What Price Free Love?

Since the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s (yes, I know, it is more complex than that, but as a shorthand, let that suffice...) we have seen an extraordinary change in attitudes towards human sexuality.

Even the more extreme and completely unscientific idiocies we see around us (gender theory, and 'different models of family' for example) are being normalised and imposed on our children by the school system - and Catholic schools seem to be falling obediently into line on this. 

The only morality seems to be consent, and an over-simplified view of consent, at that; one which views sex as no more significant (or complex) a human activity than offering someone a cup of tea.

But the price that has to be paid is enormous. 

The liberation of women (as it has been styled) has led to the expectation that they should take regular hormonal pills. This is not just bad for them, (both physically and in terms of their ability to sustain relationships) but is having dangerous effects on the environment.

Moreover, as these pills, and other contraceptive practices, are prone to failure, abortion is required as a back-up, as Ann Furedi has made clear: 

'The 200,000 abortions that taken place in Britain every year are evidence of what you get when you raise women’s expectations of birth control, and provide both a range of contraceptive methods and safe legal abortion. ' (from this article).

And on top of this terrible price - 200,000 children a year sacrificed on the altar of Free Love - there is the societal cost. The destruction of stable family life, and the crisis of masculinity, precipitated by the collapse of committed marriage as the normative model for the raising of children, is having devastating effects, particularly on children. We should be greatly concerned about the ever-increasing number of children who are presenting with mental or psychological problems.

But it is unthinkable that any policy maker or politician will raise the question: Should we re-consider whether our approach to sex, as a society, is a contributory factor? Instead, we inculcate the young with a broken model to assuage our own guilt.

And yet, I remain convinced that sexual discipline is essential to civilisation. And that the current fashion for self-indulgence and self-justification is essentially selfish and the antithesis of love.

As Henry, in Stoppard's The Real Thing remarked: "What free love is free of is love."

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...

Because (ir)Religion

I am a little tired (and bored) of people saying 'Oh, so Because Religion!' as a rebuttal. It is cheap, thoughtless, and ignorant.

Am I supposed to defer to them, on the grounds that their personal lived experience, and their reading of the Guardian (or the Daily Mail, come to that) is real, whilst my conviction that Christ is God-made-man, and the associated philosophy built on the wisdom of centuries, is insubstantial and meaningless? It seems odd to me that anyone might expect that.

In fact, I fear that we are raising an (or another) uneducable generation, by teaching them that everything can and should be the subject of their personal 'informed' decision making.

It is made worse by the fact that most people who say Because Religion have no notion that their own philosophy, such as it is, is also based on assumptions; or indeed that they have a philosophy at all. There is frequently a naive belief in science and progress (not amongst real scientists, who are often both wise and aware of the limitations of their discipline, but in society more broadly) that does not stand a moment's scrutiny; and that is often married to an incompatible belief that everything is relative. When I ask them to name their assumptions, they are typically unable to do so.

So I discern both a paucity of thought and a staggering arrogance. It was Maslow, of all people who nailed it. We are raising, he lamented, a generation that has lost that great Jewish virtue: respect for the teacher, for the wiser man.

Whilst Isaac Newton was not the first to say it (Wikipedia tells me the idea can be traced back at least as far as Bernard of Chartres), Newton's understanding that If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants is a great insight. Yet by encouraging 'independent learners' to work everything out for themselves (in the humanities, less so in the sciences, perhaps) we are depriving them of that high vantage point and encouraging them to squirm in the mud, all the while believing that they are wiser than their forebears (and anyone contemporary who has the temerity to disagree with them) Because Science (or sometimes, Because Progress).

Faugh!

Public Morality, Social Sanctions and Virtue

The other day Mrs T posted a picture on Facebook of one of the girls (the one I call Bernie on this blog) doing some DIY.  She was cutting some metal tubing with an angle grinder: it was a dramatic picture, as there were sparks everywhere, and she was kitted up in gloves, helmet with faceguard etc. I was in the background, holding the other end of the pipe.  I (of course) was not wearing any such personal protective equipment.

Within minutes, two friends had commented on my lack of PPE; rightly, I suppose. Whilst the perspective was a little deceptive and I was not as close as I appeared, I was still too close to be completely free from any risk.  (I have blogged before about my cavalier attitude to personal, physical, risk...)

All of which prompted me to reflect on what we can and can't call people out about, and what that says about public morality and how that may be enforced by social sanctions.

For example, I think that if we had posted pictures of Bernie immodestly dressed, or of me roaring drunk, I think it would be less likely that I would have been publicly called out on it. People are wary of such moral censuring of others in such cases.

