St Charles Lwanga - and a reflection on ideological colonisation

 In 2015 I posted on St Charles Lwanga and his Companions, whose feast day is celebrated in the Catholic Church on 3rd June each year: St Charles Lwanga and Companions: an opportunity to comment on recent events. 

I was reminded of that post when I visited a local library during this last week, and encountered its display of LGBT books, set out to mark Pride month. I really did get a sense of a colonisation of a cultural space by a particular ideology. In using the term "ideology" it is worth reminding ourselves of how the working of the concept of ideology is explained by Luigi Guissani in his book The Religious Sense (p.129 in my Ignatius Press copy from 1990):

... it is a theoretical-practical construction based on an aspect of reality, a true aspect, but taken up in such a way that it becomes unilaterally and tendentiously made into an absolute; and this comes about through a philosophy or a political project.

Ideology is built up on some starting point offered by our experience; thus, experience itself is taken up as a pretext for an operation that is determined by extraneous or exorbitant preoccupations.

Faced with, for example, the existence of a "poor" person, one theorizes about the problem of this person's need, but the concrete person with his or her concrete need becomes a pretext; the individual in his concreteness is marginalised once he has provided the starting point for the intellectual and his or her opinions or has provided the starting point for the politician so that he can justify and publicise an operation of his. The view of the intellectuals, which the powers that be find convenient and take up as their own, become common mentality by means of mass media, schools and propaganda...

As we mark their feast day, we can remind ourselves of the witness to Catholic teaching on same sex relations offered by St Charles Lwanga and his companions as they resisted the desires of the Ugandan ruler of their time; and of the witness of Rocco Buttiglione which I also described in my post in 2015.

Sin and Crime

 This is the way in which Associated Press reported Pope Francis' remarks about homosexuality in his recent interview:

Pope Francis has stepped up his criticism of discrimination against members of the LGBTQ community. He called laws criminalising homosexuals unjust but reiterated Catholic Church teaching that homosexual activity is sinful.

Bantering with himself, Francis articulated the position: "It's not a crime. Yes, but it's a sin. Fine, but first let's distinguish between a sin and a crime".

A fuller discussion of his remarks in the interview were reported here by Associated Press: The AP Interview: Pope says homosexuality not a crime. 

Pope Francis has since replied, in the form of a letter, to three questions that were asked of him by Fr James Martin SJ. The exchange is reported on Fr Martin's website: Pope Francis clarifies comments on homosexuality: "One must consider the circumstances".

And I wanted to clarify that it is not a crime, in order to stress that criminalization is neither good nor just.

When I said it is a sin, I was simply referring to Catholic moral teaching, which says that every sexual act outside of marriage is a sin. Of course, one must also consider the circumstances, which may decrease or eliminate fault. As you can see, I was repeating something in general. I should have said “It is a sin, as is any sexual act outside of marriage.” This is to speak of “the matter” of sin, but we know well that Catholic morality not only takes into consideration the matter, but also evaluates freedom and intention; and this, for every kind of sin.

And I would tell whoever wants to criminalize homosexuality that they are wrong.

In a televised interview, where we spoke with natural and conversational language, it is understandable that there would not be such precise definitions.

I think that it has been very easy to misunderstand Pope Francis' previous exchanges of correspondence with Fr Martin, and in one respect this latest letter removes some of the cause for that misunderstanding. Pope Francis' letters have offered support for a ministry of closeness, without any suggestion that this should represent a change in Catholic teaching. America reports one such letter in August 2021. It is worth reading what it says carefully:

I want to thank you for your pastoral zeal and your ability to be close to people, with that closeness that Jesus had and that reflects the closeness of God. Our Heavenly Father approaches with love every one of his children, each and everyone. His heart is to open to each and everyone. He is Father. God's "style" has three aspects: closeness, compassion and tenderness. This is how he draws closer to each one of us.

Thinking about your pastoral work, I see that you are continuously looking to imitate this style of God...

