Blair: Pope is wrong about gays – and most Catholics think so too
Former prime minister condemns Vatican's 'entrenched' attitudes – and proposes New Labour-style makeover
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
AP
Tony Blair airs his views on Pope Benedict XVI's stance on gay rights in 'Attitude' magazine
enlarge
The Pope and the Vatican have an "entrenched attitude" towards homosexuality which is less tolerant than the views of ordinary Catholics, Tony Blair says in comments published today.
The former prime minister, who converted to Catholicism shortly after leaving office two years ago, said he disagreed with the Pope's stance on gay rights and controversially suggested that the Church should reform itself along similar lines to how he re-organised the Labour Party.
"Organised religions face the same dilemma as political parties when faced with changed circumstances," he said.
"You can either A: Hold on to your core vote, basically, you know, say 'Look let's not break out because if we break out we might lose what we've got, and at least we've got what we've got so let's keep it'. Or B: You say 'let's accept that the world is changing, and let us work out how we can lead that change and actually reach out'."
The comments from Mr Blair will cause controversy in the Vatican which still officially insists that gays are "intrinsically disordered" and that homosexual sex is a sin.
Last year, Pope Benedict XVI caused widespread outrage in the gay community when he compared toleration of gays to the destruction of the rainforests and said that homosexuality is "a more or less strong tendency ordered towards an intrinsic moral evil".
Mr Blair, who now runs his own religious think-tank, made the comments during an interview with The Independent columnist Johann Hari, who was writing for Attitude, Britain's biggest-selling gay magazine. Its 15th anniversary edition with Mr Blair's full interview is published today.
Asked whether he agreed with the Pope's latest remarks on homosexuality Mr Blair said he believed that ordinary Catholics did not feel the same way about homosexuality but the Church's leadership was afraid of making any major doctrinal concessions.
"There is a huge generational difference here," he said. "There's probably that same fear amongst religious leaders that if you concede ground on [homosexuality], because attitudes and thinking evolve over time, where does that end? You'd start having to rethink many, many things." He added: "If you went and asked the [ordinary Catholic] congregation, I think you'd find that their faith is not to be found in those types of entrenched attitudes."
Mr Blair's comments are controversial because since leaving office two years ago he has become a powerful unofficial ambassador for Catholicism. Although Catholicism takes a traditionally tough line against homosexual sex, Mr Blair presided over key pieces of gay equality legislation when he was in office, including the introduction of civil partnerships and lowering the age of consent for gay people to the same as for heterosexuals.
His generally liberal stance on abortion also contrasts with the Vatican, which supported the excommunication of a mother and four doctors in Brazil last month who performed a termination on a nine-year-old girl who had been raped by her stepfather.
In discussing his political approach to gay rights, Mr Blair praised the former mayor of London Ken Livingstone, who, he said, inspired him to be more determined to push through gay equality legislation.
"He changed my thinking in the sense that it taught me – or retaught me – a lesson that I think is very important in politics, which is that conventional wisdom is not necessarily wise: it can be wrong and it can be just a form of conservatism that hides behind a consensus," he said.
He also said that his long-term friend and trusted adviser, the Business Secretary Lord Mandelson, had been the victim of homophobia throughout his political career.
"His career is interesting in both senses in that he's attacked in certain quarters for being gay, and yet, at the same time, also, I don't believe that has altered in any shape or form people's opinion of him," he said.
"What those comments indicate is that the prejudice is still there, but what they also indicate is that its force is very weak, really."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
PS: was Mrs Wonderone there too (to collect the err... 'considerations')
Though that is beside the point, because diversity of opinion and belief within religions is and always has been a fact of life. To treat any religious group as a bloc of people who all think the same is wrong, and leads one to miss out on a lot of the really great variety of thinking in the world.
Also, the Vatican's stance on homosexuality is bigoted and old-fashioned, though Blair's suggestion for a new Reformation of sorts is probably necessary yet quite a bit broader than just sexual morality reform.
