourse are fairly standard elements of British classroom sex education. In Britain we are being told that children have a “right” to this education, indeed they “need” it in order to avoid pregnancy and to stay safe from sexual abuse. Nothing was lost in translation when I informed parents, teachers, doctors and priests that there is no evidence that teaching young children about sex protects them from premature pregnancy or sexual abuse. My take home message is: Parents you are the first and best educators of your children. You are the best people to protect your children.

In October 2015, 60 pro-abortion organisations petitioned the ministries of health and education to impose sex education on the country’s schools. This was accompanied by typically vulgar demonstrations outside the respective ministries, with young people brandishing condoms, underwear and bearing placards with slogans such as “My vagina- my choice”.

82 pro-life groups responded with a joint statement firmly rebuffing the claims of their opponents. Drawing on their recent past, they pointed out that the first political system to significantly separate children from their parents was Communism. They said: “It is not difficult to identify in the proposed approach for sex education an essentially Communist principle: children do not belong to parents they belong to the state”. This sinister aspect of secular, state-sponsored sex education is perhaps not so keenly felt in many countries. But it is in Romania, where Christian families suffered so greatly under Communist rule.

Based in the lovely university city of Iasi (pronounced ‘yash’), I covered several hundred miles by car travelling around this beautiful country. But it is a country haunted by people who are not there. For every Romanian alive today (approximately 18 million live in Romania, with a further 2 million living abroad), there is one who has been lost to abortion. 20 million unborn babies have been killed by abortion in Romania from 1970 to the present day.

However, I am very hopeful for Romania. During my recent visit I heard a number of priests publicly pledge the support of the church to defeat sex education in schools. The Archbishop of the Diocese of Buzau and Vrancea spoke at the meeting I addressed in the city of Buzau, again positioning the church with ordinary parents in their initiatives to protect their children.

In 2011 the Orthodox archbishopric of Iasi, established the first dedicated, diocesan pro-life department in Romania. The department offers care and support for women in crisis pregnancies, it runs a social project for large families and has produced an accredited pro-life, pro-family teaching resource for schools in Iasi. Archbishop Teofan is clearly loved by his flock, not least for his outstanding pro-life witness.

However grateful my Romanian hosts were in each place I spoke, I am more grateful to them for their commitment to life and the family. Many, many Romanian families are resisting the sex education invasion from the west which would indoctrinate and corrupt their children. If mandatory sex education is stopped at the Romanian border it will deal a much needed blow to the global campaign to sexualise and defile the innocent hearts and minds of the world’s children.

Share this article

Featured Image
Gayle Irwin

, ,

Auto dealer stops donating to United Way over its Planned Parenthood support

Gayle Irwin

November 25, 2015 (PregnancyHelpNews) -- “We don't normally get involved in politics. We don't try to throw our weight around with legislative issues. It was a bit of departure for us.”

Those are the words of Bill Marsh Jr., partner in his long-standing family business, Bill Marsh Auto Group, in Traverse City, Mich.

Bill Jr. and his brothers have taken a detour of sorts in recent days, opting out of the United Way of Northwest Michigan’s workplace contribution program after discovering that the agency provided funds for Planned Parenthood.

The decision to cut ties with United Way wasn’t made lightly, Marsh said.

“They leverage generosity in people,” Marsh said. “A lot of people might not donate otherwise (and) we knew a lot of people from United Way. Our company has a long-standing history with the United Way.”

Marsh researched United Way’s funding of Planned Parenthood in the wake of this summer’s release of videos by the Center for Medical Progress exposing Planned Parenthood's practices of selling baby body parts.

When an employee approached Marsh, saying he wanted to pull his contribution from the local United Way, Marsh decided it was time to take a fresh look at his company's support of the agency. A representative from the United Way had contacted him to set up a meeting, and Marsh used the opportunity to state his position.

“Toward the end of the conversation I shared with him the concern I had about the United Way's support for Planned Parenthood, especially in light of what had taken place,” Marsh said.

The representative told Marsh the local Planned Parenthood doesn't do abortions, just women's health and cancer screenings.