But only in some cases: when Health and Safety is at stake, we are all deemed to agree that it is acceptable to shame those who put themselves or others at risk. But criticise someone for immodest dress and you will in turn be shamed for the crime of 'slut-shaming.' Or criticise someone for any aspect of their behaviour that resulted in them becoming the victim of a crime, and you will be shamed for 'victim-blaming.' Or suggest that a woman who has chosen to have a child out of wedlock has done anything other than a heroic action, and the skies will fall in.

So reflecting on what one is allowed (and even expected) to censure, and what one is forbidden from censuring suggests an interesting analysis. For the modern liberal (if that is what it is) mindset is only liberal with regards to those things of which it doesn't strongly disapprove: the social sanction of shame is heavily invoked on those things it deems truly wrong.

And there is, for the Christian, the problem that these things and Christian beliefs and values are some way apart: how often I have heard people proclaim 'tolerance' as a Christian virtue?  Just yesterday, when I was reading at Mass, the Bidding Prayers I was given to read included one about the outcomes of the Synod, and suggested we should all pray for 'tolerance, mercy and compassion.' Mercy and compassion I recognise as 'Gospel values': but tolerance? It is not a word I associate with either the example or the teaching of Christ. Strangely, I omitted the word in reading out the prayer. I was tempted to make it 'justice, mercy and compassion,' but desisted.

But the risk is, unless we keep attentive to such things, that we adopt the same standards as the world, and if salt loses its savour...

Cupich's Folly

Of course, ++ Cupich doesn't really believe this: “If people come to a decision in good conscience then our job is to help them move forward and to respect that. The conscience is inviolable and we have to respect that when they make decisions, and I’ve always done that.”

If, for example, someone arrived at a decision 'in good conscience' to start a branch of the Ku Klux Klan in his diocese, and start lynching black people, and still presented for Holy Communion, I suspect he would have something to say about the matter. Or if I, in good conscience, were to seize the microphone from him in his Cathedral, and declare that I believed he was in grave error, and further made it clear that my conscience compelled me to do so every time he celebrated Mass publicly, then again, I suspect he would struggle to respect that decision and help me to move forward with it. 

One could push the argument further (and indeed many have done so); what about the paedophile or the rapist who has convinced himself that his behaviour is allowable in good conscience?  For the capacity for human self-deception is enormous, not least when one's mind and judgement are corrupted by habitual serious sin.

His argument, I imagine would be that one could not arrive at such decisions 'in good conscience.'  Which is reasonable enough. But that then begs the question about how one discerns (and who discerns) what decisions are made in good conscience - not least ones that fly in the face of the teaching of the Church which he has devoted his life (one assumes) to proclaiming and upholding.

What this kind of statement really means, in practice, is that the speaker respects decisions with which he does not fundamentally disagree. And it is a sorry story if an Archbishop does not fundamentally disagree with decisions to continue in sin.

Shooting Ducks in a Barrel

OK, I know I shouldn't. But this is the first time today (though I realise, that like cigarettes, it is the first Tina Beattie fisk of the day that is the hardest to give up).

Here is what the Professor says, in a comment on the Pill's rather prejudicial reporting of Edmund Adamus' reflection on the Westminster responses to the pre-Synod questionnaire.

My comments interpolated in Bold.

"Like most other Catholics I know, I respect the Church’s teaching on marriage and parenthood.  (What do you imagine she means [or even thinks she means] by 'respect' in that sentence, given what follows?)  I also know from experience that marriage and family life can induce agonies of guilt over our inevitable failures and shortcomings. However, I do not experience guilt (and that is the criterion...) over deciding in good conscience (What do you think she means by 'in good conscience' in this sentence?) to use contraception to limit the number of children we had. I do not feel ashamed of my adult children for cohabiting with partners who have enriched our lives by their friendship. (How, precisely, does the good Professor square this easy acceptance of adultery with Our Lord's very clear teaching on the subject, never mind the Church's?) I do not feel compelled to pass negative judgement on the loving relationships of my gay friends. (Note the circumlocution to avoid the real problem. It is not 'loving relationships' but 'sexual relationships' that is at issue.) I am glad that some of my divorced Catholic friends have found joy in second marriages, and I want to share the sacraments with them. (Where is the compassion for the abandoned spouses and children? How does this square with Our Lord's very clear teaching on the subject, never mind the Church's?) In other words, I’m like the vast majority of Catholics whose answers to the questionnaire have been made public. (Quite possibly so: in which case Adamus' analysis that we need better formation is spot on.)

