Godless and flammable?

[mrph]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Glasgow's Catholics want to set fire to LGBT folk. That's a little bit 15th century, after all.

On the other hand, handing out safety information that might stop those people catching fire from other causes... that seems to be a little more controversial, doesn't it?

The BBC states that some firefighters viewed it as something that would "contradict their moral beliefs", presumably because it meant visiting Pride to hand out the leaflets. Archbishop Mario Conti seems to agree with them, saying that "The duty to obey one's conscience is a higher duty than that of obeying orders".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5301334.stm

Hmm. Does anyone local have a little more information on this tale?

Comments

[blu-matt.livejournal.com]

Catholicism isn't anywhere near as evangelical as, say, Southern Baptism, but it's incredibly judgemental, supported by a wonderfully powerful guilt system that well goes beyond most mainstream christian sects, and with a nice touch in priest magic at the eucharist just to confuse the slackers.

There's also a hefty dose of the "let 'em burn and let god sort them out" attitude too, if they can't easily get their way. Catholicism tends to appear to be relatively "easy going" with non-Catholics in the main, unless it's one of the fundamental core sex/dogma things (marriage/virginity/reproduction/parthenogenesis).

All of this lends a lot of fuel to intolerance when it comes to the idea of tolerating non-heterosexuals.

The fire puns were unintentional.

[zarbi.livejournal.com]

I can definitely vouch for the guilt system, being an ex-Catholic myself. However, I think that one needs to separate Catholicism with Catholics in general. Most that I knew ignored much of the stuff coming from Rome (even parish Priests were far more reasonable). I knew of no-one who would be as crazy as those firemen - they are fundamentalists, and (I hope) far from typical. Not that I want to defend the religion....

[blu-matt.livejournal.com]

I'd agree with this. Most Catholics don't subscribe to the whole kit and caboodle of Roman dogma¹ and you'll still get the full spectrum of fundamentalist to liberal adherents² although I would say, with my reading into Catholic (and other) behavioural attitudes, that the vast majority have problems dealing with with sex-related issues, especially homosexuality.

1. Saying that, most believers, of any religion, don't subscribe to every tenet that the name of their chosen sect implies. It's amazing how their interpretation of the dogma reflects their own personal opinions...
2. Obviously, the bell curve is slanted toward the fundamentalist end - it is religion we're talking about after all.

[mister-jack.livejournal.com]

See, I think the bell curve is quite clearly slanted towards the "casual" adherance end of every religion. Remember the overwhelming majority in this country describe themselves as Christian.

[blu-matt.livejournal.com]

I would agree with this assessment, if the issue were for christians in general. My observation was for Catholics in particular, who are, in general, more fundamental in their attitudes than, for example, the average Briton. Admittedly, my last comment was quite trite and added nothing.