Problems with Silence

I have been greatly influenced - and I think largely for the good, by reading Cardinal Sarah's book, The Power of Silence (about which I have previously blogged, here and in the following posts).

One of the fruits of that has been that I have been blogging far less; and praying rather more. And that has delivered a level of peace to my soul.

However, here I am blogging again, and with reason; and my reason is to reflect further on the problems with inappropriate silence.

In this morning's readings (in the new Lectionary) we hear of Our Lord opening the ears and freeing the tongue of the deaf and mute man. The applicability to those in authority was immediately apparent: may they listen to Our Lord's voice, and may the tell forth the truth!

But of course, for each one of us, the readings should speak to us individually.  So I need not only to listen, (and to find the silence to do so) but also to have my tongue freed, to tell forth the truth.

And one of the truths I think it important to tell forth is the problem that arises when those in positions of power, authority and knowledge use silence as a shield.

I won't comment here on our Holy Father, though what I say here may, mutatis mutandis, be applicable. I will limit myself to something I know rather more about, and about which I have previously written. And that is the scandalous CES document, Made in God's Image.

Regular readers will recall that there are many and varied problems with this document (the label CES Scandal will take you to my 35 previous pieces on the subject); and that I had heard a rumour it was to be revised and reissued (see here). In my naive and optimistic way, I had hoped for substantial corrections, but that was not what has happened. It is substantially unchanged, though there are one or two improvements (eg we now know who is responsible for it, and they at least acknowledge more of their unholy sources...).

But the problem with the silence surrounding its production, its reissue, and its blackballing by some dioceses is that it leaves many questions unanswered, and that leads to a culture of suspicion and mistrust that is toxic.

For example, given that the Church faces an unprecedented crisis, centring on problems of chastity and cover up, one can't help wondering why the bishops in our country have commissioned a document that seeks to rehabilitate gravely sinful sexual behaviour? Is it that they are ignorant of the implications of the Stonewall agenda that they are introducing into our schools?  Or is it that they are actively seeking to advance that agenda?  If they are, is that because they (or some of them) are part of the network of homosexuals who we are told have infiltrated our hierarchy, or are beholden to them?

And such questions lead to others: why the silence about this? And why the silence about everything else that is a bit difficult to discuss? Such as who knew about Kieran Conry, and when - and why did they say or do nothing about that scandalous situation? What else are they concealing from us?

And so it goes on; and even the good bishops are enmired in the toxicity: why haven't they spoken out about some of these evils?

And on: how deep is the rot in our hierarchy? How have bishops been selected for appointment? How far back does it go? Does it account for the various CAFOD scandals (qv)?  And on... and on...

You see how it leads us ever deeper into murky waters: that is why the silence of such people on such topics, in such circumstances, is wrong. The good along with the bad are put under a cloud of suspicion; and necessary change is entirely blocked.

--

Initially when the Holy Father said we should all repent for the errors of the past, and that clericalism was at the root of the problem, I reacted defensively: it's not me who had covered up for McCarrick et al. However, we know that Our Lord uses those in high office to proclaim truths  (the case of Annas springs to mind), even when the apparent meaning is.... (I think I'll leave that sentence unfinished...)

And I reflected that the Holy Father is right: we the laity are complicit in this. I am complicit.  I have failed sufficiently to challenge bad teaching, to call errant priests and prelates to account, as well as to pray and fast as I should. 

I think, in fact, that the laity have struck a complicit bargain with the clergy (which dates back at least to the scandalous clerical response to Humanae Vitae): you go easy on our preferred sins (particularly sins of the flesh) and we'll not be too demanding of you. The laity don't want to be reminded that artificial contraception is gravely sinful, for example; or that divorce and remarriage results in an objective, and scandalous, state of sin. And when they hear clergy defending or promoting other sexual sins, or simply maintaining silence about these ones, it makes them feel better about their own... So they turn a blind eye to things that should be confronted, and don't even notice that they are doing so: internalised clericalism...

--

So whilst I am still a fan of The Power of Silence, there is a time to speak, and situations in which our silence is a collusion with evil.

The Silence of the Media

I quite enjoyed Damian Thompson's article in the Herald about the Catholic Cyberwars, though my regulars will realise I may have a slightly different take on this.

However, I think he misses a significant point: the reason the Catholic blogs have some traction in this country at least, is because neither the Bishops' Conference nor the Catholic Press are doing their job properly. And Thompson, as a director of the Herald*, really should reflect on that.

One of the striking aspects of the CES Scandal has been the near-silence of the media, both Catholic and secular. To be fair, the Catholic Herald has run a couple of pieces, but both very understated. For example, here Nick Hallett mentions the contradictory statements regarding funding, but does not press the point, still less do any investigative (errr...) journalism. Likewise, he writes: "sections of document appeared to have been lifted from materials produced by gay rights groups Stonewall and lgbtyouth Scotland." Had he taken the trouble to fact-check, he would not have written 'appears' - unless he is covering for the CES. There is no appears about it: the proof is evident for all to see.

But neither he nor any other Catholic journalist has pursued the questions in the way one would expect a journalist to. One would have thought this story was a gift to a journalist, with issues around funding, collusion with Stonewall etc, and the obfuscation and complete lack of openness and transparency of both the CES and CBCEW. So why are they asleep at their desks? 

In that enormous silence, 
Tiny and unafraid
Comes up along a winding road
The noise of the crusade...

(of Ben Trovato, Mark Lambert, et al).




