A War on Reality (3)

In the first two posts of this series, I suggested that our society's view of human sexuality, as reflected in the trans and homosexual worldviews, is profoundly counter-factual. Further, people accept (or at least acquiesce to) the trans illogicalities because they have previously accepted the homosexual assumptions and claims. 

Looking at our culture as a whole, there are many reasons that has happened: the influence of the universities and their sex research departments (largely filled with abnormal people - that is, people who are not normal in their sexual appetites and behaviours); the complicity of many heterosexual people because they want to feel better about their own sexual sins; the onslaught of pornography enabled by the internet; the malign strategies of the Frankfurt School and the Yogyakarta gathering, and so on.

But I am particularly interested in the Catholic collapse. We are called to be the salt and the light, a sign of contradiction: and yet we host LGBTQ+ Masses, teach our children that gay is good and 'made in the image of God,' and are called to 'enlarge our tent' to include... well everyone, regardless of their adherence to the Gospel.

How did this come about?

Again, it is a complex picture. We seem to have lost our understanding of our Faith, our conviction that we should share it with the world, and our confidence to do so.

These are all interlinked, but I think it is our understanding that is most fundamental. And in particular our understanding of sin.

I am told that in the bad old days (certainly before my memories begin in the 60s) priests used to preach sermons about hell fire and sin all the time, and give an unbalanced and fearful account of the Faith to the people. That, if it were indeed the case, is clearly wrong. But the reaction has been an over-reaction: we never hear about sin or hell now. Generations of children have been raised with no understanding of this: yet it was clearly very much alive to Our Lord's mind.

And its lack leads to serious theological problems.

In particular, I am thinking here about the doctrine of Original Sin, and the seriousness of personal sin.

To take Original Sin first. I ask you consider when you last heard a sermon that even referenced Original Sin. Yes, it can be a bit tricky to understand and to explain, but it is fundamental to our understanding of our situation, and the redemption that Christ achieved for us. Without it, the whole Catholic metaphysic falls apart. See Romans 5, and the Catechism §385 ff.

In particular, it is a failure to understand Original Sin and its very real consequences, that leads people to believe rubbish such as that 'gay people are born that way in the image of God.' I say rubbish, because it is. By that logic, we would not treat children born with life-threatening conditions, because they 'are born that way in the image of God.' Further, the evidence suggests that 'born that way' is not true either. 

But we shy away from the idea of Original Sin, as it is countercultural and uncomfortable.  And for the same reasons, we minimise the gravity of personal sin. Rather than recognise that a mortal sin is literally that, death to our soul, worthy of eternal punishment, we prefer to think of it as a minor failing, and that the worst thing we could possibly do is feel guilty about it. 

There are several causes of that, I think. One is liturgical: the shift from the transcendence of the traditional liturgy to the immanence of the new; Our Lord is our friend now, and friends overlook each others' failings...   Again, the logic is poor: Our Lord is indeed our friend, but he is also Our Lord! (and notice the preference for using the Holy Name rather than a title, such as Our Lord) And further, He is too good a friend to overlook our failings, for that is not true friendship.

I am not arguing against immanence, of course: the Word became flesh, and dwelt amongst us. Ours is an incarnational Faith. But as ever, heresy is found in stressing one part of the truth to the detriment of another; and that is the risk of 'We are the Easter people.'  We are indeed; but only if we are also the Good Friday people: we are explicitly commanded to take up our cross if we would follow Him. And in the imitation of Christ, we are bound to treat sin, death and judgement as seriously as He does.

Again, I ask you to reflect: when did you hear of the Four Last Things from the pulpit (or ambo as I suppose I am meant to say nowadays...); or the vital (quite literally) importance of the Sacrament of Confession? How dare we traipse up to Holy Communion, week after week, without first confessing our sins and gaining sacramental absolution? Yet that is the pattern for the vast majority of practicing Catholics. That is why I think the balance has tipped too far towards immanence.

And then there's the Devil.

How often do you hear him referred to?  And yet Our Lord was very clear about him, and was clearly engaged in a battle with him. If he does not figure in our understanding of reality, then we are deluded.  Our Lord refers to him as the Prince of this World (eg in John 14:30). One of the results of Adam's sin is to give him real power - a power that accounts for much of the evil in the world; which, along with concupiscence, helps us to understand how we may have disorders in our inclinations that are not wholly our fault.

But we don't like to think about, and still less talk about, the Devil.

Yet that is why I have called this series of posts A War on Reality, for it is the Devil's war. And I will write more on that aspect in the next post in this series. 

A War on Reality (2)

In the first post in this series, I raised the question of how we got to a situation when intelligent people of good will could subscribe to the mantra Trans women are women, particularly when 'transwomen' includes a very diverse range of people, from those deserving our sympathy, to those deserving to be locked up.

