Catholic doctors thank Portugal’s president for vetoing euthanasia bill

The Catholic Cathedral of Limburg in Hesse, Germany. / Phantom3Pix via Wikimedia (CC BY-SA 4.0).

Denver Newsroom, May 10, 2021 / 06:01 am (CNA).
The Church in Germany is called to follow revealed truth rather than the spirit of the times, George… […]

CNA Staff, Oct 29, 2020 / 03:01 pm (CNA).- Amid a contentious debate in Scotland over a proposed hate crimes law, which the Catholic bishops of the country oppose, a cabinet minister this week suggested that the law could apply to speech uttered within a private dwelling if the speaker intends to stir up hatred.

The Scottish government introduced the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill April 23 in response to an independent review of hate crime laws led by Alastair Campbell, Lord Bracadale, a retired judge. The government argues the bill modernizes, consolidates, and extends existing hate crime legislation. It also abolishes the offence of blasphemy.

The proposed legislation creates a new crime of stirring up hatred against any of the protected groups covered by the bill, which include race, religion, sexual orientation, and transgender identity.

During an Oct. 27 hearing, a Scottish parliament member questioned Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf about whether the bill might include a defense for speech uttered in the privacy of one’s home, a so-called “dwelling defense.”

“My concern with the dwelling defense…as a parliament, [and] even as a society, are we comfortable with giving a defense in law to somebody whose behavior is threatening or abusive— as an example, that is intentionally stirring up hatred against Muslims— are we saying that that is justified because it is in the home?” Yousaf replied. 

“Are we saying that as a society we are comfortable with no criminal sanctions being applied to people because that has been done in the confines of their dwelling? Whereas if they stepped out into the street outside of the house, then that would be a criminal offense? I’m just not convinced as a point of policy or principle that it is one that I agree with, but I will continue to keep an open mind.”

Conservative MSP Adam Tompkins subsequently questioned Yousaf on how you can commit an “offence of public order” in private, to which Yousaf replied that if the intent to stir up hatred is present in a private dwelling, then that could deserve criminal sanction.

Bishop Joseph Toal of Motherwell wrote in a letter earlier this month that “we can only truly respect other people’s point of view if we first allow them to express it.”

“In the hope that we will remain a country, where constructive dialogue flourishes, the Catholic Church will continue to argue for further change to this legislation to include; more equitable and robust freedom of expression provisions; greater clarity around the definitions of ‘hatred’, ‘abusive’ and ‘insulting’ which remain precariously vague and urge consideration be given to appropriate defenses which reflect the change to intent only,” Toal wrote Oct. 13.

The bill has proven controversial with the Scottish public. In the 12 week consultation period after the bill’s introduction, members of the public made nearly 2,000 submissions to the Scottish Parliament.

On Sept. 23, Yousaf told the Scottish Parliament that the bill would now only cover offences where the stirring up of hatred is intentional, the BBC reported.

The bill originally provided for penalties for “stirring up hatred” “with the intention” of doing so, or “where it is a likely consequence that hatred will be stirred up against such a group.”

In a statement issued July 29, the Catholic bishops of Scotland argued that the bill could lead to censorship of Catholic teaching.

The Scottish bishops stated that the bill “creates an offense of possessing inflammatory material which, if taken with the low threshold contained therein, could render material such as the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other texts such as Bishops’ Conference of Scotland submissions to government consultations, as being inflammatory under the new provision.”

The bishops also noted that pronouncements of Catholic teaching on sex and gender “might be perceived by others as an abuse of their own, personal worldview and likely to stir up hatred.”

In their submission, the bishops said they had no objection to the proposal to abolish the common law of blasphemy, which has not been prosecuted in Scotland for more than 175 years. But the bishops said they were concerned the bill could feed “cancel culture.”

“The growth of what some describe as the ‘cancel culture’— hunting down those who disagree with prominent orthodoxies with the intention to expunge the non-compliant from public discourse and with callous disregard for their livelihoods— is deeply concerning,” they wrote.

The original text of the bill includes a provision meant to protect religious freedom of expression, stating that “behaviour or material is not to be taken to be threatening or abusive solely on the basis that it involves or includes…discussion or criticism of…religion, whether religions generally or a particular religion…religious beliefs or practices…proselytising, or…urging of persons to cease practising their religions.”

Yousaf also stated during the Oct. 27 hearing that he would be open to including freedom of speech protections to cover all of the protected categories in the bill; currently it only includes protections for certain statements about religion and about sexual orientation.

The Parliament’s Justice Committee is reviewing the 2,000 public comments received and is currently hearing testimony. The committee will aim to complete its Stage 1 report by Dec. 18, though the date could be pushed back, the BBC reported.

Scotland has experienced significant sectarian division since the Scottish Reformation of the 16th century, which led to the formation of the Church of Scotland, an ecclesial community in the Calvinist and Presbyterian tradition which is the country’s largest religious community.

Sectarianism and crimes motivated by anti-Catholicism have been on the rise in Scotland in recent years, and Catholics in Scotland are increasingly concerned that the government could consider their faith “hate speech,” according to local reports.

[…]

Dublin, Ireland, Jun 6, 2017 / 04:47 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Ireland’s Catholic bishops have praised a Supreme Court decision in the country that will allow asylum seekers to find work while their status is being decided.

The Republic of Ireland’s supreme court ruled May 30 that laws which indefinitely prohibit asylum seekers from gaining employment were unconstitutional.

The case was brought by a Burmese refugee who was in the asylum system eight years before he was given refugee status. He maintained that being allowed to work was vital to his self worth, dignity, and development.

The judgement considered the right to seek employment as “part of the human personality”, which cannot therefore be restricted to citizens.

Bishop John McAreavey of Dromore, chair of the Irish Bishops’ Council for Justice and Peace, said, “The words of the Court are powerful and profound, and speak to what we should aspire to: ‘This damage to the individual’s self-worth, and sense of themselves, is exactly the damage which the constitutional right [to seek employment] seeks to guard against.’”

He wrote in a June 5 statement that the decision reflects the values of Pope Francis, who has asked all countries for a “generous openness” to migrants, at a time when much of the world is experiencing what has been called a refugee crisis.

Millions of asylum seekers from the Middle East and elsewhere have poured into the European Union and other regions, seeking refuge from violence and economic hardship.

Countries throughout Europe have struggled to accommodate the large number of asylum seekers. Ireland has promised to accept 700 refugees this year, though the migration of some of these has been stalled due to vetting negotiations.

Bishop McAreavey noted that the physical and psychological welfare of migrants has been a concern of the bishops of the Council for Justice and Peace, which has publicly raised issues related to Direct Provision Centres, the Republic of Ireland’s system to care for asylum seekers.

“Removing the ban on work means that people in Direct Provision Centres are more likely to integrate and be part of a rich, diverse and yet more unified society; asylum seekers will recover their self-respect through work and we all will benefit from their skills and gifts,” Bishop McAreavey said.

He encouraged the government to “see the great merit – moral, civic, cultural and economic – of allowing migrants who are already in Ireland to participate and contribute to our society here. I would encourage policymakers to balance the Government’s duty to manage the resources of the State with the parallel duty to treat asylum seekers humanely.

The bishop noted that asylum seekers and their families have a “dear wish to integrate and contribute to the common good of Irish society.”

“I am grateful to the Supreme Court for reminding us, during these unsettled and cynical times, of what we must be about as a culture, namely, a society that both protects the person and allows his or her talents to flourish,” he concluded.

The ban on asylum seekers working was based on several laws, and can be corrected in a number of ways. Thus the court decided to wait six months to allow for executive and legislative fixes before making specific orders.

[…]