Further to my rent posts on the CES Scandal, there is one more point I should make. The whole drift of Made in God's Image: Challenging homophobic and biphobic bullying in Catholic Schools seems to be that pupils shouldn't bully others because they (or their parents or relations) are, or are perceived to be, homosexual or bisexual, as there is nothing wrong with either homosexuality of bisxuality. For that is the cumulative message of the series of lessons proposed by this document.
That is wrong on two counts. In the first place, the reason we shouldn't bully such people is that bullying is wrong. Teaching children that we should realise that the ones we are tempted to bully are 'ok, really' is a dangerous path to tread. What if they are not? What if their parents are racists, or criminals, or worse? We still shouldn't bully! So teaching them not to bully by rehabilitating the reputation of the victim group risks teaching the wrong lesson: that when people (or their parents) really are bad, it is ok to bully them.
That is one reason why it is so pernicious to select one specific group to talk about, when considering bullying. We should be focused on the bullying, and why that is wrong.
The second problem is the rehabilitation that claims there is nothing wrong with being homosexual or bisexual. That is contrary to Catholic teaching. There is nothing sinful about being homosexual or bisexual, unless one encourages the tendency or acts on it. But it is still wrong, in the sense that it is not how humans are meant to be, in a Catholic understanding; just as there is something wrong with someone who is blind or deaf. They are not in any sense culpable, but they are damaged. We attribute such damage to Original Sin.
But that's all a bit too Catholic for the CES, it seems.
Winter Solstice Ceremony
-
Archdruid: Like our ancestors before us
Hnaef: And beside us
Charlii: And beneath us
Keith: Tactless.
Archdruid: We stand at the still point of the year....
43 minutes ago
.jpg)
3 comments:
It crossed my mind this morning (during the homily) to wonder if our bishops actually want vocations. If we teach children that their sexual identity is the most important thing aboit them, what is the likelihood that they will discern a vocation to life-long celibacy?
Your last paragraph is important. But it follows that, just as we would say that deaf or blind people are no less in dignity than those who are able-bodied, so we should affirm the same for those who are afflicted by same-sex attraction. Although it's perhaps careless or glib to say "there's nothing wrong with it", what the speaker is getting at is a deeper truth. And just as we would say that those who are ill, inform or otherwise suffering are particularly close to God, might we not explicitly say the the same of those coping with this affliction?
Yes, I have no doubt that many have achieved sanctity by fighting and (ultimately) overcoming temptations of this nature.
Post a Comment