One of the ironies of this situation is that many of those who are pushing back against this are people who identify as feminists, and particularly as lesbian or gay. For, amongst other things, the trans activists' manifesto undermines what it means to be a woman, what it means to be same-sex attracted, and so on.

I say this is an irony, because it seems to me that the trans activists have followed precisely the same path as the Pride movement before them.

The Pride movement has been remarkably successful in changing social attitudes to same-sex attraction, and it has done so by promoting untruths (not least with skilful sloganeering), by institutional capture, by using salami slice tactics, and by exploiting public sympathy for atypical (but appealing) examples.

Few people now will dare to dispute the idea that some people are 'born gay.' But there is no evidence to support this claim: there is no gay gene. There may be a slight genetic disposition in some individuals, but how genes are expressed is very much a result of environment. As far as patterns of sexual attraction are concerned, nurture (in the broadest sense) is a much larger factor than nature.

Few people now will dare to acknowledge that same-sex attraction is a disorder. Yet it was in the DSM (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) until relatively recently, and was removed, not because of any advances in scientific or medical knowledge, but as a result of a political campaign. It is certainly clear that active male homosexuals have worse physical and psychological health outcomes on a number of measures: this is not healthy behaviour. Yet to raise such issues is to be met with howls of 'homophobia' just as surely as questioning the appropriateness of a (trans-identifying) man winning a female sports competition will be greeted by cries of 'transphobia.'

Further, there is a massive conflation of meanings hidden under the word 'gay.' Activists love this ambiguity. Thus they claim that it was a crime to 'be gay' until recently, which is simply not true. Certain actions were criminal, but not same sex attraction itself. But the elision is deliberate, both because it serves the purpose of creating a victim-myth, and also it implicitly denies the possibility of being same-sex attracted and also chaste. 

As a result of this, few people will dare to point out that adopting a gay identity and lifestyle is in fact a choice. There are other possible responses to same sex attraction.

But does any of this matter? you may wonder.  Isn't it kinder not to raise these issues? After all, what business is it of ours what people do in their bedrooms?

Well yes, it does matter. For a start, any research into helping, or worse still attempts to help, people to free themselves from unwanted same sex attraction is entirely beyond the pale. The rhetoric around 'conversion therapy' is every bit as vehement as that around 'trans rights.' It may well be true that some people have been hurt by attempts at helping them in this way. But that is true of all therapies as they develop. We do not abandon the search for cancer therapies merely because initial trials show that some approaches risk doing more harm than good: we seek to learn from the trials and improve the therapies.  No, the reason for the hostility to such a therapeutic approach is two-fold: one is that it acknowledges that (at least) unwanted same sex attraction is a disorder that may be capable of being cured; and the second is a fear that an effective therapy may indeed be found. But in the current climate that is almost unthinkable.

Further, children are taught that they 'have a sexuality' and must be 'true to themselves;' with the real - and often realised - risk that a passing phase, such as having a crush on someone of the same sex, means that they believe that they are homosexual. And such a belief risks becoming self-fulfilling.  It is no coincidence that so many homosexuals report early sexual liaisons with people of the same sex; and it is no coincidence, either, that those promoting homosexuality so often campaign to reduce the age of consent; and that a staple of homo-erotic literature (until they cleaned up their act in the pursuit of their political agenda - see Kirk & Madsen After the Ball for details) was the seduction of boys by homosexual men.

Moreover, the kind approach to this issue laid the foundations for the kind approach to the trans issue: with the result that thousands of young women have now had unnecessary double mastectomies, for example. How kind is that?

As to what business is it of ours?... it is clear that private behaviour affects public behaviour, and that those who want rights in private today, want to be proselytising for them tomorrow.  It is also clear that caritas and veritas are never truly opposed. 

It results in lies being embedded in the law and society, such as the lie of equal marriage; when it is clear there is no real equivalence between a homosexual pairing, and the marriage of a man and a woman that will give rise to a family. These two things are different in kind, and to pretend that they are not is dishonest, and undermines our ability to understand what marriage truly is.

And all of this proceeds by way of salami slicing.  I remember the outrage at Section 28 in the 1980s.  It was alleged to be homophobic, as it implied that people might want to promote homosexuality in schools, which was, we were told, a complete lie.  Fast forward 30 years, and we see books promoting homosexuality in our schools.  And so on.

For the curious, who wish to know more about this, see The Global Sexual Revolution, by Gabriele Kuby, and Making Gay OK, by Robert Reilly, as starting points.

But I don't want to stop my analysis there: my agenda is not to blame same-sex attracted people. Rather, I think we need to look in the mirror, and that will be the subject of my next post in this series.