When Rocco Buttiglione was proposed as a candidate to be a commissioner in the European Union in 2004, the question of the sinfulness of homosexual acts in relation to political action arose in a slightly different way. Rocco Buttiglione explained his stance during the hearing in advance of the appointment being made as follows (see my post here):

They introduced the category of sin into the political discourse, and I said "No, in politics we may not speak of sin. We should speak of non-discrimination, and I am solidly opposed to discrimination against homosexuals, or any type of discrimination." I did not say that homosexuality is a sin, as many newspapers reported. I said, "I may think." It is possible that I think this, but I did not tell them whether I think it or not. What I think about this has no impact whatsoever on politics, because in politics the problem is the principle concerning discrimination and I accept that principle.  

That was not enough. They wanted me to say that I see nothing objectionable about homosexuality. This I cannot do because it is not what I think. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church it is written that, from a moral point of view, homosexuality is not a sin but rather an objectively disordered condition. Homosexuality can become a sin if one adds the subjective element, which is to say, full knowledge that this is wrong and also freedom of the will which accepts this wrong position. I was not allowed to say that and for this reason I was deemed not worthy to be a European commissioner.  

In different contexts, Pope Francis and Rocco Buttiglione are sending the same message.

World Meeting of Families 2018: my highlights.

 

Reading the programme for the Pastoral Congress associated with the World Meeting of Families 2018, there are three things that attracted my attention as "highlights". The nature of the Congress is that it is not possible to get to everything because things happen simultaneously. If I were able to be at the World Meeting, the events below reflect things that I would particularly want to attend. I expect that I will also want to listen to the Family celebration on the Saturday evening, especially the family testimonies which are usually very moving.

The first is the involvement of members of the Focolare movement, and in particular Focolare's families movement, in a number of the panels/presentations. So, for example, a Focolare speaker is involved in a panel entitled "And the greatest is love: Pope Francis on 1 Cor 13" on the Wednesday. Representatives of the New Families Movement are part of a panel on Thursday: "The Joys and Challenges of Parenting Today". Also on Wednesday, a Focolare initiative in the field of economics ("Economy of Communion") is represented in one of the speakers, Professor Bruini, in a session entitled "The Family: A Resource for Society". And on Thursday, the movement is represented in a session entitled "Handing on the Faith between the Generations: The Role of Grandparents".

The second is the involvement of Aid to the Church in Need in two different sessions. On the Wednesday, as part of the evening programme, they are hosting a session entitled "The Family of Families: the experience of Catholic Families in Russia":

In this interactive workshop we listen to the stories of faith and family from Catholics in Russia, through the initiatives supported by the Pontifical Foundation, Aid to the Church in Need International.

They are also presenting a similar session "The Family of Families: the experience of Catholic Families in Africa" on the Thursday of the Congress.

And thirdly, Rocco Buttiglione is speaking on Thursday: "A Hidden Treasure: The Theology of the Body of Saint John Paul II". There can be few people who so effectively represent an authentic Catholic voice in the political and cultural field as does Rocco Buttiglione.

The relics of St Therese of Lisieux and her parents, Louis and Zelie Martin, are also on an extended visit to Ireland, and will be present at the World Meeting of Families. They will be present at the concluding Mass of the World Meeting. Remembering the impact of the visit of St Therese to the UK, this too will be another highlight - and perhaps one that we should not underestimate.

Further reading ....

.... on Amoris Laetitia and the correction (of that which didn't need correcting).

Rocco Buttiglione suggests that the correction is premised on reading in to the text of Amoris Laetitia things that  Amoris Laetitia does not in reality say (read the article in full, do not rely just on the headline): “The correctio? The method is incorrect: they do not discuss, they condemn”.

Cardinal Marc Ouellet has presented a more overarching analysis of Amoris Laetitia and its call for a "pastoral conversion" in speaking to the Canadian Catholic Bishops Conference. The full text has been published at the National Catholic Reporter (scroll down this report to find the embedded text): Critics of Filial Correction of Pope Francis Weigh In.