(*amended later on 8.10.17 to report DT's role at the Herald accurately - had wrongly said 'editor'. Mea culpa and thanks to Bro Eccles for pointing out my carelessness)

Talking of unanswered questions....

... we have never had a satisfactory answer about the funding of Made In God's Image. The CES has issued contradictory statements, but failed to explain the contradiction.

Not surprisingly, rumours persist that the CES accepted money from Stonewall.

That, of course, is one of the inevitable results of the policy of silence: people will fill in the gaps, and not always in the way one would wish.

That is one of the practical reasons the Nolan principles are so important. There are ethical considerations, too, of course, but perhaps we shouldn't set our sights so high...

And in practice, it means that when (as is inevitable) dribs and drabs of information seep out, and pesky people like me start to comment on them, energy and attention are focussed on seeking whom to blame and excoriating people for the leaks, rather than focussing on the real questions, such as: have we actually got this wrong? What should we do to put it right?

If those questions had been addressed earlier, we might not now be in a situation where backtracking risks a real loss of face, and, (far worse) where some schools reading the cues that Stonewall et al are the authorities on these issues, have developed and imposed immensely harmful policies of trans affirmation.

And still the rumours about funding persist: did Stonewall fund the distribution of Made in God's Image? If not, who did? And if nobody did, why did the CES proudly announce that they had "received funding to cover the printing and distribution of a hard copy for each school"?

Too little, too late

If it is true that Made in God's Image is to be revised, to bring it more closely into line with Catholic teaching, that is good news. And if that is the result of bishops realising the deficiencies of the document, and demanding that such changes be made, that is more good news. On top of the restoration of (some of) our holy days, it suggests that the bishops are moving in the right direction.  However, due to the culture of silence that pervades the CBCEW, we don't actually know...

But in the meantime, great harm is being done. Several Catholic schools, such as Sacred Heart, Hammersmith (the school my sisters attended many years ago) are now adopting trans-positive policies. Is there a connection between this and the CES's apparent endorsement of the Stonewall agenda? It seems probable. Note the head mistress' language on the topic: 'Every child at our school is made in the image of God...' Whilst a self-evident truth, the use of that phrase in this context suggests the baleful influence of the scandalous CES document.

This is very bad, for both theoretical and practical reasons. At the theoretical level, Stonewall's philosophy is antithetical to Catholic truth. You cannot serve both God and Tatchell...

But at the practical level, not only is there the issue of corrupting the consciences of young people, but further, of laying the Church open to serious claims of harm in the future. For the affirmation of young people in transgender identities is something that the professionals are very wary of, and they are also wary of Stonewall's passionate advocacy of this approach.  I have quoted this previously, but I unapologetically quote it again, and in more detail, as it is so important. It comes from a meeting hosted by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health:

Peter Tatchell’s human rights rallying call after lunch felt incongruent after we had seen the sobering reality of what is actually done to the bodies of young people who ‘persist’ in gender dysphoric feelings. It was out of place in an event specifically about children and which was otherwise encouraging of alternative viewpoints. Who would dare raise any objections to the ‘affirmation’ approach after his tirade against ‘transphobia’ 

The presentation by Mrs Terry Reed, Trustee of the Gender Identity Research and Education Society (GIRES) in the morning similarly jarred in its certainty that transgenderism has a biological cause, during an event where professionals consistently emphasised the uncertainty in both the explanation for, and the treatment of, gender dysphoric youth. 

It begged the question of the place of advocacy groups at a medical and clinical conference such as this. Three of the breakout workshops after lunch were led by such groups, GIRES, Mermaids and the Intercom Trust, all groups certain of the need to ‘affirm’ trans-identified children.

For, as the report also notes: 

 There were also questions about the huge jump in referrals of teenage girls to the Tavistock, the group most likely to both suffer associated mental health problems and to progress to adult services. Absent an agreed etiology for ‘gender dysphoria,’ the question implicitly raised about these young people is: are they really ‘trans’ or are they simply non-conforming young people who have been presented with a new way to conceptualise their problems and a new tribe to join which provides them with acceptance and approval? 

The issue was inadvertently touched on by Professor Stephen Whittle of the Manchester Law School, showing slides of young people with slashed arms and commenting that this “didn’t happen in my day because it wasn’t presented as a possibility” and that “now kids learn quickly from social media.” It is only political sensitivities which prevent us from considering the same explanation for the sudden unprecedented number of teenage girls who bind their breasts and identify as boys. 

Professor Katherine Johnson, Reader in Psychology at Brighton University, showed slides of interviews with young people which were revealing of what a ‘trans’ identity means for teenagers: “Cis people think you should conform” said one interviewee. The binary of ‘cisgender’ and ‘transgender’ has come to represent ‘conformity’ v ‘non-conformity’ in the minds of young people: is a trans identity now the only way for teens to distinguish themselves as not conforming? In which case, what self-respecting teenager would want to identify as ‘cis’?

And perhaps more troubling still:

One of the leading researchers in this area, Thomas Steensma from VU University, Amsterdam, confirmed in his afternoon presentation that there is ‘no true data’ to support an ‘affirmation’ approach above one of ‘watchful waiting’ and that only a minority of gender dysphoric children persist in those feelings. He stressed the ‘need to be balanced and honest,’ admitted that ‘we don’t know a lot,’ advised that ‘we should keep all possibilities open’ and suggested a less prescriptive approach.

(Source: the whole piece is well worth reading.)

So the experts don't support the 'affirm' approach which Stonewall advocate, and which now some Catholic Schools are imposing on parents and children. 