A War on Reality (1)

I can't remember when I first heard that some people were aiming to 'smash heteronormativity.'  Good luck with that one, I thought.  Because heterosexuality is normal. Simply on a statistical basis, there is no arguing with that reality.

How wrong I was! It turns out that something being obviously, demonstrably, objectively true is no defence against the onslaught of ideology. Orwell is increasingly cited these days, and with good reason.

We now live in a society where serious and intelligent people expect us to believe the mantra Transwomen are women. By transwomen, they mean men, of course; the only absolutely necessary criterion for being a trans woman is to have been born male. This is absolutely on a par with Orwell's War is peace etc.

How did we get here?  I think it is a complex story, going back to the gay pride movement, the 'sexual liberation' of the 60s, the Catholic reaction to Humanae Vitae in 1968; and beyond that, to the Lambeth Conference of 1930; and beyond that, to that incident of the fruit in the Garden of Eden.  I will explore some of these links and causalities in future posts.

But first, I wish to explore the current confusion.  For the situation is confusing, and that is, I believe, deliberate. 

The label trans is being used, quite deliberately, to conflate a number of different groups of people; in order that our sympathy for one group may provide a cover for many others.

The first group is those people who suffer from severe dysphoria. John, later Jan, Morris was a classic example of this.  It is by no means clear that the change from John to Jan provided much relief for the dysphoria, either in this case or in other similar ones. But one can only sympathise with people so profoundly disoriented from the reality of who they are.

The trouble (for hard cases make bad law...) is that the accommodations extended to them are also used by others in a number of ways.

Transvestites, that is, men who get sexually aroused by dressing as women, are now counted as trans; some seem to delight in taking photos of themselves in women's facilities, sometimes performing obscene acts, and sharing them on social media. Some drag artists also seem to fit this category; and disturbingly are given access to young children, whose natural boundaries of normality and decency are eroded, placing them at risk of grooming. 

Some narcissists also find that claiming a trans identity gives them power over women - forcing them to [pretend to] recognise them as women - even whilst they remain bearded men.

Some malign men, who for reasons that may include exploitation or voyeurism, adopt the trans identity in order to gain access to vulnerable women in places that are meant to be safe, such as women's refuges.

Some men prosecuted for offences against women suddenly identify as women so that they can be placed in the women's estate in the prison system.  Some are even brazen enough to identify as men again on release.

Some young men who are only moderately good at sport suddenly discover their true identity as women, and (would could predict this?) subsequently win prizes and medals at the expense of female athletes; whilst also degrading them by forcing them to pretend that they see this as fair, and also sharing their changing facilities etc.

Some influencers, (and behind them some doctors and pharmacists who stand to make substantial profits) have created a whole social trend amongst vulnerable children; particularly, it seems, girls with other problems, such as autism. Persuaded that their anxieties as they approach adolescence will be alleviated by becoming boys, they bind their breasts, risking lasting damage, and take puberty blocking drugs, again risking lasting damage. They are 'love-bombed' and taught to mistrust their parents or anyone else who suggests that this might not be the magic panacea. And the evidence is that once on puberty blockers, most go on to irreversible surgery, resulting in sterility and a lifelong dependency on drugs; whereas those who are the subject of watchful waiting, largely recover from their dysphoria (real or imagined) as they grow up.

And then there are younger children, whose parents 'recognise' that they are trans. Whether this is Munchausen's by proxy, or driven by some other pathology, it has been well said that if your cat is vegetarian, we know who is making the choices...

And my point is that we are expected to categorise all of these as 'trans', and to affirm that Trans women are women - and that many seemingly intelligent and well-intentioned people go along with this. And anyone who questions this extraordinary and counter-factual ideology, (and particularly any woman who does so, which is telling...) risks the wrath of the mob, being denounced to their employers and the police, and having their livelihoods threatened. 

For the social justice warriors who campaign for inclusion, tolerance, freedom from shame,  and diversity are extremely intolerant of anyone who diverges from their self-righteous ideology, and will seek to shame and exclude them until they comply. 

But my question is, how did we get here?  And to that I shall turn in future posts.

Oxymorons

I have long been incensed at the effrontery of 'Catholics for Choice.' The 'choice' for which they campaign, of course, is the choice to kill the unborn.  To call themselves Catholics whilst proclaiming this Satanic doctrine is an oxymoron of the highest order. Abortion is a sin of the world, the flesh, and the Devil.

I was reminded of this when I learned of Catholic Schools that are proclaiming themselves 'Stonewall Schools.' Whilst Stonewall presents as an organisation that aims to promote equality and address bullying, its underlying philosophy, ethos and anthropology are all contrary to Catholic beliefs.

