Follow the Money

One aspect of the CES scandal on which I have not yet commented is the financial.  The letter from the CES to (from which I have already quoted, here) includes the sentence: 'The CES has received funding to cover the printing and distribution of a hard copy for each school.'

That slightly enigmatic statement raises several questions. One is, from whom?  Who is paying for Stonewall propaganda to be circulated to the teachers in Catholic schools, rebranded as Catholic? Is it the bishops? Heaven forfend... Is it some well-meaning philanthropist? Is it a gay lobbyist? Is it Stonewall itself?

That last may seem the far-fetched delusion of an over-paranoid orthodox Catholic.  And yet... We have been assured by a senior academic at St Mary's that there was no plagiarism involved. Which I take to mean that Stonewall's material was not incorporated into this document without their consent. Which seems to me to imply some collaboration between Stonewall and the CES. I could be 180 degrees wrong on this: maybe Stonewall aren't paying CES to circulate their stuff; maybe CES are paying Stonewall for the use of it. That would be scarcely less scandalous, given Stonewall exists to campaign against a Catholic understanding of human sexuality. Or maybe no money changed hands in either direction: let us hope that is the case.

But if that is the case, it still leaves the question: who paid?

And that leads us to a secondary question: did whoever paid know that the material, being circulated as Catholic, was in fact largely derived from Stonewall and its ideological allies?  If so, was that the reason for their donation? What are their interests?

And if they did not know, surely money has been taken from them under false pretences: that they are paying for the circulation of work undertaken by the CES or on their behalf by one or more academics at St Mary's.

Whichever way you look at it, there are serious questions of ethics, propriety and due diligence that the CES needs to answer as a matter of urgency.  It will be interesting and instructive to see if and how they do so.

What price academic integrity?

On 2nd May 2017, the Catholic Education Service sent a letter to Diocesan Schools Commissioners and Directors of Religious Education about the new publication: Made in God’s Image: Challenging homophobic and biphobic bullying in Catholic Schools

It includes this sentence: Following this, St Mary’s University, in collaboration with the CES, has produced guidance on tackling homophobic and biphobic bullying in Catholic Schools.

This document, as I have already noted here and here, contains substantial amounts of text lifted verbatim from other sources, (and not just any sources, but sources that are, let us say, not wholly aligned with Catholic teaching or a Catholic worldview...) without any acknowledgement.

In academia, this is a pretty serious issue. If done without the consent of the originator, it is plagiarism; and in Catholic terms that is an offence against (inter alia) justice.  If done with the consent of the originator (eg when a student buys an essay online) but still passed off as the work of the person (or body) claiming to have written the work, it is no better; and in Catholic terms that is an offence against (inter alia) truth.

Senior academics I know tell me that the academic reputation and the academic integrity of their institution are two of the most important things for which they have responsibility.

The new document, Made in God's Image, carries the logo of of St Mary's on the front. Clearly this is to lend it academic respectability. 

How did such a poor piece of work, that contravenes the most fundamental academic principles (and is, incidentally riddled with typos and grammatical errors) get this endorsement?

Who wrote it - and why is that not clear?

What would happen to the poor Catholic teacher, presenting the material in good faith when challenged by an irate parent?  Just imagine:

Parent: Why are you presenting Stonewall  and lgbtyouthScotland material as Catholic to my children?

Teacher: I assure you that I am not. I am only using material prepared by St Mary's University and the Catholic Education Service!

Parent: Exhibit A; Exhibit B!

Teacher: (Confused and embarrassed): Oh...  I didn't know...

This is clearly a disgrace by any academic or Catholic standards.

I imagine that the governors of St Mary's (Chair: Archbishop of Westminster or his nominee; ex officio members include... oh, the Director of CES...) will be embarrassed by this: I hope that they address it promptly and openly,

CES: Plagiarism or Collaboration?

And now, following my previous posts here and here, I have just been pointed at another source document for the CES guidance, this one from lgbtyouth Scotland. Compare, for example, page 7 of this with page 12 of the CES doc: identical wording. Likewise some of the case studies....

Again, the questions proliferate: is this collusion or plagiarism? Why is there no acknowledgement of these sources on the CES document? Who wrote the CES document? Why does his name not appear on it?

This is getting embarrassing for Catholics; and even more so, one imagines, for the CES. Perhaps Paul Barber (remember him from the Vaughan school shenanigans ? - now director of CES)  can explain what is going on...

CES and Stonewall: what's the link?