I seek from the Church the formation I know I need most (because I am the ultimate judge, the ultimate authority on ME) – formation that has to do with love and generosity of spirit, with faithfulness and integrity, with wisdom and discretion, with prayer and discernment. (Quite a good list, actually...) The list is long, but it does not include learning to regard contraception, premarital sex and homosexuality as intrinsically evil, (Who says it should not include Catholic Moral Teaching? And on what authority?) nor does it include regarding divorced and remarried Catholics as people uniquely barred from the forgiveness offered by Christ in the sacraments. (This is either extremely ignorant or intellectually dishonest. All are offered forgiveness on the same terms: Sacramental confession, accompanied by repentance from sin, including making right what can be made right, penance, and a firm resolution of amendment.)"

All in all, a very poor apologia. I think that she should sit at Adamus' feet and seek a formation that has to do with love and generosity of spirit, with faithfulness and integrity, with wisdom and discretion, with prayer and discernment.

The Privacy Paradox

I have been musing on the fact that the adoption of the notion that 'what goes on in the bedroom is private, and solely the concern of those involved' leads inexorably to the widespread availability of pornography, public displays of sexuality, and the drive for enforced approval of aberrant sexual behaviour and a general collapse of sexual morality.

That is, perhaps, only an apparent paradox. 

It seems to me that society has a choice. We can either have agreed public rules about sexual behaviour, providing a framework within which personal privacy is maintained; or we can privatise morality, leading to a free-for-all in a public sexual market place.

The former system is one which honours marriage, recognising that society has a legitimate interest in supporting stable families and in discouraging behaviour that militates against them; the latter is the one we now have, where sex is for sale (in all manner of ways), deviant minorities both recruit and clamour for public approval, and our children, rather than being protected and prepared for their difficult task of raising stable families, are sexualised in the interests of other peoples' commercial and political desires. 

In some cases, this sexualisation is done with the best of intentions (eg those misguided people who pursue 'sex education' in the schools), but the results are catastrophic. To take just the most recent example that has hit the headlines, if the problems described in this article are only a tenth as grave as presented, this still represents a terrible human tragedy.

Sex is naturally private: it is not something that should be viewed, or shared around, or bought or sold, or paraded through the streets or the media.

Sex education should be an education in chastity, and the other moral virtues, as those are what our children need to raise stable families - and indeed to have the best chance of happy and fulfilling lives.

But to guarantee that, we need a public morality that recognises both virtue and the true nature and ends of sex: the procreative and the unitive aspects of which the Church is, and always will be, the champion.

Found it!

I have blogged before (here and here, for example) about the risks to children of their mothers having live-in lovers.

I suggested that there were two important questions to address:

• Is there a disproportionate frequency of abuse and murder of women and children by men living with women who have children by previous relationships?
• If so, is there a causative link between such patterns of relationship and abuse, or is it merely a co-factor of other determinants (eg chaotic life style, educational levels, deprivation, poverty)?

It seems that there is some research on the first of these (and it confirms my suspicions).

The research is reported in an article called Suffer the Little Children: Cohabitation and the Abuse of America's Children (here).

The source reports makes chilling reading in all their findings; but what struck me particularly is this, which I quote verbatim from the first report cited (available here): 

'Children living with their married biological parents universally had the lowest rate, whereas those living with a single parent who had a cohabiting partner in the 

household had the highest rate in all maltreatment categories. Compared to children 

living with married biological parents, those whose single parent had a live-in partner had more than 8 times the rate of maltreatment overall, over 10 times the rate of abuse, and nearly 8 times the rate of neglect.' 

Is anybody telling young women that, as they preach the doctrine that the only sexual morality they need to consider is the morality of desire and mutual consent?

This is one of the true fruits of the so-called sexual liberation: but as a society, we dare not even discuss it.

Another brother

I found that the guest post by two of my brothers recently was far more popular than my usual scribblings, so I thought I would introduce another of my brothers to my delightful and discerning readership.

This is my most highly professionally qualified brother, a senior psychiatrist.

Non Trovato writes:

I was delighted to help with the drafting of the Royal College of Psychiatrists' statement on sexual orientation.

I am proud that my early studying of the works of George Orwell has finally proved worthwhile, and would like to share some of the highlights of my contribution. 

The Royal College of Psychiatrists considers that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors. There is no evidence to go beyond this and impute any kind of choice into the origins of sexual orientation.

Note how we get over the most difficult bits early on. We could not get away with attributing sexual orientation solely to biological factors, as there is no evidence to support that hypothesis and significant evidence against it. But we undo the potential harm of that admission in the very next sentence, with a couple of techniques that I commend to your attention. 