That reality comes to the surface from time to time, revealing Stonewall’s profound antipathy for Catholicism.  Cardinal O’Brien was awarded the title ‘bigot of the year’ by Stonewall, for standing up for Catholic teaching about marriage; and Stonewall was behind the legislation on adoption that forced the closure of Catholic adoption agencies.

The fundamental point of disagreement, of course, is Stonewall’s belief that homosexual and other non-procreative sexual behaviour is a positive good, and their mission to normalise and gain acceptance for such behaviour. That stands in stark contrast to the Church’s teaching, founded on the words of Christ Himself, that human sex is only good in marriage, when it expresses the nuptial union of a man and a woman, in love and open to life.

That then leads to very different approaches to, for example, the practical issue of education to prevent bullying. Stonewall’s approach is to teach children that 'gay children' (for example) should not be bullied because 'gay' is natural and good.

The Church, of course, teaches that nobody should be bullied, whether we approve of their behaviour or not, as we are all made in the image of God, and none of us is free from fault or defect, due to Original Sin.

So Stonewall’s anti-bullying work is at the service of their larger agenda, which is in contradiction to the Gospel and the teaching of the Church. The construction and promotion of the notion of a ‘gay person’ as an identity is philosophically and anthropologically unsound, and leads children (and indeed adults, including teachers) into error.  That error is compounded with the assumption that ‘being gay’ (ie subject to homosexual desires) can only find authentic expression in the indulgence of such desires. That error then leads people into sin and depravity.

 It is for that reason that it is incompatible for a School to be both Catholic and a ‘Stonewall School.’ And it is for that reason that I am delighted that the lamentable CES document 'Made in God's Image' is being quietly re-written. Let us hope that the next version is Catholic, not oxymoronic.

And let us hope and pray that the relevant bishops have a quiet word with the heads of the 'Stonewall Schools' and put them back on the straight and narrow; for the broad and popular Stonewall path leads somewhere quite different.

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...

Praise where it's due...

I have been following the reaction to Jacob Rees-Mogg's television interview, in which he declared for the teaching of the Church on two of the hot-button issues of the day, with some interest.

Initially, some of us were hugely enthusiastic: here was a Catholic politician who did not duck the issues, and had the courage to say things that he knew were likely to be used against him, in a context in which he was never going to get a fair hearing. That was so refreshing after years of hearing 'I'm a Catholic, but...' from assorted politicians,  and the tactical silence, ambiguity, or downright apostasy from many Catholic prelates and priests.

But then came the criticisms: his arguments were weak, in some cases mistaken, and ceded too much ground, and so on.

I think both responses are appropriate, in the right balance. First and foremost, I think, we should applaud his big-heartedness: his sheer courage in saying what could well end his political career, and what he knew would open him up to the kind of shameless pillorying, mocking and misrepresentation that he has already begun to experience, and which I predict will not abate as long as he is in the public eye. That takes guts, and guts are admirable. His heart is in the right place, it seems, and it is our hearts - what we love - that finally determine who we are and how we will be judged. If he loves Christ and Christ's teaching, then he is on the road to salvation.

However, that does not mean that we should not look at the substance of what he said, and perhaps lament his muddle-headedness (though read on - I have more to say in mitigation, as it were, of this charge).  Joseph Shaw makes a number of valid points in his pieces on the subject, here and here.

However, and this is a big however, unless one has been in the hot seat in a television studio, on live tv and with hostile interviewers, one may not fully understand the situation in which he found himself.

I have been involved with the media training of many academics, over many years. Even on their own topics, in which they are experts, and in a training session that is not actually live, they often talk rubbish or explain their own research inadequately and at times incorrectly, when they are first quizzed by an interviewer who is only moderately challenging.

If the interviewer then leads them off-piste, as it were, onto a broader topic about higher education - something they know a great deal about, but for which they are not so prepared - they frequently talk even greater quantities of rubbish. And these are intelligent experts, used to teaching demanding undergraduates.

Simply put, there is something about the different context and the pressures of a live interview, that make it hard to marshal one's thoughts and express them coherently and accurately in live-time.  In fact, they are trained not to answer questions that are not directly related to their own research. But that is not an option that was open to Rees-Mogg: a politician who does that looks evasive, and on these subjects, the conclusion will be drawn that he holds the views deemed unpalatable but is too scared to say so (as in the Tim Farron affair).

So I think, firstly that Rees-Mogg was courageous in his stance; secondly that some of what he said was wrong; but thirdly that while we should of course seek to promote a better understanding, we should not blame him for that. I notice that on Facebook, a number of intelligent Catholics are trying to find better answers to the questions he faced, and struggling to do so - and that without being subject to all the pressures he was under.