"Because, for gay people, the so-called 'sin' is actually an inherent part of the person, like the colour of their skin, so hating the 'sin' in this case is also hating the 'sinner'.That is why it is oh-so-important for the church to keep on stating that sexuality is a lifestyle 'choice' - a position which science (remember that word?) has shown to be false."
There is no viable proof that homosexuality is inherent to the person. Can you provide any evidence that science has proved that sexuality is not a lifestyle choice? Especially today when I see individuals who seem to switch sexuality like a slot machine. I find it very frustrating when people compare it to the issue of ethnicity. Is homosexuality hereditary? Is it a matter of genetics? Is there a "gay gene"? So far, the answer has been NO, despite what people say.
Homosexuality is a choice. It's no more inherent to the person than saying that loving to eat black pudding is inherent to another person. They weren't born with a genetic predisposition towards black pudding, it's an acquired taste.
I strongly condemn any action that lowers the status of homosexuals to something less than human, they are entitled to the basic human rights as anyone else. But does that include the right to live exactly as we please? Some would say "Yes, of course!", but how far does that thinking take us?
Drink alcohol?
Smoke cannibis?
Take ecstacy?
Theft?
GBH?
Taking cocaine?
Taking heroin?
Rape?
Incest?
Paedophilia?
Cannibalism?
Necrophilia?
Bestiality?
Attempted murder?
Murder?
At which point do we stop and say "Ok, that's enough." And how do we define what is enough, what is right and what is wrong? In todays society, everything is becoming relative and the concept of what is acceptable and what isn't is fluid. If someone decides they want to enslave someone they consider weaker than themselves, aren't they simply playing our natural selection and survival of the fittest?
Surely, there must be an absolute and a basis for morality, and it's for this reason that the majority of the world frowns upon homosexuality.
I don't believe in the point of fighting "Gay civil partnerships", because for starters it isn't marriage even if you have the same political and economic rights, and secondly if heterosexuals are having such an awful time maintaining their marriages they're in no position to say anything.
Same thing goes for adoption. Many heterosexuals are tossing babies away like the condoms they aren't wearing, and yet many homosexuals are opening their houses and hearts to receive these children. How can we condemn that?
For me personally, however, homosexual acts are against what's meant to be human nature, and against creation. I wonder how it even stands up in the light of evolutionary theory, what are the evolutionary benefits? If it is a potential threat to procreation, why hasn't it been selected against?
As for Tony Blairs stance...well...there are a lot of things about Catholicism I don't agree with, such as the infallibility of the Pope. He is a man, with the same backward nature as the rest of us and is therefore fallible and capable of fallibility. But for someone who claims to be Catholic, perhaps he should look more into what he professes to believe.
People seem to think that if they accept Christianity that the Bible is simply there to be reinterpreted and compromised, and cut & pasted as they see fit. Because, obviously, we are advancing socially and intellectualy right?......riiiight?....So we should be changing with the times right?....not so sure about that one.
Anyone may leave at any time.
Catholic Theology is not subject to "core votes" or "blocs"
The Church is very specific that discrimination or persecution is wrong and not to be tolerated.
A need to update or modernize the Church may be conventional wisdom, but conventional wisedom is not always wise (sorry, Mr. Blair, couldn't help myself)
The logic of Bliar's Nu Labour prescription for the Catholic church must surely extend to reforming the Bible itself, thus removing the possibility of any morally inconvenient and politically incorrect message. Thus, for example, where Leviticus 18:22 states 'do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable', all you have to do is remove the 'not' and replace 'detestable' with 'desirable.' Job done, Simple, innit?
http://www.infidels.org/library/mod
Jumped ship and handed over the reins to Brown before the sh!t hit the fan.
Failed absentee middle-east peace negotiator; now aiming to shaft the EU by aspiring for the presidency.
Whatever next ?...The Vatican perhaps.
A real Chancer a best and the ultimate Bounder at worse.
Blair should just stick to his dodgy property deals.
Yes, our Tone carries keys for both the front and back doors and has done since his youth. The same can be said for about 30 to 40 percent of all leading politicians in both Britain and the USA.