This is important, as there is evidence that between 80 - 95% of children with Gender Identity Dysphoria find that these feelings decrease or disappear in time - unless they are put on puberty blockers, in which case (in the one study I know of) 100% went on to physical surgery. As children as young as 12 are being treated with puberty blockers, you can see that the risks of affirmation are serious and irreversible.

What do we know about trans-regret?Unfortunately, the research cannot be done, as it is politically incorrect. That in itself shows the way in which this agenda is being pushed for political reasons, not on the basis of any evidence. It is shameful that Catholic Schools - and indeed the CES - should have been swept along by Stonewall propaganda, rather than consulting the medical and psychological experts in the field; and even more damningly, without consulting the truths about human nature and human well-being of which the Catholic Faith is the guardian.

It will not be long - inside ten years, I dare wager - before troubled young adults are bringing actions against their schools and the Church for putting them on a path to transitioning that has permanently damaged them, physically and mentally. Apart from the huge injustice to the children (and also their peers, corrupted by this false ideology), this will be yet another blow to the credibility of the Church in this country.

Our bishops need to be aware of this likelihood, and take much more decisive action. Quietly amending Made in God's Image will be too little, too late. Please write to them, in charity as ever, and ask them to address this issue as a matter of priority.

And pray for them, as ever.

The Power of Silence (3)

In this third post, I consider a further aspect of Silence. In the first, I reflected on its positive powers; in the second, on the evils of imposed Silence with regard to the truth. In this one, I am concerned with Silence from our bishops and their agencies (one may also read across from this to silence from our Holy Father).

When the scandalous document Made in God's Image first came to my attention, I wrote to several bishops and the Director of the CES, as did others. Their responses fell into three categories (with one exception). Most simply did not reply. A few told us that we were writing to the wrong person. And from the remainder, we got the famous Q letter (see here and here).  Given that Q addresses none of the issues raised, I think that counts as Silence - a refusal to engage with the issues.

Given that I thought this important, I wrote again to +McMahon as head of the relevant bishop's committee, and received an assurance that he would discuss the matter with the head of the CES. That could be read as a sincere next step, or a brush-off. So I wrote again, asking for an assurance that when he had done so, he would communicate the outcome: as the issues are important, I should be told if I am wrong, or changes should be undertaken if I am right. The response (you guessed it) Silence.

In the meantime, I heard that several bishops had refused to allow Made in God's Image to be issued in their dioceses. But oddly, I could find no public reasons for that. So I wrote to them, asking about that, and asking whether my making a noise about all this was unhelpful in some way I didn't know, and whether I should, therefore desist. (Incidentally, this is one of the reasons I have been silent about this for a while: I was awaiting responses to these various letters.)

Three of them have not replied; one, my own good bishop, has done so. He did not address my questions head on, but instead referred me to +McMahon.

So how am I to read all this Silence? If several bishops believe the document is not in conformity with Catholic teaching, why will they not say so? Surely considerations of a facade of unity are less important than the corruption of Catholic teachers and children by wrong teaching?

It may be, of course, that their are tactical reasons for their silence, as they seek to address the issue behind the scenes. But I specifically asked if I should shut up about this, and not one of them said I should.  So I interpret that silence as tacit permission to keep making a noise about it.

And now a rumour reaches me that the CES has announced to the bishops that the document will be revised and reissued. Is that true? If so, does it concede there is something wrong with the first iteration? If so, teachers deserve to be told.  But d'you know what? There will be Silence.

--

With all respect to their Lordships, this is a very unwise path to tread. Whilst I understand the positive Power of Silence as alluded to by Cardinal Sarah (see the first post in this series), the Silence of teachers when error is promulgated (or of leaders when evil is perpetrated)  is not discretion, but dereliction.

Episcopal silence has already done tremendous damage in this country, and the culture of Silence (I had almost written omertà) has facilitated the unfortunate Conry episode,  the deception of the faithful about the leadership of CAFOD, and countless cases of abuse; quite apart from the silence about all the difficult parts of Catholic teaching over the past 50 years (with a few honourable exceptions).

Pray, then, for our bishops, that they may all be worthy successors to St John Fisher.

The Power of Silence (2)

Yesterday I posted about the power of silence in its most positive manifestation. Today, I am concerned with another aspect: the power of imposed silence.

One of the reasons I am troubled by Made in God's Image, and the ideology it implicitly (and at times explicitly) pedals, is that it imposes silence.  There are certain things that may not be said; and in particular, certain truths that may not be told.  For a resource for Catholic Education, that is a very serious charge; so here is why I am making it.

The language of Made in God's Image pre-supposes certain things that Catholics do not believe, and stigmatises the expression of beliefs that Catholics do hold. Right at the start, we read: 

Homophobic bullying is bullying that is based on prejudice or negative attitudes, beliefs or views about lesbian, gay or bi people. Homophobic bullying may be targeted at students who are, or who are perceived to be, lesbian, gay or bi. It can also suggest that someone or something is less worthy because they are lesbian, gay or bi. 

This is problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly, it reifies, or treats as real, categories such as 'lesbian, gay or bi people.' This is language (as indeed is the very term homophobic) that has been wrought to further the ideology of organisations such as Stonewall, and LGBTYouth Scotland whose work is copied and pasted into this document in large quantities. Yet the Church does not categorise people in this way. 

More worrying still is the idea that any expression of negative attitudes, beliefs or views about lesbian, gay or bi people is bullying, and therefore a disciplinary offence. Likewise suggesting that someone or something is less worthy because they are lesbian, gay or bi becomes a disciplinary offence. 

