Sunday, 14 May 2017

CES: Publishing Anti-Catholic Propaganda

In my series of posts on the CES Scandal - their publication of Made in God's Image and the many questions surrounding it - I have used the word propaganda.

Regular readers of this blog (if such there be) will know that I try to be careful in my use of language, and it would be fair to point out that the mere fact that large portions of the document have been lifted verbatim from LGBT sources is not, in itself, proof that they are propaganda.

Propaganda, according to the online Oxford dictionary, is Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view. I would argue that much of Made in God's Image fits that definition.

So here is an example of what I mean (and there are many I could have chosen, not least the definitions page; indeed if the CES goes ahead with this project, it may become necessary to do a line-by-line analysis and refutation, but for now an example or two should suffice).

On page 16 we read:

Please read the following newspaper report on Alan Turing (1912-54) who took his own life due to the persecution he faced by his country for being gay. 
Let's just look at that in a little more detail. The sentence, the context in which it is placed, and the subsequent article from (you guessed it) The Guardian are clearly designed to portray Turing as the innocent victim of persecution for being gay.

But most of the factual content of the sentence is either debatable or wrong. 

It is by no means certain that Turing took his own life. If he did so, there is no evidence that it was a result of his treatment; indeed one of the tragedies of the gay lifestyle is the frequency with which it ends in suicide. But that fact won't be explored, of course. Suicide because of persecution suits the agenda so much better... 

The word persecution is also a very loaded one: he committed a crime, knowingly, and was punished for it. There was, as far as I can find out, no continuing persecution of him. But the real weight of propaganda falls in the last three words: 'for being gay.'

There is a lot going on here. In the first place, there is no law in this country, and has never been a law, against being gay. The law rightly concerns itself with actions. He was prosecuted (not 'persecuted') for acts of gross indecency with a man 20 years his junior whom he had picked up in the streets of Manchester. 

One may or may not agree with the penal code of the time (it has of course changed since) but this description is a travesty.

Further, and perhaps more seriously, the sentence assumes that being gay and practicing homosexual acts are the same thing. This is the subtle message of the whole document.

What our children are to be taught, if the CES has its way, is this:

1 Some people are gay - that is their natural state, and it is morally positive;

2 Being gay means not only experiencing certain emotional and sexual attractions, but acting on them;

3 Questioning either of the above propositions is bullying and will be dealt with severely.

Needless to say, all this is a long way from the teaching of the Catholic Church. The consequence, of course, is that any student who promotes Catholic teaching on human sexuality will, ipso facto, be deemed a bully, with potentially very serious and lasting consequences.  That might more fairly be described as persecution.

And when the truth is twisted, as in the Turing case study, to serve such ends, it seems fair to me to say that we are dealing with propaganda.


Please write to your bishop, and pray for the bishops and the CES.



The Alan Turing story is so much more interesting than the simplistic hagiography of those who have recruited him as the posthumous poster-boy for their own agenda. This account by his brother is very touching. It includes these wonderful lines:
I had never had even the faintest notion that Alan was a homosexual. One did not in those days (at least in our middle class) talk or even think about homosexuals and lesbians: one had heard of them, of course. (There was a book called Pansies by D.H. Lawrence, displayed in Hatchards bookshop in Piccadilly when I was an articled clerk aged about 21. “Another boring gardening book,” I sighed as I passed by.) I expect we were a little stupid.
O tempora, o mores... 

1 comment:

Jonathan Marshall said...

An excellent and thought-provoking post, Ben. The only thing I'd disagree with is your third bullet point - it would be more accurate to say: "3. Questioning either of the above propositions will not be permitted."