Breda O’Brien was wittering on in Saturday’s Irish Times about Pope Benedict XVI’s Christmas message to his staff being misinterpreted by all and sundry.

The Irish Times filler, and a patron of the Iona Institute, seemed to be concerned that his words on “gender” were misinterpreted as referring to transsexuality and homosexuality. (She also seemed compelled to tell everyone that Benny also didn’t use the phrase, “rock star”. Whatever.)

His speech to the Vatican Curia was delivered in Italian, save for the word “gender” which he said in English. A full – unofficial – translation into English of his speech, by the coadjutor of Lancaster, Bishop Michael Campbell, is available here. Make of it what you will. Do note, however, that in Italian there does not appear to be a word equivalent to the English word, “gender” – I’m no speaker of Italian, so I’m open to correction on this, but there appears only to be the words “sesso” (meaning “sex”) and “genere” (which can also have a generic meaning such as “type” or “genre”).

Now, even if O’Brien is correct – and I don’t accept that the Pope’s deliberate use of ambiguous terminology proves the media reports incorrect – this one speech does not somehow counter his previous statements, whether as Pope or as Cardinal Ratzinger. His Christmas message, indeed, refers to Humanae Vitae, the 1968 encyclical by Pope Paul VI – presumably the inspiration for Monty Python’s “Every Sperm is Sacred” ditty.

Before his speech, the Vatican was (once again) uniting with unusual allies – the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, or OIC – in vehemently opposing a proposal for a non-binding UN declaration which calls for the respect of human rights regardless of sexual orientation. (Note: The Vatican is a state, but is not a member state in the UN – it has permanent observer status.)

Following his speech, the Vatican is now considering breaking a long-held convention whereby Italian law applies in the Vatican State, unless there is “radical incompatibility” with Canon Law. It’s not like Italian legislators are the epitome of, say, liberal secularism – some (me, for example) would argue that Italy is a deeply conservative society. Not, it would seem, conservative enough for the Holy See.

Earlier in 2008, the Vatican released its “Guidelines for the Use of Psychology in the Admission and Formation of Candidates for the Priesthood”, which describes “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” as “grave immaturity”, and follows up on the 2005 document, “Criteria for the Discernment of Vocation for Persons with Homosexual Tendencies”. This latter document also refers to “[d]eep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are … also objectively disordered”.

Oh yes, and the 2008 UN lobbying wasn’t the first for the Pontificate. In 2003, the Brazil government proposed a resolution – which would have been binding – for states to agree to the promotion of the human rights of all people, regardless of sexual orientation. At its first proposal, the resolution was deferred to the next sitting of the UN’s commission on human rights in 2004, following intensive lobbying by the Vatican and the OIC. The proposal was postponed again, then, to be considered in 2005, following similar lobbying by the Vatican and friends. Needless to say, the proposal simply seemed to have dropped off the agenda of the UN.

The proposal was the first time a resolution specifically addressing human rights abuses based on sexual orientation had ever been put forward at the Commission. It was not, however, the first time Benedict effectively condoned violence against LGBT people. The following bears repeating: as far back as 1986, he was spouting hatred towards gays. As Cardinal Ratzinger, when he was Pope John Paul II’s chief policy maker (as head of The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – formerly known as the Inquisition), he issued a “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexuals” (indeed).

The Letter includes:

It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.

But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase (No. 10).

What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behavior of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well (No. 11)

In other words, incitement or violence towards gays is bad, but since they’re abnormal freaks then they’re just asking for it – particularly if basic fairness and equality is afforded to them.

Oh, and the above quote was preceded by this:

Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

Charming.

___________

Lead image is taken from ILGA-Europe, “Handbook on monitoring and reporting homophobic and transphobic incidents,” 2008. The image is used in good faith, without intending any infringement, and will be removed if requested.

Popularity: 1% [?]