Thus it becomes impossible to say things like: 

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,¹⁴¹ tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."¹⁴² They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (CCC §2357)

I find it particularly interesting that serious medical professionals, meeting to discuss these issues, should find the interventions of pressure groups problematic: 

Peter Tatchell’s human rights rallying call after lunch felt incongruent after we had seen the sobering reality of what is actually done to the bodies of young people who ‘persist’ in gender dysphoric feelings. It was out of place in an event specifically about children and which was otherwise encouraging of alternative viewpoints. Who would dare raise any objections to the ‘affirmation’ approach after his tirade against ‘transphobia’ 

The presentation by Mrs Terry Reed, Trustee of the Gender Identity Research and Education Society (GIRES) in the morning similarly jarred in its certainty that transgenderism has a biological cause, during an event where professionals consistently emphasised the uncertainty in both the explanation for, and the treatment of, gender dysphoric youth. 

It begged the question of the place of advocacy groups at a medical and clinical conference such as this. Three of the breakout workshops after lunch were led by such groups, GIRES, Mermaids and the Intercom Trust, all groups certain of the need to ‘affirm’ trans-identified children. (Source: the whole piece is well worth reading.)

Yet it is precisely to such pressure groups that the CES has turned for advice and it is their definitions and their case studies, designed to silence any debate or dissent ('Through discussion, make clear that all of these scenarios are homophobic in different ways'
  - p22) that they are touting in Made In God's Image. 

Having recently read Gabriele Kuby's well-researched book, The Global Sexual Revolution, I am much clearer than previously that this muzzling of opposing viewpoints, the imposition of silence on those who disagree with the new (im)morality, is part of a very deliberate and all-pervasive strategy, which is called 'gender mainstreaming.' 

If you have not read Kuby's book, you should. Pope Benedict XVI said: 'Mrs Kuby is a brave warrior against ideologies that ultimately result in the destruction of man.'  She highlights the Yogyakarta Principles (YP), which seek to overturn the established morality of Western Civilisation (that of all the Abrahamic religions, for example) and replace it with a new hedonism, based purely on subjective feelings of identity. 

It is, perhaps, typical that the YP wwwsite states 'The result was the Yogyakarta Principles: a universal guide to human rights which affirm binding international legal standards with which all States must comply. ' Whereas the (referenced) relevant line in Wikipedia reads: 'These principles have not been adopted by States in a treaty, and are thus not by themselves a legally binding part of international human rights law.^[2] '

Kuby explores the purpose and methods of those behind these Principles, including their explicit intention both to obfuscate their own goals, to prevent genuine research into these issues (see here, for example) and to silence, or failing that to criminalise, those who disagree with them.

It is in this context that I believe that the bishops in our country have gravely erred in admitting Made in God's Image into our schools: a document that both misrepresents reality, and imposes silence on those who would present Catholic teaching. This is all so much bigger, more organised, and better funded (by the UN, EU, Gates, Soros, etc etc) than I had realised initially.  That is why I believe I cannot keep silence on this issue.

Pray for our schools, the teachers and the children; as well as for our bishops, and the CES who have been the dupes of this powerful propaganda movement.

The Power of Silence (1)

I am reading Cardinal Sarah's book, The Power of Silence. And very powerful it is, too. He reflects on silence and the sacraments; on silence and music; on how we are driven out of paradise, and out of ourselves, by sin, and need to rediscover our inner selves; on how the words that we do not say become prayers... and much more besides (and I'm only a third of the way through).

It is no coincidence that I have been blogging less, recently.

And in my self-imposed silence, I have been reflecting on why I blog and what I should blog about. There is much about which I should (and will) keep silent. But that is not everything.

My other reading recently has included Daniel Mattson's personal testimony, Why I don't call myself gay, and Gabriele Kuby's The Global Sexual Revolution. These have reinforced for me the urgency and the importance of combating the errors contained in Made in God's Image (follow the CESScandal tag for the whole sorry story).

Interestingly, my silence has brought greater clarity to that; and greater anger. The wickedness that risks being inflicted on our children is even more clear to me than it was before; but I am also clear that I must turn my anger on that wickedness, and not direct it at people.  That is a tricky balance, and I find it all to easy to rail against the CES or the bishops. 

I am still struggling with finding that balance, but I will certainly return to this fight, and will continue to do so until some resolution is reached...

Reason is not enough

A few further thoughts on the modern crisis in our understanding of human sexuality...

Part of the Post-Enlightenment legacy, which is now playing havoc particularly with the upbringing of the young, is a mis-placed trust in reason.

Don't misunderstand me: I am not saying that reason is held in too high regard. Whilst our Faith is characterised by mystery, it does not reject, but rather honours, reason. To give up on reason is not a Catholic approach at all: revelation may take us further but is always reasonable. The Word, the Logos of the Father, is truth incarnate; and theology, the queen of disciplines, is (rightly understood) faith seeking understanding.

No, my point is different. The modern error is to set too much store by our being subject to reason. My current bête noire, the CES gay propaganda masquerading as an anti-bullying resource, is a case in point. One of the many things wrong with it is that it seems to assume that you can argue a child into virtue: that once you have given cogent reasons why bullying is wrong, the child will no longer bully. (There are, of course, many other and more serious things wrong with Made in God's Image, and I have documented many of them elsewhere on this blog).

But Catholic tradition, and everyday experience (including my own, as I look at my own patterns of sinful behaviour) demonstrate that such is not the case.