The first is the 'there is no evidence' claim. Of course that is a lie, so is best placed early.  There is, at least, anecdotal evidence in some cases.  But we choose to discount that, and if challenged can say that by 'no evidence' we mean 'no peer-reviewed academic papers which we deem worthy of taking seriously'. That is quite a tenable position (though we use different standards later in this document, but nobody will notice that).  Moreover, 'there is no evidence' is clearly used here to deny the possibility of choice, rather than leave it hanging as an issue that is not yet sufficiently researched. Clever, eh? 

The second is the careful wording of 'choice into the origins of sexual orientation.' Of course, there are massive choices about how an individual responds to experiencing same sex attraction, but we really don't want to go there.  So without actually denying that, we knock that consideration into the long grass. 

So now  I'm sure you understand why I am particularly proud of that first paragraph! However, there are some other gems. 

The College wishes to clarify that homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association (APA) concluded there was no scientific evidence that homosexuality was a disorder and removed it from its diagnostic glossary of mental disorders. The International Classification of Diseases of the World Health Organization followed suit in 1992.

A few clever points here; we replay the no evidence trick, of course, and neglect the philosophical question of what counts as evidence with regards to an issue such as this. The fact that we classify 'eating disorders' as 'disorders' precisely because they work against what eating is, biologically, intended to accomplish is one of the unhelpful facts that we gloss over by this elegant manoeuvre.  We also slide seamlessly between the specific ('psychiatric disorder' on which we are, at least theoretically, competent to judge) to the general 'disorder', touching on another category 'mental disorder' in passing.  It was also clever to boost our credibility by citing the APA and the WHO, regardless of the fact that their policies were driven by ideology, not evidence. 

The College holds the view that lesbian, gay and bisexual people are and should be regarded as valued members of society, who have exactly similar rights and responsibilities as all other citizens. This includes equal access to healthcare, the rights and responsibilities involved in a civil partnership/marriage, the rights and responsibilities involved in procreating and bringing up children, freedom to practise a religion as a lay person or religious leader, freedom from harassment or discrimination in any sphere and a right to protection from therapies that are potentially damaging, particularly those that purport to change sexual orientation.

Another clever paragraph here.  We debated long and hard about whether we could get away with 'exactly similar' and I am glad that my view, inspired by Orwell, prevailed. Some of the more academic types were concerned that it was a nonsense, intellectually, from a scientific body, but I helped them to understand that they were rather missing the point.  The paragraph was also cleverly constructed to start with the unarguable, slip the unjustifiable in along the way, and end on a topic about which, once again, we have some professional authority to comment. You see, the tricky point here is that there is no long term evidence to support the rather improbable assumption that same-sex parenting will be exactly as good as parenting by a heterosexual couple. What evidence we have rather suggests the opposite. 

Again we debated long and hard about 'procreating' but again, my view prevailed: it is the impact of the statement that counts, not the literal meaning.  That was also the outcome of the the debate around the words 'potentially damaging.' Of course, any therapy is potentially damaging; there is risk in all areas of life.  But we wanted to make clear our disapproval of this particular type of therapy, without having to cite any evidence to support that view (and we continue in the next...) 

Leading therapy organisations across the world have published statements warning of the ineffectiveness of treatments to change sexual orientation, their potential for harm and their influence in stigmatising lesbian, gay and bisexual people.  

Again, we faced a challenge.  Evidence is hard to come by, and doesn't always indicate what we want it to, so again we glossed that by the association with reputable others line of argument, and that invaluable (and indisputable) phrase potential for harm.

There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment. However, it is eminently reasonable that the experiences of discrimination in society and possible rejection by friends, families and others (such as employers), means that some lesbian, gay and bisexual people experience a greater than expected prevalence of mental health and substance misuse problems. Lifestyle issues may be important in some gay men and lesbians, particularly with respect to higher rates of substance misuse.

Another elegant paragraph, which manages to explain away the rather tricky data that indicate that the gay lifestyle is harmful. Note the compatibility argument: a lovely piece of casuistry! Having defined homosexuality a priori as not a disorder, we can then argue that it is compatible with normal mental health. Of course, we could do the same with Bulimia if that were politically expedient. Neat, huh?  Moreover, given that a priori assumption, we can then attribute all the data that might challenge that as being the result of other factors; confident that nobody will notice either the sleight of hand or the lack of research references at this point. 

