Thoughts on matters LGBT+

The dignity of each and every human person derives precisely from their being a human person, and not from a characteristic of the person.  For this reason, the rights that derive from the dignity of the person are described as being universal (ie they apply to each and every person without discrimination) and inalienable (ie they apply to each and every person whatever their actions may be). This idea of the universality and inalienability of human rights can be found both in Catholic teaching and in internationally recognised human rights instruments, such as the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Pope Francis captured something of this during a television encounter with a gay man, when he observed that "it is the person that comes first, the adjective comes after".

What are we to make of this month when local authorities here in the UK choose to fly a "Progressive Pride" flag, and to hold events "as a symbol of solidarity and support for the LGBT+ community" (see here for the reporting in my own local authority)? Is this act of flying a particular flag simply a recognition that the same dignity as persons is to be respected in members of the LGBT+ community as in those who are not part of that community - an act of solidarity with persons? Or is it an act of promotion of a distinct LGBT+ culture to wider society - an act of support for a culture? 

We could also ask how far, for the society that accepts the flying of this flag, we are in reality seeing an example of Vaclav Havel's "greengrocer's slogan", on which I commented here: The greengrocer's slogan: updated for 2021. Public conversation on LGBT+ matters uses the terms "sex" (as in a characteristic of human persons), "sex" (as in the activity of human persons), "gender" and "love" in indiscriminate and ill-defined ways, ways that can mask an underlying intent by using the latter two terms to intend, to a greater or lesser extent, the former two. I suspect that very few ordinary people really think through the implications of that "Progressive Pride" flag, or of the injudicious use of language in our public conversation.

Question 487 of the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church reads:

God has created human beings as male and female, equal in personal dignity, and has called them to a vocation of love and of communion. Everyone should accept his or her identity as male or female, recognizing its importance for the whole of the person, its specificity and complementarity.

 Question 488 then reads:

Chastity means the positive integration of sexuality within the person. Sexuality becomes truly human when it is integrated in a correct way into the relationship of one person to another.

 There is already here much that would challenge an LGBT+ culture - a given physiological sex that is a characteristic of our identity to be accepted rather than being considered "fluid"; the complementing of male and female sexes, particularly with regard to openness to new life of children; that there is a correct activity of human sexuality which accords with being a person of a male or female physiological sex and is oriented towards a person of the opposite sex.

I think we need to be conscious that a concern to respect the dignity of all persons is not construed as supporting what Pope Francis has termed an "ideological colonisation" of the family, and of our culture.