Say a prayer for him, and for all who have the courage to stand up for the Faith in the public sphere: it takes courage and is likely to be thankless in this world; so pray they have the perseverance to ensure that it is rewarded in the next.

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.

On 'gay' and language policing

I had an interesting conversation with our youngest, Dominique, at breakfast this morning. She is in her final term at school (what I, in my unreconstructed fashion, think of as the Upper Sixth).

I asked her about the current use of the word gay. She was very clear that it has two quite distinct meanings in her school. The older meaning, of happy and cheerful, is not current. It is used both to mean homosexual and also something between rubbish and stupid: an all-purpose pejorative term. And which is meant is always quite clear from the context.

The latter use has no connotation of anything to do with homosexuality. So I asked if it would be wrong for someone using that term to be had up for homophobic bullying. She hemmed and hawed a bit at that. The point is that although the word is not used with that connotation, its power as a pejorative comes from the fact that it is known to be a forbidden word; and it is known that it is a forbidden word because of its potential use as a  bullying term.

Indeed, she said, it is the school banging on about it that gives the term its allure. It's precisely because it is a forbidden word that it is an appealing one.

That makes perfect sense to me.

It also seems to me that if a school is to discipline someone for using the term gay as a pejorative, the charge should not really be one of homophobia, as that is not the intention. The intention, in so far as it is malign, is to rebel against authority.

Language, of course, changes meaning over time. If one considers the word queer, one can see that. It started by meaning odd, was then applied as a discreet way of referring to homosexuals, then became an extremely offensive way of referring to them, and has since been reclaimed by at least some and become the way they prefer to describe themselves.

It is not a word I would use myself in that context; but in that word context lies another part of the complexity of language.

Which brings me to the CES document, Made in God's Image.  Here we read:

Homophobic language
This could be the casual derogatory use of the word ‘gay’ to mean something negative or the use of explicit homophobic terms.
For example: • ‘that’s so gay’, or ‘you’re so gay’; ‘those trainers are so gay’
• someone calling another student a ‘dyke’ or ‘faggot’ 

I would suggest that these are two entirely different cases. Dyke or faggot are currently both clearly offensive and derogatory terms, and it is hard to conceive of an innocent use of them, unless it is the mere repetition of them by a younger child who has heard them as insulting words but does not know what they mean (and that is always a possibility that adults should be alive to, before coming down too heavily: children often learn words in that way from other children - getting the intent and general pejorative meaning, without knowing a specific meaning).

But the meaning of gay seems to be shifting again; it is quite probable that many children use it with no homophobic intent. What then is to be done?

The thought-police mentality of the authors of Made in God's Image are in no doubt: its use is homophobic bullying. But to lay such a charge against children who may be wholly innocent, or even those who use it as a show of bravado, is an injustice. 

Further, given that it may frequently be used with no homophobic intent, is it helpful to sensitise people to it, so that homosexual people will feel attacked every time they hear it used in that way?  I worry about approaches that end up making people feel like victims unnecessarily. 

Of course, the argument would be that they want to eradicate such language; but my daughter, at least, thinks that this approach is precisely what lends it potency. And there is a lesson to be learned from Canute: like it or not, language is not subject to control.  I have a lot of sympathy for the French Academy, and their attempt to maintain certain standards through a prescriptive approach to dictionary-making. But in England, we have always tended towards a descriptive approach, and that may be wiser.  And I notice that the online Urban Dictionary gives three distinct definitions of gay...

And always, I come back to Orwell, and his insights into the use of language control to control the thoughts that people are allowed to think.  And I ask myself, are the CES entirely ignorant of the complexities of the issues that they have waded into? Or do they have an agenda, and if so, what is it?

Oh, and by the way, who paid?...

One more thing...

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.

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.

Loving them to death?...

In an article in The Federalist, it is argued that the very high rate of suicide amongst those who self-identify as transgender is not due to discrimination, bigotry and hatred, as the accepted wisdom has it. Daniel Payne, the writer of the article, points to the fact that the suicide rate amongst black people in America, who suffer higher levels of discrimination, bigotry and hatred than white people, remains lower than the suicide rate for white people.

That resonates with the fact that suicide rates for homosexual people remains stubbornly high in the most liberal societies that are most celebratory of homosexuality. So Payne searches for another explanation, and his hypothesis is that it is because 'transgenderism is a deleterious psychological affliction,' and therefore 'it is wholly unsurprising to find higher rates of suicide among that class of people,' since 'Mental illness ... is very clearly a motivating factor in a great many suicides: the rate of successful suicide is extremely correlative with conditions of mental illness.'

That sounds convincing, and may be the case; but there are other possibilities. One that springs to mind is the phenomenon of peer-group suicide contagion. There seems to be significant evidence (see, for example, here) that those exposed to suicide by others, particularly those who they see as 'like them' are more likely to attempt suicide than those not exposed. So the understandable tendency of those with sexual dysphoria to associate with others who also experience it could also explain some of the high rates of suicide. 