It is not the case that sexual orientation is immutable or might not vary to some extent in a person’s life. Nevertheless, sexual orientation for most people seems to be set around a point that is largely heterosexual or homosexual. Bisexual people may have a degree of choice in terms of sexual expression in which they can focus on their heterosexual or homosexual side.  It is also the case that for people who are unhappy about their sexual orientation – whether heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual – there may be grounds for exploring therapeutic options to help them live more comfortably with it, reduce their distress and reach a greater degree of acceptance of their sexual orientation.  

This paragraph was one of my finest contributions, accepted without change by my colleagues.  It manages to pass over the really inconvenient truth that orientation is not immutable, and then proceed to say almost nothing (which means it is not open to critical challenge) whilst sounding very worthy, and promoting the approved attitudes. Why there is no 'potential for harm' in therapy in this direction, when there is in the opposite one, is a question that only the meanest reader would raise. There is of course no hard evidence in support of that proposition, which makes the opening line of the next paragraph a line of pure beauty and genius: 

The College believes strongly in evidence-based treatment. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Systematic reviews carried out by both the APA and Serovich et al suggest that studies which have shown conversion therapies to be successful are seriously methodologically flawed. 

The joy of nuance! 'Sound' 'suggest'

Furthermore, so-called treatments of homosexuality can create a setting in which prejudice and discrimination flourish, and there is evidence that they are potentially harmful. The College considers that the provision of any intervention purporting to ‘treat’ something which is not a disorder is wholly unethical. 

And again: 'can' 'potentially.' And the beautiful circularity of 'we have decided a priori it is not a disorder, therefore it is wrong to treat it as though it is one.'  I was really getting into my stride here! 

The College would not support a therapy for converting people from homosexuality any more than we would do so from heterosexuality. Psychiatrists should be committed to reducing inequalities, not supporting practices that are explicitly based on pathologising homosexuality. As such, the College remains in favour of legislative efforts to ban such conversion therapies. 

And onto the moral highground. The shift from science to propaganda is an elegant manoeuvre, which few, if any, will spot. 

Good Psychiatric Practice clearly states: ‘A psychiatrist must provide care that does not discriminate and is sensitive to issues of gender, ethnicity, colour, culture, lifestyle, beliefs, sexual orientation, age and disability’ (p. 12). The College expects all its members to follow Good Psychiatric Practice.

UPDATE

In my excitement at receiving my brother's fascinating commentary, I forgot to credit Peter Ould, whose post drew this to my attention, and @PartTimePilgrim who drew my attention to Peter Ould's post.

Slippery Slopes

Whenever 'liberalising' laws are passed, or campaigns are pursued, and backwards folk like me point out the possible next steps and consequences, we are accused of a fallacious 'slippery slope' argument.

So it was with interest that I read Johamn Hari's piece in the Guardian online which is the start of a campaign to break the 'taboo' against incest.

I remember back when Section 28 was being debated, I thought it was probably unnecessary.  After all, we were assured, nobody would want to promote homosexuality in the classroom: this was simply the stuff of bigotry.  Yet what followed? 

When the Civil Partnership legislation was proposed, we were told that nobody would then campaign for same sex 'marriage'.  Yet what followed?

So incest (along with polyamory and all manner of other 'taboos') will soon be found to be acceptable to all but old bigots like me…

Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, Sancta Dei Genetrix.
Nostras deprecationes ne despicias in necessitatibus nostris,
sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper,
Virgo gloriosa et benedicta.

Bulimiphobia

Why are some people so hateful towards us Bulimics?

Can't they see it is a life-style choice as valid as theirs?

If we get together and binge and purge as consenting adults or teenagers, why should it be anyone else's concern?

It can't conceivably hurt anyone else and it makes us feel so great.

Yet some people still insist on using hate-language, calling it an 'eating disorder.'  That is so digesto-centric it makes me want to vomit!

Fortunately, more and more of us are coming out, and being proud of our bulimia.  We will no longer tolerate the oppression that means we have to purge in secret.  Why should we deny our God-given identity as purgers?

We are also making common cause with anorexics, and all other queer eaters.

Merely because the majority of people aren't bulimic or anorexic, there's no need to say that we are abnormal. And sure, biologically, eating is meant for nourishment, but it doesn't have to be: we also eat to be sociable, and because it is pleasurable and there is nothing wrong with that.  If we choose to exercise this natural function in ways that give us pleasure and do nobody else any harm, how can that be wrong?

As for suggesting that we can or should be 'cured' or be helped to 'recover'... that is simply a manifestation of your phobia: why should we be 'cured' of, or helped to 'recover' from, our fundamental identity?