In fact, we have a disordered relationship with reason: too often, our passions are felt more strongly, and we either ignore or distort our reasoning, to indulge our passions.

This, the Church teaches, is part of the damage to our nature brought about by that original catastrophe, known as the Fall.  

One of the many things I lament in the change from the Traditional to the New Rite of Mass is the loss of the wonderful prayer from Psalm 140 (said at the incensing of the altar): Pone, Dómine, custódiam ori meo, et óstium circumstántiæ lábiis meis: ut non declínet cor meum in verba malítiæ, ad excusándas excusatiónes in peccátis. (Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth: and a door round about my lips.  Incline not my heart to evil words; to make excuses in sins.)

To make excuses in sins... How those words resonate!

Human sexuality is damaged by Original Sin: we desire that which we should not desire. And reason, which should order our desires to the good, is subjugated to our passions - unless we train ourselves -  discipline ourselves - to submit to grace.

That is why virtues are learned by practice and example, not just by exhortation; and why when the Faith is abandoned, and 'sexual preferences' (ie a particular sub-set of our passions) are made sovereign, reason lags far behind...

For the tragic results, you need only look around.

In which I am bullied by the CES...

Bullying, I learn from the CES publication Made In God's Image, may include 'deliberate forms of exclusion.'  And one can see where they are coming from: when children send another child 'to Coventry' (ie refuse to speak to, or acknowledge, him or her) that is potentially very unpleasant and hurtful.

When bullying is associated with a protected characteristic, it is deemed even worse. (Personally I question the wisdom of that stance, but that is the position of this document, and indeed informs the law of the land).

So when the CES refuses to answer queries submitted via its website; and then declines to answer emails (in the first instance sending a form response (Q), rather than engaging in a meaningful dialogue, and subsequently failing to answer at all), that could be construed as bullying: I feel hurt and excluded by such behaviour.

Further, I surmise that it is because I hold particular religious views (orthodox Catholic ones, as it happens) that I am thus ignored. Which, I assume, would make it bullying based on a protected characteristic.

--

As it happens, I don't subscribe to that approach. I think that we need to be rather more nuanced in our analysis, and look at a range of contextual factors before hurling around accusations of bullying.  But - and this is my point - the CES document does not: the list of 10 little scenarios which pupils are asked to assess range from some that are clearly prejudicial, to others in which the context could make an enormous amount of difference. But the instruction to the teacher is clear: 'Through discussion, make clear that all of these scenarios are homophobic in different ways.' 

And the document, whilst advocating the most non-judgemental approach possible to any issue relating to sexual morality, is extremely judgemental - indeed punitive - in tone towards anyone who may be deemed to be a bully.

--

So what should I do, when the CES (by their standards) bully me: first failing to answer my queries at all, then eventually sending me a form letter (Q), and then failing to answer when I pointed out that the form letter had not addressed the issues?

And how should I respond to the bishops who have not answered me at all? And to those who have answered with a form letter (Q) and then the polite brush-off (thanks - we'll think about it... (see also here) ) Is that episcopal bullying? 

--

I imagine they think I'll get bored and go away. They are mistaken: this is too serious.

If you think that the CES (and some of our Bishops) should not be instructing teachers to teach Catholic children that there is nothing wrong with homosexual behaviour, then take action. Pray, and write.  See my posts on the CES Scandal for all the lurid details.

Why does it matter?

I have been going on about the CES Scandal at some length and for some time.

That is because I believe it to be very important. I believe that for a number of reasons; the most important of which is that I think it gravely wrong to miseducate anyone, particularly in the name of the Church.

But perhaps it is worth spelling out some of the reasons why the modern liberal consensus on sex and gender (which is completely at odds with the Church's teaching of God's revealed truth) is so harmful; and in particular, is harmful to those whom the soft-hearted and weak-minded think they are being kind to.

The idea that being gay is just another lifestyle, quite as good as any other, is quite erroneous. The health outcomes for practicing gay men are significantly worse than for the  rest of the population. And in particular, gay sex is very bad indeed for young men and boys. Just consider this simple statistic from the US: 

Gay and bisexual men aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 92% of new HIV diagnoses among all men in their age group. (Source) 

Reading the report from which that quotation is taken, it also becomes clear that it is receptive gay sex that is 9x more dangerous.  So boys and young men, aged between 13 - 24 are the victims of other more experienced men (if not experienced, they would not be HIV positive) using them for their pleasure. 

I think the Church should stand on its doctrine, and teach our young people the truth, in the hope of protecting them from this scourge.

The transgender issue is equally problematic. Made in God's Image glibly refers to 'people who do not identify with their assigned gender at birth or the binary gender system.' These troubled young people are at real risk of being victims of a massive social experiment. Despite Made in God's Image teaching to the contrary, nobody can accurately foresee how long such gender dysphoria will last; and there is the potential to do real harm by colluding with a child's self-diagnosis, setting them on a path to puberty blockers at an early age, and surgery at 16 (and of course, there is a push to reduce that age limit), which will change their lives for ever, and may well be bitterly regretted.  See here for commentary on this issue.

Once more, I think the Church should stand on its doctrine, and teach our young people the truth, in the hope of protecting them from this scourge.

Of course bullying is wrong. No Catholic school condones it. But to teach dangerous falsehoods to counter is to betray our children, and to put the most confused, the most vulnerable, in harm's way. They deserve better of our schools than this easy collusion with the world, the flesh and the devil.

Please pray; and write to our bishops. This evil teaching must be stopped and replaced with the beauty of Catholic truth.