Clearly, what would be valuable is serious research into this area: many lives are being lost. But the likelihood of serious research seems to me to be low. The issue has been so politicised, and not least in academia, that it is nearly impossible to see how, or by whom, such research could be undertaken. Underlying that is the fact that those who study and research gender issues at universities are particularly interested in the topic for a reason - typically their own gender dysphoria.  That is why the whole push from the academy has been to push for theories that normalise and legitimise behaviour and lifestyles that until very recently were widely seen as deviant and perverse.

It is now seen as 'unloving' or more typically, 'hate-crime' even to raise such questions. Rather the 'enlightened' approach is to accept people as they are. But if such acceptance actually results in research not being undertaken that might save lives of people in extreme distress, are we not loving them to death?...

Who is the rapist?

In our brave new world, in which the only criterion of morality, with regards to sex, seems to be mutual consent, with a nod in the direction of protecting children given by the law on the age of consent, we find some puzzling anomalies.

The Irish case, in which a boy with learning difficulties is being prosecuted for statutory rape of a girl of his own age (both 16 - the age of consent being 17 in that jurisdiction) highlights these. 

Why is it the boy who is deemed the rapist? Because the girl has parents who complained to the Gardai, whereas the boy is in care?

Likewise, we repeatedly hear of cases in which both parties were incapable of proper consent through drink or drugs. Is that mutual rape? If not, why not? But typically, it will be the man who is deemed the rapist. But surely that is a hangover from those dark days when we thought there was some difference between the sexes...

The current moral consensus (if such it be) is clearly not working. Having abandoned all other criteria, in our collective hedonistic desire to justify whatever we feel like doing, we find ourselves exposed to base forces that we do not know how to deal with.

And notice how that came about. People always decry 'slippery slope' or 'thin  end of the wedge' arguments. But the progression is fairly clear. Firstly, contraception which had always been attempted by the depraved, but always reviled by the majority, was deemed acceptable within marriage. 

So the separation of sex and reproduction was begun. That has gathered pace, with abortion its natural consequence. That then, of course, opened the door to all sorts of other aberrant sex, including between people of the same sex, multiple partners, and so on.

But always in the name of love, of course. 'But if two people love each other...' was always the plea. But now even that pretence has gone. What's love got to do with it? If two (or fewer, or more) people desire physical gratification is all that remains: as long as there is consent, all is good.

And the results: physical sickness (soaring STDs, AIDs etc), mental sickness (it is no secret that those with aberrant sexual lifestyles are disproportionately high users of mental health services, and have high suicide rates), huge social harm, with broken families now so common that we have a growing and potentially catastrophic social problem on our hands, as we struggle to raise a civilised younger generation; and of course, worst of all, the carnage of the abortion industry, leading also to the barbarity of human embryo experimentation, the butchery of IVF pregnancy reductions, and the commodification of human life.

As we approach Passiontide, let us redouble our prayer, our almsgiving, and our sacrifices: for that is the only way some devils can be driven out.

The Flight from Reality

In Christopher West's introductory book on Saint John Paul II's Theology of the Body there is a memorable sentence, which I shall have to quote from memory, as one of the children (Bernie, I think) has the book at present. It says something like: 'The argument about abortion is not an argument about human rights, it is an argument about the meaning of sex: nobody arguing for abortion is arguing because they want the right to kill their offspring, but because they want to have sex free of any consequences.'

That, of course, is why contraception is so closely related to abortion; and why pro-life organisations that don't recognise that relationship are incoherent.

That is also why there is a connection between the LGBTQ+ movement and abortion.

That is why gender theory had to be made up.

Because the reality is that sex is about bonding and babies; that is an empirically verifiable fact. So in order to justify other uses of sex, and the ways in which the natural consequences of sex can be thwarted, elaborate theories have to be developed, to flee that reality.

The role of academia in this is truly shameful. Not only the social scientists, who have nearly all long since abandoned any notion of truth, but also the medics, whose training is rather more rooted in reality, have not only colluded with, but often led, the pseudo-intellectual justification of evil.

So we have gender theory, to deny the biological reality of the basic division of human kind into male and female, and the sexual complementarity inherent in that. 

We have theories that deny the humanity of the unborn human child.

We have theories that see personal autonomy as the greatest human good.

We have theories that suggest that sex outside of marriage is a good; or that contraceptive sex is good.

We have theories that suggest that chastity is harmful.

We have theories that suggest that children do not need both their parents.

We have theories that suggest that it is good to create human beings in petri dishes.