Following my blog post on the CES document, published a few minutes ago, it has been pointed out to me that some of the document is a direct copy from Stonewall's document here. See page 6 and compare with the CES document.

That raises some very interesting questions. Has Stonewall written/co-written this document? Has the CES asked Stonewall for permission to use their material? Has the CES breached copyright?

I think we should be told.

Preventing bullying or promoting the LGBT agenda?

I have a few problems with the new CES document, Made in God's Image: Challenging homophobic and biphobic bullying in Catholic Schools.

My problems start with the title. I don't like the ambiguity, which I suspect of being deliberate; and this is a recurrent theme in the way the document reads throughout. Made in God's Image is true of all humanity; however, there is a strong propaganda message put out by the LGBT lobby that people who identify as LGBT are 'made that way.' The risk is that this title is interpreted as supporting that (at the very least unproven) claim, and further, claiming that it is God who has made them 'that way,' and further still, that this is therefore a morally positive state.

However, Catholic teaching is different. The CCC states that the psychological genesis of such aberrant desires is largely unexplained, but that homosexuality is a state which inclines people towards acts of grave depravity,  which are intrinsically disordered (CCC § 2357). What this document, here and throughout, steadfastly ignores is Catholic moral teaching, and Catholic teaching on the Fall and Original Sin, with resulting concupiscence.

And that problem recurs throughout the document, which uses the language of Stonewall and other LGBT lobbyists throughout, and completely uncritically. Anyone familiar with Orwell will know how that works: those who would control what we think always strive to control what language we are allowed to use.

It is hard to pin down more precisely where this document offends, precisely because of the ambiguity throughout. For example, it states:

Catholic teaching on homosexuality is not founded on, and can never be used to justify ‘homophobic’ attitudes. 

A lot depends on what is meant by 'homophobic' attitudes. I am sure that Stonewall and their allies would say that the teaching in the CCC is homophobic, and likewise the teaching of the Church on Marriage. Because their propaganda has so saturated society that a slogan like 'equal marriage' is widely unchallenged, it is problematic for Catholic schools to anathematise 'homophobic' attitudes without some definition of the Catholic, as opposed to dominant secular, understanding of these words. Yet nowhere does this document offer such a definition.

The document also abounds in inherent contradictions:  for example, it quotes the CDF:

‘The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductional reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but has challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as heterosexual or homosexual and insists that every person has a fundamental identity: a creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.’ 

However, it also repeatedly and unquestioningly uses language such as 'gay people' and 'a gay pupil' and so on. This reification of 'gay' as being a valid category of human person is deeply problematic and assumes an anthropology completely at odds with a Catholic understanding.

The document also states: 

Sexual identity is a constituent part of self-understanding – it is not chosen in the same sense that a sporting allegiance, group belonging or hobby is, nor is it temporary like delayed puberty might be.

This is presented as true.  But there is no reference to support these claims: they are simply part of the LGBT propaganda that has been swallowed whole by the authors of the report. 

And so it goes on.

And then there are the lesson plans. Reading these through, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that indicates what the Church teaches about chastity, marriage or sexuality. Any pupil subjected to them would be left with the very clear understanding that any querying of, let alone objection to, homosexual or bisexual behaviour is prejudiced and bullying.

Joseph Shaw has pointed out some other interesting issues: including, inter alia, the way in which this accepting, non-bullying document is not accepting of, and indeed could be used to support the bullying of, those who hold to Catholic teaching about human sexuality.

All in all this is a lamentable document, and would seriously call into question the credentials of the CES - were it not that any informed Catholic in this country already has a clear understanding of how compromised the CES is already... 

Let us hope and pray that some of our courageous and orthodox bishops recognise the need to denounce this as unfit for circulation to our Catholic schools.

And pray.


UPDATE: and see here for the Stonewall link and here for the link to lgbtyouthScotland. There are serious questions about unacknowledged use of their material...


UPDATE 2: It seems that this post is being 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.

Savage

Wendy Savage has given an interview to the Mail On Sunday that deserves some comment.

Professor Savage said: ‘Because of this sort of anxiety [ie that women may choose to abort female children] some places won’t tell the woman the sex of the foetus, which is outrageous. It’s her body and her foetus, so she should have that information... If a woman does not want to have a foetus who is one sex or the other, forcing her [to go through with the pregnancy] is not going to be good for the eventual child, and it’s not going to be good for [the mother’s] mental health.’