--

UPDATE

See also this piece on the complexities and uncertainties of the transgender issue, and the perils of unthinking affirmation and of advocacy groups setting the agenda (as Stonewall and LGBTYouth are doing in Made in God's Image).

A Reply from the CES

At last, Paul Barber, Director of the CES has started to reply to messages. This reply, apparently was sent in response to an email to his CES email address, not in response to a message submitted via the CES Website. So far I have heard of no replies to those, so I wonder if the system is not working as it should.

I say reply rather than answer, as the email does not answer any of the points raised. Instead, it is (who could possibly have foreseen this) a variant on Q.

Why anyone thinks that an intelligent person, raising serious questions about the Catholicity of Made in God's Image will be satisfied by an assurance that it is Catholic because it says so in the introduction, or even because sundry bishops believe it to be so, is beyond me. The latter, in more usual times, ought to be reassuring. But given that we know several other bishops are unhappy with it, to the extent of refusing to allow it into the schools in their dioceses, we are clearly living in abnormal times.

But the prima facie evidence is the idiocy of the claim. I have blogged at length about this, so will just leave this question here.

How is the teaching: 'Young people need to see that there is nothing wrong with it?' (with the it ambiguous, but referring either to homosexual inclinations or homosexual actions) compatible with the teaching of the Catholic Church (to which the document pretends adherence in the introduction cited as evidence of its Catholicity)? That teaching, which is indeed signposted in the introductory pages, is summarised in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, thus (with my emphases):

Chastity and homosexuality 

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. 

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. 

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

The Q Letter (2)

I do not normally publish private correspondence, as that seems to me to be wrong. However, I think it is legitimate to publish my re-construction of the Q letter, as it hardly qualifies as private correspondence.

So here is my best reconstruction of the putative Q letter.

Dear {Name} 

{Insert some personalising opening line, acknowledging receipt of letter, email etc} 

In 2016 the bishops of the CES Management Committee commissioned St Mary's University to research how Catholic Schools deal with homophobic bullying, which has become a recent focus of Ofsted inspections. The research highlighted the demand from schools for Catholic guidance specifically in this area. Following this, and at the request of dioceses, St Mary's University, in collaboration with the CES, has produced a guidance document 'Made in God's Image: Challenging homophobic and biphobic bullying in Catholic Schools.' 

{Insert some guff about signed off by bishops, made available to dioceses} I remain confident that the document is fully consistent with the teachings of the Church, as is set out clearly in the introduction to the document. 

{Some sort of closure/sign off bit}

Some commentary would seem in order.

Firstly, this letter does not address any of the specific complaints or queries that have been raised about this lamentable document. It is true that the introduction states that the document does not attempt to present Catholic teaching, and refers to the appropriate paragraphs of the Catechism.

There is other good Catholic content in the introductory pages, too; such as the point made both by Cardinal Hume and by the CDF that we do not categorise people by their sexual inclinations.

However, the actual lesson plans take a wholly different approach - unsurprisingly as many of them were either copied wholesale from LGBTYouth Scotland, or Stonewall; or of course from the putative Q1 proto-propaganda document...

Secondly, it states that 'St Mary's University, in collaboration with the CES' but fails to mention 'and in collaboration with LGBTYouth Scotland, and Stonewall...' That strikes me as dishonest. It was dishonest of the document not to mention their sources (whilst taking care to reference other sources with care, giving the impression of a well-referenced properly-researched piece of work) and it is dishonest of the Q Letter to continue with that omission.

But the third, and most serious issue is the claim that this document is fully consistent with the teachings of the Church.  How anyone, let alone a bishop or archbishop, can claim that  is beyond me. To take just one example (and see my previous posts for many others...) it contains the line:

Young people need to see that there is nothing wrong with it.

Typically of the document, the 'it' is not defined (and the lack of clarity throughout, particularly of the distinction between homosexual inclination and homosexual activity is alone enough to make it wholly inappropriate as an educational guidance document). That clearly applies here: the 'it' refers either to the inclination to homosexuality, or to homosexual activity. In either case, it is a clear contradiction of the teaching of the Church; yet is presented as the approved outlook, which is being inculcated to remove the 'prejudice' of our children.

If you have not written to your bishop, or to bishops on the CES Management Committee, please write! If you have received a Son of Q letter, please write again, highlighting your request for answers to the issues raised. End by asking for better, Catholic, guidance to be developed.  In courtesy and charity as ever, of course. 

You might even write to the CES; they seem not to be answering any correspondence, which is remiss, but they should know that parents will not keep quiet while children are being corrupted by false and dangerous teaching.

Contact details may be found here.

And pray.

The Q Letter...

I have just been comparing letters written by the Archbishop of Liverpool, and the Bishop of Leeds. Whilst they are different (Liverpool, hereafter L, runs to 17 lines, and Leeds, hereafter... oh, L won't really work, will it?... How about L2? is shorter, at 13) there is substantial similarity.

The second paragraph of L is word-for-word the same as the second paragraph of L2; and the third paragraph of each is significantly similar, though with some slight verbal variants.

Initially, I assumed that the outbreak of plagiarism that has infected Made in God's Image was contagious, and our revered bishops had fallen victim to it. 

But then I realised that there is another possible explanation. Perhaps there is a common source document - let us call it Q - which both letters are derived from.

That explanation could also resolve the vexed question of the similarities of the CES document and the Stonewall and LGBTYouth Scotland documents. Perhaps there is a proto-propaganda document (let us call it Q1) from which they are all derived, and the CES is exonerated from all suggestion of plagiarism or collusion.