And another thing: all this thing about trigger warnings!  I never see anyone worrying about triggering sexual desire of any kind, so why should binge and purge triggers be stigmatised by the need for 'warnings'?

Any possible argument you could make against this has already been refuted by LGBT people in their context...

Speaking Truth to Power

Perspective is a funny thing.

Professor Beattie, I am sure, believes that she is ‘speaking truth to power;’ a woman confronting the patriarchy, mysogeny even, of an autocratic male-run Church.

One of the ironies, of course is that many of the academics who now claim to ‘speak truth to power’ (it's quite a trendy phrase in liberal academia) tend also not to believe in truth as an absolute, anyway.  

The phrase originated, Google tells me, with the Quakers, who have an admirable commitment to integrity, but interesting notions of where truth is to be found, which seem to me to veer towards the subjective.

But to return to my opening comment about perspective, from where I sit, it is Tina who has power, and we pew-warmers who do not. She is the one who can get her interviews, books and articles published, her views publicised and who has the ear of bishops and all the kudos that goes with being a prominent, dissenting, female theologian.

I am reminded of the apostate bishop in C S Lewis’ The Great Divorce (which one of the kids must have, so I can’t quote it verbatim).  In his apologia to his Guardian Angel, he paints a pathetic picture of a brave soul who risked everything when he publicly preached that a literal Resurrection no longer recommended itself to his critical faculties: I risked everything!  His Angel will have none of that: what did he risk, other than fame, increased sales for his books, and ultimately a bishopric?...

[UPDATE Paul Priest has kindly posted the relevant passage from The Great Divorce here. It is well worth reading.  You will notice that I mis-remembered: his interlocutor is not his Guardian Angel, but a friend who had died and gone to heaven before him.]

Perhaps it is the fact that a bishopric is unlikely that makes Professor Beattie so upset.  But then, she could always become an Anglican (though in that instance, she would risk being so mainstream that nobody would pay her any heed).

Therefore, it amuses me (I am slightly [only slightly] ashamed to admit) when she is hoist by her own petard and the worms turn.  The blogosphere has provided an opportunity for the relatively powerless to speak the truth to her power (and indeed to powers over her head).

The problems, of course, arise from the claims to be speaking the truth.

Let us look at them, in relation to the three parties involved in my analysis.

The Church claims to speak the Truth of Christ, empowered by the Holy Spirit and guaranteed, by that same Spirit, not to err in matters of Faith and Morals in her solemn pronouncements.  One can either accept that or not: Catholics are bound to accept it.

Professor Beattie claims the right to speak ‘her truth.’  That is to pursue her theological musings without let or hindrance.  However, she also claims the title Catholic theologian.  That title, it seems to me, if it is to mean anything at all, must limit, if not her private musings, at least her public declarations.  It is no good to claim to be a pacifist and then pick fights with people, fire weapons at them and so on: that is to make language meaningless.

The truth that she claims to speak includes such gems as: ‘This is a perverted publication written by and for people with a perverted understanding of the meaning and reality of sexual love in all its joys, struggles and ambiguities;’ a  comment on a CTS booklet which teaches the Catholic understanding of love, marriage and (the impossibility of) divorce.  What has riled Professor Beattie here is its insistence on the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception.

Notice that she doesn’t confine herself to disagreeing, but also characterises  both the writer and readers who accept the Church’s teaching as having a ‘perverted understanding.’  Given that understanding is derived directly from Gaudium et Spes and Humanae Vitae, that is a worrying claim.

That is but one sample of her brand of ‘truth.’  There are many others, equally offensive to Catholics who believe what the Church teaches, documented on various blogs.

Which brings us to the bloggers.  Perhaps most assiduous in speaking his truth to her power is Deacon Nick Donnelly, who runs the blog Protect the Pope.  

His truth-speaking (and that of all the other blogs I have read on the subject) consists largely of quoting Professor Beattie’s words, and contrasting them with Catholic teaching, and raising the question: should she be allowed to claim both to be a Catholic theologian and to dissent, publicly and stridently, from so many of the Church’s doctrines?

She thinks the Church uses its power abusively; Deacon Nick, and I, and many others, think that she uses her power abusively.

She thinks she is speaking the truth; we think the Church is.

It's all a matter of perspective: and naturally, I think it is hers that is perverted, and she thinks it is mine.

As Catholics, of course, we submit to the judgement of the Church - or not, as the case may be.