Please note that Mr. Cameron and the current Liberal leader carry keys only for the front door. Pederasty is rife amongst our so-called political class. It is connected with child trafficking and child disappearances. I and many others suspect this characteristic has been used as a selection criteria by our Illuminati so-called masters.
Please scroll down to read my earlier entry on this thread, about the public toilet behaviour of a certain Charles Linton or Lynton (psuedonym). Yep. That is our Bliar man in his formative years.
GAY RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS!
Why did Tony Blair join the Catholic church, and why did the Catholic church readily open its arms to a mass murderer? If Tony Blair wants to change things, then set up his own religion, you could call it "Imagism" or "Legacyism", where people will have no doubt about the things you stand for. The Catholic church is capable of shooting itself in the foot, so it doesn't need any disingenuous ex politician to provide extra help.
Maybe it opened it's arms to a mass murderer because the man who wrote much of the New Testament epistles didn't exactly have a bloodless record. He hunted down, imprisoned and murderered early followers of Jesus and yet, following his converstion, became one of the greatest apostles in the history of the Church.
But I do too wonder why he joined the Catholic Church.
Watch out for a new Reformation, where the Catholic Church becomes NuCatholic after the accession of Our Blessed Tone to the See of Peter.
Probably the main reason for the RC church attitude is that homosexuality was/is commonly practised among the celibate priesthood especially in monasteries who were/are denied access to women, thus ironically promoting the very thing it condemns
By the way we now know Richardm30 that the bible was cobbled together from the myths and legends of many middle eastern cultures who were often very sophisticated, but that does not make it the word of god. It contains ideas from the Egyptians ,Babylonians and Ancient Greeks to name but a few.
Many sects of Christianity seize upon some small detail in the bible to justify an article of faith like eg the Jehovahs Witnesse and Seventh Day Adventists. The RC ban on condoms is lkewise based on the
warning against masturbation.
All these ideas were probably the prevailing ideas and attitudes of morality at the time, but he Churches insist that they are written in stone and must hold for ever
Still you have to hand it too him - maybe his brand of faux catholoscism will be better than the original in which case of course he will be god.
And if he gets all wrong kills loads of people and lies all the time no worries - confess your sins and away you go again.
Maybe under Pope Blair you could sms your sins, then proceed to the internet where oasis, blur or the spice girls will play a few hymns for your penance.
You have to hand it to this guy his skin is thicker than a rhino.
Oh on gay rights etc - it always struck me how a boy as good looking as Blair could have a wife so absurdly ugly, just wondered if there was a link here.
Nothing except he is as always a man on the make.
No principles except what he chooses at the time.
If the RC church were to obey God they would follow his teaching, and if Blair was to be an RC he ought to uphold them - or leave it!
Maybe the Pope ought to ask public questions of Blairs role in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Possibly he will use his authority to ask about slavish obedience to the US and the deaths of hundreds of our men and thousands of foreign citizens?
The rat-brain is soaked in blood
Did he?
I remember the reports but I have read the speech in full and I cannot find the words 'gay' or 'homosexual'.
Maybe there was outrage because of the wildly inaccurate report based on another inaccurate report.
I expect better of the Independent.
Saying to a gay man that he has to have sex with women is like saying to a straight man he has to have sex with men. As far as science comes into the matter, until the blood thirsty homophobes of the world find a "gay gene" I'm sure they will continue to find ways to incessantly beat down on the gay population. At the end of the day again, to each their own however to say that a gay person is a "degraded" form of society and is a weaker human being either pysically of mentally, to me, has as much proof of existance as the "gay gene". So natural selection has nothing to do with it, being gay doesn't make you weaker in any way.
Good for Blair to have the guts to go against the never changing ways of the Vatican. Life changes, people change, surroundings change and opinions change. Religion will be the one to lose out if it doesn't have the guts to change and break free from the walls of the Vatican. We live in a day and age where the world doesn't hold its breath for religion anymore.
I hope the infallible catholic leaders realise that before they're left behind in the dust.