I think we should be told...

The CES compounds its problems...

It is now about four weeks since I submitted a query to Paul Barber of the CES via their website. I got a note to say that my enquiry had been successfully submitted, and would be processed as soon as possible.

And since then, nothing. I gather the same is true for others who have approached them.

I was vaguely hoping (though scarcely expecting) that there might be a reply awaiting me on my return from Chartres. But no.

So it seems that the strategy is to lie low and say nothing.

Given the seriousness of the questions raised about the CES Scandal, that is really not good enough. In fact, I suggest, they are digging themselves into a deeper hole.

As I have mentioned before, the Nolan principles are appropriate standards for such a body; and they include accountability, openness and honesty.  These are not best demonstrated by refraining from answering queries.

If you have contacted the CES, I suggest that you do so again: they should know that we are not going to go away. If you have not contacted the CES yet (and assuming you agree that pushing lgbt propaganda into Catholic schools is not a good thing for the CES to be doing) I suggest that you do so.

Write courteously, of course, but do ask questions that demand answers.

Should they still not reply, I think we may need to go higher up the chain, and take this up (along with all the other issues) with their management committee, which is chaired by ++McMahon.

Incidentally, ++McMahon does answer letters it seems; or to be more accurate replies to them.  I have seen two replies from his office. One, from a secretary, was of the classic 'your remarks noted with interest' variety. I have had cause to comment on this particular type of letter previously: my post on the subject concluded: 

Are these people taught that this is the way to (fail to) answer questions they don't want to answer?  Is there a handbook somewhere for dealing with cheeky proles like me who ask impertinent questions?  I think we should be told (but of course, if I asked, I would be told: Thank you for your question, which I have noted.)

The other letter, from ++McMahon himself, which I have seen said, in effect, that Made In God's Image is Catholic because it says it is in the introduction. 

Neither of these efforts answered, or sought to answer, the problems raised by the correspondents. If you have received such  a reply, I suggest that you write again, courteously as ever, and point out that you would like answers to some specific questions.

We should persist, like the importunate widow, in the hope that we may get somewhere, and in the knowledge that failing to do so is in effect colluding with the miseducation, in a crucial issue, of many children.

For all the necessary contact details, see here.

And keep the prayers going up.

But answer came there none...

I know a few people who have got in touch with the CES/Paul Barber about the CES Scandal, some via their website, others whose mode of communication is unknown to me. What they all do have in common, though, is a complete lack of response.

That is very poor. Doubtless, we will be asked to put our hands in our pockets for the CES again in due course; but to suggest that they owe concerned parents any explanation of their frankly bizarre behaviour is clearly to suggest too much.

Of course, they are in a sticky position. It is hard to defend the indefensible.

Which brings me to the bishops. Their Lordships, I imagine, are more busy, and certainly have less immediate obligation to respond to queries about the CES than the CES itself has, one might think.

Nonetheless, I am hearing that a number of people have received replies; and that these vary from 'pray for something better' to 'it's not me you should be writing to, it's Paul Barber/++McMahon.'

Well writing to Paul Barber seems to get no result, but ++McMahon is the one bishop, I hear, who is prepared to stand up for Made in God's Image.

Oddly, one of my correspondents got an anodyne message from a secretary thanking him for his comments which the archbishop will bear in mind; whilst another got a letter from the archbishop himself, saying, in effect, of course the document is Catholic, because it says it is in its introduction.

One wonders how he can write that with a straight face; and further, if he really imagines that such a response in any way addresses the many and serious questions raised; and further still, if he knows that the strange sound behind him is the noise of all the other bishops distancing themselves from him and from this document. 

So, to summarise, nothing at all from Paul Barber or the CES, which is dereliction, if you ask me; and replies, but no answers to any of the issues raised, from a number of bishops.

It really is not good enough.

Pray for them all.

--

PS If you have heard from anyone feel free to leave a comment, or get in touch with me directly...

Catholic Teachers Deserve Better

I know I keep going on about the CES document (see CES Scandal, passim) but new aspects keep occurring to me. I have already mentioned what a difficult position it could place teachers in, who assume it was written by the CES and St Mary's, not realising that large portions were in fact written by LGBT propagandists. 

But now, consider the position of a teacher who suffers from same sex attention. He or she, striving to be faithful to the teachings of the Church, recognises that this is an inclination to sin and battles with it. It is not for us to inquire how successfully; all we can do is consider our own struggles with our own particular temptations, and sympathise with the struggle; and, as ever, pray.

But where does this document leave him or her? What internal conflicts does it exacerbate? What external prurience might it provoke? What kind of betrayal does it represent?...

Our teachers deserve so much better than this...

So, to summarise...

In this weekend's edition of the Catholic Herald, there is a piece by Dan Hitchens on the #CESScandal. It seems to me rather to miss the point. Therefore I thought it might be helpful to summarise the issues which I  have raised in one place, as so far they have been scattered over some 20-odd posts.

The first thing to say, of course, is that bullying is always contrary to Catholic teaching, and educating children not to bully (or to put it in the positive, to practice the virtues, in particular the virtue of charity) is fundamental to a Catholic education. Let nobody say that those who oppose this document are in favour of bullying.

There are two broad aspects to this scandal (and I use the word advisedly, and not unaware of the resonance with Luke 17:2): the document itself, and the way in which the CES has gone about producing, and communicating about, it. There is also something to be said about the context.

Looking first at the document itself, there are several problems.