Christians, politics and the LGBT agenda - UPDATED

Peter Williams, at the Catholic Herald, has a very able commentary on the recent experience of Tim Farron with regard to his perceived views about homosexuality: The outrage at Tim Farron could have serious consequences for Christians in politics.

A number of years ago, Rocco Buttiglione found himself in a not dissimilar situation when he was proposed as an EU commissioner by his own country, Italy. I cited his subsequent account of that episode in a post in 2015:

As you know, I was recently a candidate to be a European Commissioner. And as you also know, I was rejected for the position for expressing my Catholic beliefs on sexuality and marriage at the hearing (before the appointment). One may think: If we cannot express our principles in public we will seem to be ashamed of them. ….

I was not ashamed; but I was not provocative. I was prudent. I don't know if God would give me the courage to offer my head for my faith, like St. Thomas More... But a seat on the EU commission – yes, that I can offer. …  

They introduced the category of sin into the political discourse, and I said "No, in politics we may not speak of sin. We should speak of non-discrimination, and I am solidly opposed to discrimination against homosexuals, or any type of discrimination." I did not say that homosexuality is a sin, as many newspapers reported. I said, "I may think." It is possible that I think this, but I did not tell them whether I think it or not. What I think about this has no impact whatsoever on politics, because in politics the problem is the principle concerning discrimination and I accept that principle.  

That was not enough. They wanted me to say that I see nothing objectionable about homosexuality. This I cannot do because it is not what I think. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church it is written that, from a moral point of view, homosexuality is not a sin but rather an objectively disordered condition. Homosexuality can become a sin if one adds the subjective element, which is to say, full knowledge that this is wrong and also freedom of the will which accepts this wrong position. I was not allowed to say that and for this reason I was deemed not worthy to be a European commissioner.  

Catholics have the right to hold positions in the European Union. Is it conceivable that Catholics can be prohibited from exercising public office because of their Catholicism? Because they take the Church's position? Some say that the Catholic position on sexuality is aberrant, and this view should be grounds for discrimination at the EU, or in regard to holding public office. I do not want this to become accepted practice. They have established that a Catholic who says that perhaps it is possible that homosexuality would be a sin can be discriminated against. I found myself in a position in which I clearly had to decide with respect to whether I would keep my position, between my faith (or if not my faith at least the doctrine of my faith) or to accept being discriminated against. For my faith I was able to sacrifice a seat in the EU, which is not such an important thing. Ultimately, this is what happened.

I think Rocco Buttiglione's idea that the category of sin is not the correct category for political discourse makes a useful addition to Peter Williams' article.  It finds an echo, too, in Pope Benedict XVI's account of the right relationship between politics and religion, as expressed in his address in Westminster Hall in September 2010 (my italics added):

The central question at issue, then, is this: where is the ethical foundation for political choices to be found? The Catholic tradition maintains that the objective norms governing right action are accessible to reason, prescinding from the content of revelation. According to this understanding, the role of religion in political debate is not so much to supply these norms, as if they could not be known by non-believers – still less to propose concrete political solutions, which would lie altogether outside the competence of religion – but rather to help purify and shed light upon the application of reason to the discovery of objective moral principles. This “corrective” role of religion vis-à-vis reason is not always welcomed, though, partly because distorted forms of religion, such as sectarianism and fundamentalism, can be seen to create serious social problems themselves. And in their turn, these distortions of religion arise when insufficient attention is given to the purifying and structuring role of reason within religion. It is a two-way process. Without the corrective supplied by religion, though, reason too can fall prey to distortions, as when it is manipulated by ideology, or applied in a partial way that fails to take full account of the dignity of the human person. Such misuse of reason, after all, was what gave rise to the slave trade in the first place and to many other social evils, not least the totalitarian ideologies of the twentieth century. This is why I would suggest that the world of reason and the world of faith – the world of secular rationality and the world of religious belief – need one another and should not be afraid to enter into a profound and ongoing dialogue, for the good of our civilization

What strikes me about the pressure exerted on both Tim Farron and Rocco Buttiglione is the way in which it demonstrates a deep seated unwillingness to engage in a political discussion at anything other than an ideological level. Any sense of objective moral principles in the field of sexual conduct is drowned out by the intimidating shouts of those promoting a complete societal normalisation of LGBT lifestyles; reasoning as to whether or not this is a morally right approach appears to be absent.