--

Some charitable souls have expressed pity for her as she is losing a paid trip abroad and speaker’s fees.  I don’t have too much sympathy there: I too would like a free trip abroad, but we can’t all have our wants.  As for her fee, academics, even at the lowest level, are paid significantly more than a living wage, or even the national average salary (non-professorial grades average £43,000). The professoriate are paid significantly more than lecturers (UK average over £75,000, though in fairness, the average female professor at Roehampton is on a meagre £60,585).  But it’s not as though she has eight or ten children to feed...

--

NB This has nothing to do with academic freedom.  It has to do with intellectual honesty.  She can teach, say or write whatever she wants.  What she may not do, we believe, is pass off her anti-Catholic views as Catholic.  That is dishonest.

Sir Terry Leahy

There was a fascinating, though brief, interview with Sir Terry Leahy, the recently retired CEO of Tescos, on the Today programme this morning, which you can hear here.

He talks about his poor background in Liverpool, his Irish immigrant parents, and attributes his success in business in part to his Catholic junior school, which got him into the grammar school, and instructed him  in moral absolutes.

'The most damaging tendency of all is our sleepwalking into the quagmire of moral relativism, an obsession with tolerance, a wish to please everyone.'

He makes clear the importance of moral absolutes in the world of business: whatever fun academics may have in denying such concepts, in the world beyond academe, they are essential for any human commerce.

What is Truth? The trahison des clercs...

A friend of mine works at Newcastle University, and he reports that recently the Vice Chancellor, Professor Chris Brink, a logician by discipline, was considering refreshing the University’s Vision or Mission or some-such.

The story is that he wished to include in it a reference to truth, in relation to the aims of research.  Apparently the Faculties of Medical Sciences and of Science, Agriculture and Engineering were happy with this proposal and this characterisation of their work.

But the Faculty of Humanities, and Social Sciences was outraged that he could consider such an idea.  Surely he knew, as all (non-scientific) academics do that truth is simply a social construct, and that a University that claimed to be in pursuit of truth would be the laughing stock of academe (at least in Social Science circles).

This strikes me as the Trahison des clercs of our time.  ‘What is truth?’ asked Pilate, before delivering Truth to be nailed to a tree.

Professor Brink, both as a logician, and having heroically led Stellenbosch University in South Africa through difficult times, and witnessed himself the importance of the Truth and Reconciliation process there, knows a thing or two about truth.

The good news is that the Scientists, Engineers and Medics were mystified by their colleagues’ protestations.  As a doctor said on the radio the other day (discussing philosophy - no reference as I was driving at the time...) ‘It is hard to believe in the impossibility of communication when someone is calling you to deal with a Cardiac Arrest on Ward 6.’

The bad news is that the VC allowed the Humanities and Social Science gang to veto ‘truth’ in the mission statement.

Sex Ed: hazardous to your child's health

National Review Online carries a fascinating interview with Dr Miriam Grossman, about her new book: You’re Teaching My Child What?: A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex Ed and How They Harm Your Child.

It includes, inter alia:

When teens are questioned about their last sexual encounter, more than half admit they did not use a condom. This will not come as a surprise to anyone who is aware of the insights this new century has brought us about adolescent brain development. Neither should we rush to increase the truckloads of free condoms delivered to our schools. Biology is saying the answer isn’t latex, the answer is time.

Towards the end, she comments on National (US) guidelines on sexuality for teenagers:

Later, readers are advised, “It is up to you to determine how much risk you are willing to take.” And: “Many teens choose to be sexually active and many choose not to. You have the right to decide exactly what behaviors, if any, you are comfortable participating in.”
Imagine if a nutritionist taught your child: “There are many types of diets. A diet low in saturated fats, carbohydrates, and sugars helps prevent obesity and cardiac disease. Some kids try to keep a healthy diet, others don’t. You have the right to decide what to eat.”
I don’t think this approach would be well-received. Yet this is what passes as sex education in our country.

All of it is worth reading, so go and have a look.

H/t Challenge Team UK on Facebook

Sexual identity: Nature or Nurture?

I was irritated yesterday to hear that Hamleys had succumbed to a Twitter campaign and had changed its traditional arrangement of toys. It used to be that Boys' Toys were on some floors and Girls' Toys were on another. So you might see, on the one hand, an array of cars, fighting heroes and action toys; or on the other, lots of pink fluffy things.

But this was terrible gender steroetyping, apparently; although, in fact, there were no security guards turning the girls away from the train sets (the only bit of Hamleys my wife remembers visiting as a child) or excluding boys from the Barbie aisle.