There is a lot that is wrong here. Firstly, let's look at the use of the possessive pronoun, 'her.' Savage refers to 'her body' and 'her foetus' as though the word has the same meaning in both cases. But it clearly doesn't. Consider 'her body' and 'her daughter.' Clearly the implications are different: in the first case, 'her' signifies identity, agency and autonomy; in the second, a complex web of relationships and responsibilities. To say it is 'her foetus' is true in the second, not in the first, sense.

Secondly, she appears to be arguing that 'this sort of anxiety' is unfounded  and therefore the response 'is outrageous' and then immediately afterwards, arguing that women should be able to do precisely what she claims is unfounded. 

Thirdly, the use of the word 'forcing' is particularly loaded. What she opposes is not the use of force; rather it is the law preventing the use of force against the unborn child. To talk of allowing a natural process to proceed as 'forcing' is intellectually dishonest.

Fourthly, her claim that allowing the pregnancy to proceed to full term in such circumstances 'is not going to be good for the eventual child' is particularly problematic. 'Eventual' is another lie: the child is already present. And there is no evidence to suggest that if a woman who originally wanted a boy then has a girl, the girl suffers any adverse effect from that. Whereas abortion, of course, is certainly not going to be good for the child.

Fifthly, her claim re the mother's mental health is without any foundation whatsoever.

She has previously signed a letter claiming sex-selective abortion is ‘not gender discrimination’ as that term ‘applies only to living people’.

That is just silly. It is a classic 'No true Scotsman' fallacy. It is no argument at all to define terms in such a way that you do not have to address the substantial issues.

Speaking today in a personal capacity, Prof Savage also insisted a woman should have the legal right to demand an abortion at any stage of pregnancy, saying: ‘It is the woman’s right to decide.'  ‘It’s her body. She is the one taking the risks.'

Again, Savage departs from the truth. It is not the woman's body that is most germane here, but the body of her unborn child - a completely separate, even if completely dependent, human being.

‘The foetus is a potential human life at that stage [in the womb]; it is not an actual human life... I think you’ve got to concentrate on the [rights of the] woman.’

And this is simply untrue. It is demonstrably alive, and it is demonstrably human. We have arrived at the post-truth world where facts count for nothing at this stage in her argument.

Her problem, of course, is that she needs to justify abortion, as she has performed so many in her career; it would take huge courage and honesty to face the truth about that. And that problem is compounded by the fact that there is no sound justification for abortion on this scale (or on any scale, of course).

Pray for her.

An Inclusive Church?

One of the truths of modern life that seems completely unquestionable is that we should always be (or at the very least, strive to be) inclusive. Especially the Church.

I think this bears examining. 

And especially for the Church.

For nowhere in the Gospel do I hear Our Lord preaching that inclusion is a virtue. And indeed, time and again, we read of him selecting people, and thereby, of course, excluding others.

This struck me particularly as I was reflecting on the Transfiguration. Christ had chosen 72 (to the exclusion of many others, doubtless). He chose 12 men (excluding all women and many other men). And then He chose Peter, James and John to ascend the mountain and witness the Transfiguration.  What did the other apostles make of that? They were a querulous bunch, so I bet they had something to say about it...

And whenever He talks of His return in glory, He talks of separating out: sheep from goats, those who clothed, fed and visited Him from those who did not, and so on.

And yet this drive for inclusion seems to dictate so much that has changed in the Church: the removal of the altar rails, the opening up of the sanctuary to all and sundry, girl altar servers, blessings at the altar steps for those not receiving (when all are blessed at the end of Mass), the Sign of Peace ritual, lay people reading, the bidding prayers, the choir that anyone can join (whether they can hold a tune or not) and which therefore cannot attempt serious music, and now, the reception of communion by those living in a public state of sin.

I think much of this is misguided, though well-intentioned, because it is driven by a secular standard and not by the example or teaching of Our Lord or the traditions of the Church.

Traditionally, Catholics excluded others from their worship (even catechumens had to leave before the Canon of the Mass). We excluded women from the Sanctuary during worship (with the symbolic exception of the Nuptial Mass). And so on...

'But... but... you can't want to exclude people!'

My point is, inclusion and exclusion are a particular frame we put around certain social situations. 

In some cases it may be a relevant frame, but in others it may not be. 

But insofar as I would argue for the exclusion of (say) public sinners from Holy Communion, it is because a higher set of values comes into play: ones that are rooted in the Gospel - values such as charity, and truth.