The Gospel is always ancient and always new. That is precisely why it is never old. UPDATED (2)

Il Vangelo è sempre nuovo e sempre antico. Proprio per questo non è mai vecchio. [The Gospel is always ancient and always new. That is precisely why it is never old.]

This rather elegant phrase can perhaps be seen as the leitmotif of Rocco Buttiglione's comments on the reaction of some to Pope Francis pontificate in general and to Amoris Laetitia in particular. Oddly enough, the inversion of the order of the "new" and "ancient" to become "ancient" and then "new" in the English translation seems to respect the elegance in the two different languages. And the nuances of the words "ancient", "new" and "old" is the same in both.

Rocco Buttiglione's remarks appeared in Italian in the L'Osservatore Romano of 19th July. The English translation is here, published under the same title as the Italian: The joy of love and the consternation of the theologians.

Two points I think of particular interest in Rocco Buttiglione's remarks, though, of course, I do think you should read the whole.

Firstly, his observation that the sensus fidelium - that is the sense of the faith of the ordinary Catholic community - has followed the teaching of Pope Francis and Amoris Laetitia in a very ready manner:

Il sensus fidei del popolo cristiano lo ha immediatamente riconosciuto e seguito.

The sensus fidei of the Christian people immediately embraced and followed him.

And I think this is true, for all the fuss and confusion created by a Traditionalist minority.

And secondly, Rocco Buttiglione points out that the barring of divorced and remarried persons from Holy Communion arises, not because they are considered of necessity to be in a state of mortal sin, but rather because their situation represents a manifest contradiction of the teaching on marriage:

Familiaris consortio ci dice però che i divorziati risposati non potranno ricevere i sacramenti. Il motivo è che vivono in una condizione pubblica di peccato e che bisogna evitare di dare scandalo. Questi motivi sono così forti che sembra essere inutile una verifica delle eventuali circostanze attenuanti.

Familiaris Consortio tells us that the divorced and remarried cannot receive the sacraments. The reason is that they are living in a state of manifest public sin and they must avoid giving scandal. These reasons are so strong that any attenuating circumstances were rendered inconsequential.

Rocco Buttiglione goes on to suggest that what is to be seen between the provision of Familiaris Consortio and that of Amoris Laetitia is not a contradiction of doctrinal teaching but rather a difference in the manner of the exercise of the power of loosing and binding that belongs to the office of the Successor of Peter; a difference that is suggested by a different historical circumstance in the life of the Church. He suggests that, more than anything else, the divorced and remarried are invited to the Sacrament of Confession.

[There appears to be a provision in the 1917 Code of Canon Law that a divorced and remarried person be excommunicated should they persist in their state of life after admonition from their Ordinary .... but it is not at all clear whether, or to what extent, this provision was actually put into practice. In this respect, I have not been able to verify the suggestion in Rocco Buttiglione's article that, previous to Familiaris Consortio and the 1983 Code of Canon Law, such people suffered excommunication.]

UPDATE: More on Amoris Laetitia in the L'Osservatore Romano: The relevance of some reflections by Karol Wojtyła for understanding Amoris Laetitia: creative fidelity. I do agree with the suggestion in this article that Pope Francis' pontificate stands in continuity with that of Pope Benedict XVI, and that the grounds on which some criticise Pope Francis are equally grounds on which they would criticise Pope Benedict. I am also in agreement with the view that Amoris Laetitia represents an exercise by Pope Francis of his office as Successor of Peter, and that no further attempts should be made to choose which parts can be rightly opposed.