The approach
The overall thrust of this document is that we should not bully people who identify as gay or bisexual (or whose parents or carers do) because gay and bisexual people are just as good as us, but different.  That is wrong. We should not bully them because we should not bully anyone - even if they (or their parents) are bad. The risk of the approach taken is that the implicit message is that if someone is bad (by whatever current measure that is unacceptable - say racist or indeed homophobic) he or she may be bullied; and likewise if someone's parents are racist, homophobic or whatever. So the whole premise of the approach is flawed. 

The anthropology
The document accepts the language and worldview of the LGBT movement entirely and uncritically. The ideas that gay is a valid way of describing a human being, that people are born gay, that to be gay means that fulfilment may only be found in a sexual expression, and so on are all, to say the least debatable propositions; and are all at odds with a Catholic understanding of reality and humanity.

The ambiguity
The unquestioning use of the LGBT language (and indeed pages and pages of material lifted from LGBT sources) means that much that should be clear is ambiguous (possibly to prevent overt heresy) but clearly inclines in a particular (and anti-Catholic) direction. Thus the definitions of homophobic bullying, the reification of 'gay,' the elision of same-sex attraction and homosexual behaviour under that single word, and the implication in the title 'Made in God's Image' that God has created some people this way so it must be good, are all profoundly problematic, and such ambiguity is very poor from any educational standpoint.

The propaganda
Some of the material presented is simply untrue, and is outright propaganda for the LGBT worldview. The presentation of the 'case study' about Alan Turing is one obvious example. The attempt to control language and how it is used, defined as LGBT propagandists define it, is another. 

The omissions
Nowhere does this document contain Catholic teaching on chastity, on human sexuality, on concupiscence or anything else to provide a Catholic context for a discussion of homosexuality. "But it's about bullying" the apologist cries. OK: nowhere does it contain any reference to the Catholic understanding of virtues (and contrary vices), of temptation and grace, of the need for self denial in order to develop necessary self-mastery for moral and spiritual combat, of the need for a prayer life, and grace through the sacraments, and  so on. 

Turning now to the role of the CES, again there are several problems.

The opacity
Who wrote this document? Why was it being kept hidden? Why the fury when it was made public - whilst on its way into our schools? Why no acknowledgement of sources, when it gives the appearance of being a well-referenced academic document?

The collusion with Stonewall and LGBTYouth Scotland
What relationship has been established with these two organisations, whose work is extensively quoted, and who apparently gave permission for that to be done? Given that their work is in large part aimed at overturning a Catholic understanding of human sexuality this is a very serious question.

The questions over funding
The CES have contradicted themselves over the funding of this document. Initially, they said:  'The CES has received funding to cover the printing and distribution of a hard copy for each school.'

A number of sources whom I deem credible and honest have told me that the CES had received money from Stonewall. As this was reported, the CES changed their tune, and said: “The document is a collaboration between the CES and St Mary’s and no external funding has been received for it.” and also:  “The CES has not received any funding for either the printing or the distribution of the document.” 

There was no explanation of the contradiction. What are we to believe?

The response to the questions raised
Other than the completely inadequate response to the question over funding, I have seen no attempt by the CES to address any of the other concerns. Privately, they seem more intent on tracking down who 'leaked' the document.  This falls far short of the standards one would expect of a body funded, in large part, by the laity. The Nolan principles of public life would be useful standards to look to for guidance here. Nobody I know who has contacted the CES privately has yet had a response, beyond the autogenerated acknowledgement.


A few words about the context...

A few commentators have accused me of ignorance of the context, so I shall just add a few words on that.  There is no doubt that Catholic Schools will come under scrutiny from OFSTED on this topic. However, that can be no justification for teaching anything that is contrary to the Faith.  I believe that a truly Catholic approach should be enough to satisfy OFSTED; but if it is not, then we should not shy away from the resulting confrontation. To refuse to teach the Faith in order to stay open is a completely self-defeating policy.

A Catholic approach would consist of teaching that all bullying is wrong, forming children in the virtues, with the associated teachings (on the spiritual life, grace etc) to underpin that, and having a robust anti-bullying policy in place, that could demonstrate that Catholic Schools do not tolerate bullying of anyone, for any reason. 

Finally:

It seems likely that this post may be read by people beyond my usual readership. For their sake, I should make it clear that I have no hostility towards (nor fear of) those who identify as LGBT. I merely disagree with them on some things.  The Church teaches that we are all damaged by Original Sin, that we are all sinners, and that we all sin in many and various ways: that is certainly true of me.  Likewise, made in the image of God, we all have intrinsic worth and are worthy of respect and should love each other. The path to salvation is to deny ourselves, take up our cross (whatever that may be) and follow Christ, who became Man - like us in all things but sin - and lived, died and rose again, so that we might be divinised and share in eternal life and happiness. That is my wish for myself, for those I love and for those with whom I disagree.


For more detailed analysis, including quotations, links etc, see my previous posts on this topic, all of which have the label CESScandal.


For the contact details for the CES and responsible bishops, should you wish to raise your concern and request action (which, of course, you should...) see here.

And pray!
--

Sancte Michael Archangele,
defende nos in proelio;
contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Imperet illi Deus, supplices deprecamur:
tuque, Princeps militiae Caelestis,
satanam aliosque spiritus malignos,
qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo,
divina virtute in infernum detrude.
Amen.

Holy Michael, Archangel,
Defend us in the day of battle;
Be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the Devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, 
And do thou, Prince of the Heavenly Host, 
By the power of God,
Thrust down to Hell Satan and all wicked spirits
Who wander through the world for the ruin of souls.

Amen.