We have a proliferation of theories, all of which are a flight from reality. As T S Eliot wrote, Humankind cannot bear very much reality,' - especially when it gets in between the individual and his desires.  So we construct these elaborate tissues of lies, which we know in our heart to be lies, in order to justify ourselves in our sin.

And we know who is the father of lies...

Some questions

At Brentwood Cathedral they are celebrating a series of Masses for the Year of Mercy, each with a particular emphasis on welcoming particular groups who feel excluded. It is an odd grouping...

I was particularly struck by the mass Welcoming LGBT men and women and their families, and feel it begs several questions. However, it is always hard to question such initiatives. For the first thing those who wish to defend them will tend to say is: 'What about Our Lord? (though they are more likely to use His name than that title), He ate with publicans and sinners!'  That is seen as the unanswerable answer. But the cases are not necessarily alike. 

For, in the first instance, Our Lord was not afraid to call sin by its name, and to call sinners to repentance: indeed that is one of the ways in which He described His mission. So one question is, will those organising this Mass do either of those things?

Moreover, the idea that Our Lord was 'inclusive' is somewhat simplistic. For the Transfiguration he not only excluded the crowds, but even nine of the apostles. What is more relevant here, is that for His first Mass, at the Last Supper, only the initiates, the apostles, were invited.  For centuries, the Church reflected that exclusivity by making a distinction between the first half of the Mass, to which those wishing to join the Church were admitted, and the second half, to which only the baptised were admitted. 

So of course we should be prepared to offer friendship and fellowship to everyone; but that is not the same as saying that unrepentant public sinners are welcome at Mass; and particularly not to invite them (implicitly or explicitly) to receive the Blessed Sacrament.

On the Chartres pilgrimage, before communion at every Mass, there is an announcement to remind people that in order to receive communion, one must be a baptised Catholic, one must have observed the Eucharistic fast, and one must be free from Mortal Sin. So another question is whether any such clarity will be offered on this occasion.

Call me cynical, but I suspect not. Yesterday's Gospel was the parable of the Prodigal Son. People are often keen to point out that the father rushes out to greet the son, before he has even got home, showing how God comes to meet us. True enough. But that is only after the son has repented of his sins and set out on the way back to his father. The modern version of this parable would have the father joining the son in the pigsty and assuring him that eating husks was a perfectly valid lifestyle, and quite as good for him as coming home would be.

In the Year of Mercy, it would seem like a good idea to consider what the Church has traditionally taught about mercy. For example:

322. Which are the Seven Spiritual Works of Mercy?

The seven Spiritual Works of Mercy are:

1. To convert the sinner.

2. To instruct the ignorant.

3. To counsel the doubtful.

4. To comfort the sorrowful.

5. To bear wrongs patiently. 

6. To forgive injustice,  

7. To pray for the living and the dead. 

So another question that arises, is this: are numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 of this list likely to be the focus of this welcoming Mass? Or will it be, in fact, an affirmation of the LGBT identity and lifestyle?

That matters. For the affirmation of what is an objective disorder is a grave injustice, particularly to those afflicted with the disorder, not least given the reality of the personal and social construction of the LGBT identity about which I blogged, in passing, recently.

I am always struck by the phrase Gay Pride. Back when I was a boy, pride was generally discouraged in the Church, and indeed in wider society. But no more, it seems.  Which reminds me of this line in the Magnificat: He hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their heart. I think it very significant that this line refers to imagination (eg the constructed gay identity) and heart (this is not an intellectual confusion, but a mis-direction of the will).

Ministry to those afflicted with this disorder is essential. But it is essential that it be done well: that is with an orientation to the truth, as taught by the Church. For it is the Truth that will set all of us free. Anything less is, at least, a grave failure of charity, and something posing as mercy that is really something quite different.

Priorities in Basildon?

From the Newsletter of Our Lady and All Saints, Basildon (page 4):

Mass for the LGBT Community and their families in the Year of Mercy 
On Sunday 13th March, Fr Dominic will be preaching at the 6.30pm evening Mass in Brentwood Cathedral, with a particular welcome extended to those whose sexuality is lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT), and their families; everyone is very welcome to come, and to bring friends and family members. This Year of Mercy is a time to particularly welcome those who have felt excluded or rejected by the Catholic Church, and it is a sad truth that this has been the case for many within the LGBT community.

This raises a number of questions, which I will address in due course. For now, I merely add that I note on page 7 of the same newsletter:

Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament   

Please note, this is no longer taking place.

Further comment seems superfluous. 

Brain Science

I have been watching David Eagleton's series on The Brain on the BBC iPlayer with great interest. I was particularly struck by the plasticity of the brain: how we actually shape and develop our brain by the way in which we use it.