The campaign reflects the orthodoxy that masculine and feminine identities are largely social constructs. That is the belief that has driven the re-shaping of education in this country and the US for decades: removing all boy connotations from Maths and the Sciences, and all girl connotations from arts, humanities and cooking... And when that didn't work, disallowing choice, as the naughty children continued to choose the 'wrong' (ie gender typical) subjects when allowed to do so - as they still tend to do when allowed (eg at University level). So the praxis has had little effect on getting girls into maths and the sciences, as was the avowed intention. It may have had a huge unintended side-effect, one could reasonably argue, in turning large numbers of boys off a feminised education altogether (parallels with the feminisation of liturgy in the Catholic Church are of course wholly inappropriate and should not even be considered).

So the orthodoxy (despite the evidence, one could argue) is that gender stereotyping and other 'nurture' factors determine, or at least strongly influence, gender identity.

EXCEPT when it comes to homosexuality (and various other things in the LGBT morass). These are of course innate and immutable. There is no possibility that, for example, gay teachers, or gay parents, or gay text books will alter, influence or confuse the gender identity of kids, nor that gay people are in fact socially constructed to feel as they do. No, no, no... that way heresy lies...

Listen to the Children

Children, we are told, want more and better sex education. That is presented as an irrefutable argument by 'progressive' campaigners.

And yet, in every survey ever, children do not want their parents to divorce. Do we hear the 'progressives' campaigning to restrict or outlaw divorce?

Could it be that people listen to - and value - children's views only when they coincide with their pre-determined agenda?

There's another problem too: children - like the rest of us - tend to want things that will make them feel good in the short term. But a parent who succumbs to a child's request for chocolate instead of sandwiches for their packed lunch is not a good parent. We need to listen to children, but to make adult decisions.

A toddler may really believe that sweet food is better for him than savoury: our job is to educate his understanding to conform to reality. A teenager may really believe that her crush on her boyfriend is love. Our job remains the same. A fourteen-year old 'coming out' may really believe he is mature and understands himself. Our job remains the same. A young woman facing an unplanned pregnancy may really believe that an abortion is her right, that her unborn child is no more than a part of her body that can be removed, and that will make everything the same as it was before. Our job remains the same.

Otherwise we end up with adults who really believe that what they want (at a moment in time) and what is right are the same thing - a common version of that being that a divorce is the best thing for their children, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Normalising Paedophilia

One of the (many) arguments I have deployed against 'Gay Marriage' has been the philosophical problem inherent in re-defining marriage to include same sex couples. Because if one does that, why stop there? If marriage is no longer about procreation as a key element, why not allow polygamy, paedophilia and so on.

People regularly dismiss this argument, as they are illegal. But so was homosexual behaviour until recently.

Moreover, there are serious attempts being made to 'normalise' paedophilia. The first step, as with homosexuality, is to get it removed from the category of 'disorder' so that it becomes simply a 'minority' issue. Then it can claim the victim status, tolerance and so on that minorities demand - just as the gay lobby has done.

That is already underway, as the programme of this conference reveals.

H\t Lifesite News.

The Consenting Adults Myth (or heresy)

There is a popular and prevalent truism that what consenting adults get up to in privacy is nobody's concern but their own.

And like so many truisms, there is some truth in it - but taken as an absolute it is clearly fallacious.

Let us say that I choose to embark on an affair with a consenting woman, a wife and mother. The popular wisdom is that that is nobody's business but our own. In the sense that the late unlamented News of the World has no right to pry, that is largely correct. But the matter is not one of indifference to others. Obviously our respective spouses have a strong interest in the matter, as do our children. But so too should society at large. For such matters are not really private, however secret we may keep them. Actions have consequences, and bad actions tend to have bad consequences.

In this case there are several risks: that one or two families may be broken up - resulting in problems which others will have to live with or attempt to resolve; that one or both of our spouses will be depressed, suicidal, damaged emotionally - resulting in problems which others will have to live with or attempt to resolve; that we set an example to others that such behaviour is acceptable - resulting in problems which others will have to live with or attempt to resolve; and so on.

For this reason, civilised societies have always agreed that sexual relations are a legitimate matter of interest to society. At the societal level, marriage is the structure established to regulate them. By entering into a sexual relationship (heretofore marriage being the accepted way of doing that) one undertook certain commitments. Because sexual intimacy is principally about babies and bonding, the commitments reflect that: in particular the commitments to affection, fidelity and permanence. These are to ensure that children are brought up in a stable environment, and that neither party is abused and abandoned.

By turning its back on the need for such a contract to legitimise sexual intimacy, modern society is sowing the wind - and we are already beginning to reap the whirlwind: but it will get much, much worse.