Cardinal Winning and Section 28

From Mr Ronnie Convery Sir, Can I remind the representatives of Quest who complain about Cardinal Winning's warnings on the repeal of Section 28, that the "extreme" position he takes (to use their word) is nothing other than the official position of the Roman Catholic Church.
Lest your readers are not familiar with the current controversy, Cardinal Winning recently wrote that: "The Church absolutely condemns all malice in speech or action towards homosexual people and teaches that such behaviour endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society"— hardly a homophobic statement.
He continued: "However, there are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or sports coaches, and in military recruitment. These categories were specifically highlighted by the Holy See in 1992 in response to questions arising which have very definite parallels in Scotland in recent days."
As readers will note, those who have signalled their outrage are actually seven years out of date. And if they have a problem, it is with the Holy See, not Cardinal Winning.
Finally let me point out the absurdity of the claim by Quest (UK membership circa 200) that Cardinal Winning does not speak for the majority of Scots Catholics (current numbers circa 750,000). Which particular survey led it to this conclusion? What evidence does it have to substantiate its claim?
If the evidence of our postbag is anything to go by, far more people (of all faiths and none) support His Eminence's views than oppose them.
Yours faithfully, RONNIE CON VERY Director of Communications, Archdiocese of Glasgow From Mr Martin Pendergast Sir, It is commonly accepted, even by conservative lawyers, that Section 28 of the 1988 Local Government Act is so flawed as to be unworkable, as evidenced by their inability ever to bring a case to court. Cardinal Winning's position on this and other questions of lesbian and gay human and civil rights is not only out of step with Catholic social teaching but equally misinformed.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, while agnostic on the detailed origins of diverse sexual orientations, clearly recognises the deep-seated nature of sexual orientation in women and men (arts. 2357/8).
Similarly, Catholic teaching affirms sexuality to be a fundamental dimension of human personality. Sexuality and its expression in diverse orientations are then constitutive aspects of human existence and as such, in the words of Cardinal Hume, part of our "created design". Many people find this a more relevant description than the vocabulary of "objective disorder" or "intrinsic moral evil".
The Church hierarchy needs to see that the particular gifts of lesbian and gay sexuality might actually contribute to a more inclusive vision of human sexuality, even benefiting the heterosexual majority. Why are they so afraid to risk this dialogue?
Yours faithfully, MARTIN PENDERGAST Chairman, Christians for Human Rights, London, E9 6XF.
From Mr Ronald J MacDonald Sir, On the delicate question of homosexual behaviour and the possible need for job discrimination, it was especially significant that Cardinal Winning's direct quote from the Vatican's 1992 letter on the matter has provoked the wrath of Quest.
In On the pastoral care of homosexual persons ( 1986), Cardinal Ratzinger warned us of "the movement in the Church which takes the form of pressure groups... and attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics".
Catholics of a homosexual orientation whose wish is to pursue a chaste life in accordance with the Church's teaching should contact the truly inspirational support group EnCourage, P.O. box 3745, London, N2 8LW
Yours sincerely, RONALD J. MacDONALD Glasgow