“I said, 'In light of what's been disclosed, it's just not something we can turn a blind eye to,'” Marsh said, adding that, regardless of what the local affiliate offered, the organization’s ties to abortion could not be separated from their identity. “‘As long as you continue to support Planned Parenthood, we're not going to give you access to our employees.'”

The Bill Marsh Auto Group has about 275 employees and is known as a major contributor to charitable and community endeavors. Within a short time, Marsh received a call from the United Way’s local board president, who asked for a meeting.

Marsh again used this as an opportunity to take a stand for life.

“I repeated myself... 'If you're not willing to distance yourself from Planned Parenthood, we're just not in a position to give you access to our employees and won't re-up on the workplace campaign,'” he said.

The meetings were all cordial, Marsh said, pointing out that taking a stand can garner a business owner, or any individual, greater respect in the community.

“I really think people are attracted to people and organizations that take a stand, for the right reasons—standing up for their convictions, even if they don't necessarily agree,” Marsh said.

“Christianity is a comprehensive life system that affects every arena of our lives,” he said. “Whether it's in the marketplace of ideas, the public square, we have a understand the implications of choices and actions we make as citizens. As business people, we have leverage. Money talks. You generate a certain amount of influence—by donations, as well as how you treat your customers and employees, your reputation, your brand. It  goes go a long way towards influencing.”

Does Your United Way Give to Planned Parenthood?

Prior to the meetings with the local United Way representatives, Marsh investigated how the community agency spends its dollars. He contacted his sister, Terry Winship, who serves as CEO of True Care Women's Resource Center in Casper, Wyoming, to learn if there was a way to look into a potential connection between his local United Way and Planned Parenthood.

She provided him with a web link to the American Family Association’s site, which lists the United Way chapters donating to Planned Parenthood. Marsh discovered the United Way of Northwest Michigan does fund Planned Parenthood, directing $8,500 toward to the abortion giant in 2013, according to an IRS Form 990 on the site.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Now, Marsh encourages other pregnancy centers to inform and educate their supporters.

“They can be a source of information and a resource while being careful not to tell organizations what to do,” Marsh said. “They have to make decisions themselves, but there are a lot of business owners that are not aware of where their charitable dollars go. Faith-based organizations can provide great tools to allow people to see that and come to an understanding.”

Winship agreed.

“I think that every center director should know whether their local United Way gives money to Planned Parenthood,” she said. “If it does, there is an opportunity to share this information with our donors. Many donors are asked to contribute to local United Way campaigns at work. There may be pressure to contribute, but they can choose to opt out.

“Some donors are business leaders in the community who have the opportunity to, like my brother, express their concern about funding Planned Parenthood and take action. Knowledge is power and this is a great way, in a round-about way, to tell Planned Parenthood that we don’t want our hard-earned dollars going to an organization that deals in death and dismemberment.”

Marsh said his company will not be participating in the workplace campaign.

“We'll tell our employees, 'We've decided not to continue our relationship with United Way because of their support of Planned Parenthood' – they won't be surprised,” Marsh said. “We have a company Christmas party every year, and we pray before the meal. I said last year, 'We're not a Happy-Holidays type of organization, we're a Merry Christmas' – they know that, and for those who may not, it's an opportunity to share that with them.”

Marsh found the experience of standing for life as a business owner a positive one on many fronts.

“I came away from that experience feeling good that we did clarify our concerns and make that stand,” he said. “It gave us a forum to give legitimacy and weight to a very important social, moral position and communicate it in the public sphere with a high-profile, local charitable clearinghouse and say 'this is who we are and we're going to stand our ground,' My hope is that there will be an opportunity to get them to reconsider.”

Marsh is also thankful for the employee who voiced his concern several months ago.

“I'm grateful that we have some followers of Jesus that were willing to take a stand themselves and tell their employer,” he said. “He knew we were people of faith, so I think he was saying in a way, 'Hey, you guys need to know this.' It's easy to gloss things over and sort of sanitize things... even egregious moral issues.

“Business people tend to not talk about moral beliefs when dealing with other institutions. I learned that when you do, when you engage and share where your moral compass is, it's empowering and it's something that will gain you greater respect. That's not why you do it, but, (you do it) because our culture is dying for people to be clear with what they believe.”

Reprinted with permission from Pregnancy Help News.

Share this article


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook