Sir, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor writes that “the Church has consistently spoken out against any discrimination against homosexual persons, and will continue to do so” (letter, May 11). But what does he mean by “discrimination”? Within the past year Rome has ruled that even celibate candidates for the priesthood who are gay cannot be considered — so it’s not just “sex outside of marriage” which is the issue. And across the world Catholic bishops have campaigned, with great vigour, to prevent laws being enacted which would allow (even non-Christian) homosexuals the right to form domestic partnerships. His reference to St Thomas Aquinas and the difference between a crime and a sin is unfortunate because Thomas lived at a time when homosexuality was a capital offence, and he is unlikely to have had an objection to that.

Ruth Kelly has avoided some direct questions this week. Let me put two to the Catholic hierarchy: If you had a choice, would you be in favour of making homosexuality illegal again? And if not, why won’t you support the formation of healthy, committed relationships in law?

STEPHEN HOUGH
New York

Sir, Does Cardinal O’Connor seriously think that gay people want their rights defended by someone who thinks they are sinners? Would he like the rights of Catholics to be defended by an atheist? Or by a fundamentalist Muslim who regards Catholics as infidels but is prepared to stretch a point for the sake of pragmatism?

I am a Catholic whose conscience does not allow me to regard love, whatever its orientation, to be a sin and I am deeply disturbed by Ruth Kelly’s appointment. One’s religion is personal only when it presents no conflict with one’s public duties. This is not the case with the Minister for Equality.

DÓNAL THOMPSON
Madrid

Sir, Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor says that gay people “have the same entitlement to legal rights as anyone else” and that “the Church has consistently spoken out against any discrimination against gay persons”.

Is this the same Catholic Church that has conducted a relentless campaign of opposition to civil partnership legislation for same-sex couples and gay marriage — notably in Spain? Is this the same Church that has opposed adoption by gay couples, has resisted IVF for lesbian couples, opposed the abolition of Section 28, spoken out against the equalisation of the age of consent and predicted dire consequences if homosexuality is included in sex education?

GEORGE BROADHEAD
Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association

Sir, If Ruth Kelly believes that she will do the job without letting her religious beliefs get in the way, why not give her the chance to prove it? If it becomes clear that she is unable to function effectively then it would be appropriate to re-evaluate her position. But to discriminate against her beforehand on the basis of her privately held beliefs? Surely that’s the type of behaviour the equal rights movement is supposed to prevent.

GARETH WRETHAM
Leamington Spa

Sir, If Catholics such as Ruth Kelly are denied office because Catholic Church policy is contrary to Government policy on equality, would this constitute religious discrimination?

RAINER BURCHETT
Penrith, Cumbria

Sir, What a shame the Catholic Church’s recent history is not so proud. With the new Pope came the description of homosexuality as “a tendency towards an intrinsic moral evil” and a McCarthy-esque purge of homosexuals from the training priesthood. If this is my friend, I hate to think what my enemies are planning.

THOMAS SIMPSON
Canterbury

Sir, It seems that the people who are opposing Kelly’s appointment are suggesting that ministers should not have any opinion at all, or they should have positive opinions only.

ASHAR KHOKHAR
Leeds

Sir, What on earth has belief got to do with anything? She’s a politician.

CHRIS O’ROURKE
Accrington, Lancs

Explore Letters

• Feedback