The study of brains of professed religious, who had often lived long and disciplined lives, revealed that many of their brains showed that they had developed Alzheimer's Disease: yet in life they had shown none of the symptoms of Alzheimer's.  

The effect of learning any particular discipline, whether music, free climbing or cup-stacking was extraordinary, in terms of how the brain develops as a result of repeated training, in order for the learned activity to be entirely natural, and to some extent effortless.

That underpins the classical conceptions of the virtues, of course: the habit of behaving in a particular way, which is developed by repeated as-if behaviour. That is, if I wish to develop the virtue of charity, I should repeatedly think and behave as a charitable person would do; as-if I were a charitable person. If I do that in a sustained and systematic way, I develop my brain so that such behaviour is natural to it.

That is not to down-play the role of grace, of course. It is only by being receptive to grace that I will be able to think and behave as if I were charitable in a sustained and systematic way. But it does underline the importance of a spiritual discipline if we are to grow holy brains. St Benedict knew a thing or two...

It also sheds some light on the whole debate about gender identity and sexual preferences. Whilst there may well be both genetic and environmental factors that incline an individual one way or another, there is no doubt that consistently thinking and behaving in whatever way one does is the way in which one constructs such an identity. And as with the other examples, that will then feel entirely natural.

Which is why I believe, if one accepts the evidence that aberrant sexual identities lead to poor outcomes in terms of health and happiness (and the evidence is certainly there to support that), it is not wise for society to pretend that all gender identities and expressions are equally good; for it may lead more young people than would otherwise do so to adopt, and to make real for themselves, such identities. 

Whereas a strong heteronormative education, and a strong education for chastity, are likely to help more young people to develop a healthy self-understanding and a healthy identity, leading to better outcomes for them and society. The challenge is to do that in a way that does not lead to unjust discrimination against the very small minority for whom the genetic and environmental factors are so strong that they develop aberrant identities despite this support.

Top Posts of 2015

Just as I did  a year ago, I thought it might be interesting to look back over the year and see which of my blog posts had the most hits.

And just as it was a year ago, the Blackfen Affair topped the bill. My brief post announcing that Fr Fisher Resigns from Blackfen was the most visited post, by some considerable margin.  Another two in the top 12 (who needs decimals anyway?) were on the same topic: in More on the Blackfen Saga (no 5 in the charts) I raised the question of episcopal oversight in this case; and in Telling Fr Fisher's Story (no 10 in the charts) I discussed Joseph Shaw's post and reactions to it.  The whole saga was clearly one that my readers, at any rate, were keen to follow closely.

The other issue that resulted in several highly-visited posts was the pair of letters, one from priests and one from the laity, in the run-up to the Synod, calling for fidelity to Catholic Teaching. The second most-visited post on this site over the year was A Roll of Honour, listing all those who had signed the letter from the laity. Just behind it in popularity, was the post inviting signatures In Support of Our Priests, Our families and Our Church ; the next most popular discussed Cardinal Nichols' Rebuke to the priests who had signed the original letter; and the one after that (no 6 in the charts, if you have been counting carefully [and even if you haven't]) was my post on The Bitter Pill on the Priests' Letter , which revealed the paucity of thinking of those opposed to the brave and faithful priest signatories. Again, I see it as very significant that this was a topic of such interest to my readers.

The remaining five in the top twelve dealt with different issues. Having said that,  no. 7 was also related to the Synod. In Not Wholly Convinced,  I took issue with Austen Ivereigh's claim:  Pastoral approach triumphs over doctrine at synod.

No 8 was pure self-indulgence: fisking Tina Beattie's absurd presentation of dissent as a legitimate Catholic approach to morality: Shooting Ducks in a Barrel. I mean, really... Even today, looking back, I cannot read her words without wondering what on earth she imagines she believes in - other than the magisterium of me. 

In at no 9 is A Straw God Argument, in which I discuss the idiocy of the increasingly ludicrous Stephen Fry, when he attempts to do theology. Maybe he and Tina should team up and found a new sect for narcissists.

At no 11 was one of my many posts on the issue of homosexuality, which often get a lot of hits. Making Gay Okay is a review of, and some reflections on, the book of that title. The subtitle is How Rationalizing Homosexual Behaviour is Changing Everything, and gives a clue to the comprehensiveness of the book, which is well researched and well worth reading.

The 12th most-read post was  More on ex-priests and ex-nuns as teachers, which does what it says in the title. I am always mildly surprised when a part two post has more hits than the part one to which it relates, but such is the blogosphere.

Needless to say, I don't think these are my 12 best posts; not necessarily the most important, nor the most edifying, nor the wittiest, nor the most thought-provoking, nor the most heartfelt. But who am I to judge?...

I hope all my readers have a happy and blessed 2016.