UPDATE (2): Sandro Magister's account, relaying that of another writer, clearly misrepresents Rocco Buttiglione's article (and as I post I have just re-read that article) by suggesting in an unqualified way that it favoured communion for the divorced and re-married - it didn't and any careful reading will show that.

St Charles Lwanga and Companions: an opportunity to comment on recent events

Today sees the celebration in the Catholic Church of the feast of St Charles Lwanga and Companions. The account of their martyrdom below is based on Butler's Lives of the Saints New Concise Edition:

In the interior of central Africa the first Catholic missions were established by the White Fathers in 1879.In Uganda some progress was made under the not unfriendly local ruler, Mtesa, with catechumens being prepared for baptism; but his successor, Mwanga, determined to root out Christianity from among his people.  

Mwanga was an active homosexual, and his hostility towards Christianity was made worse when Christian boys in his service refused to give in to his sexual advances. Joseph Mkasa, a Catholic, reproached Mwanga after the killing of a protestant missionary and his team. He also reproached Mwanga for his lifestyle. Mwanga beheaded Joseph Mkasa.  

The following May, Mwanga was infuriated when he learnt that a servant he had sent for had been receiving instruction from one of his fellow servants, Denis Sebuggwawo. Denis was sent for, and the king killed him by thrusting a spear through his throat. Charles Lwanga, who had succeeded Joseph Mkasa in charge of the servants, secretly baptised four of them who were catechumens, including Kizito, a boy of thirteen whom Lwanga had repeatedly saved from the designs of the king. The next day, the servants were drawn up before Mwanga and the Christians were ordered to separate themselves from the rest. Led by Mwanga and Kizito, the oldest and the youngest, they did so - fifteen young men, all under twenty five years of age. They were joined by two others already under arrest and by two soldiers.  

Mwanga asked them if they intended to remain Christians. " Till death” came the reply. “Then put them to death”, said the king. Three of the young people were killed on the road to the execution site. The others were burnt to death on a pyre on 3rd June 1886.  

The persecution continued, with both protestants and Catholics giving their lives rather than denying Christ. Charles Lwanga and 21 others, including 17 royal servants, were beatified in 1920 and canonised in 1964.

A more recent testimony on behalf of the Church's teaching with regard to same sex relations is that of Rocco Buttiglione, in 2004. What follows is an extract from a speech given by Rocco Buttiglione, Italian Minister of European Affairs, at the VI Congress on Catholics and Public Life, in Madrid, Spain, on November 20, 2004

As you know, I was recently a candidate to be a European Commissioner. And as you also know, I was rejected for the position for expressing my Catholic beliefs on sexuality and marriage at the hearing (before the appointment). One may think: If we cannot express our principles in public we will seem to be ashamed of them. ….  

I was not ashamed; but I was not provocative. I was prudent. I don't know if God would give me the courage to offer my head for my faith, like St. Thomas More... But a seat on the EU commission – yes, that I can offer. …  

They introduced the category of sin into the political discourse, and I said "No, in politics we may not speak of sin. We should speak of non-discrimination, and I am solidly opposed to discrimination against homosexuals, or any type of discrimination." I did not say that homosexuality is a sin, as many newspapers reported. I said, "I may think." It is possible that I think this, but I did not tell them whether I think it or not. What I think about this has no impact whatsoever on politics, because in politics the problem is the principle concerning discrimination and I accept that principle.  

That was not enough. They wanted me to say that I see nothing objectionable about homosexuality. This I cannot do because it is not what I think. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church it is written that, from a moral point of view, homosexuality is not a sin but rather an objectively disordered condition. Homosexuality can become a sin if one adds the subjective element, which is to say, full knowledge that this is wrong and also freedom of the will which accepts this wrong position. I was not allowed to say that and for this reason I was deemed not worthy to be a European commissioner.  

Catholics have the right to hold positions in the European Union. Is it conceivable that Catholics can be prohibited from exercising public office because of their Catholicism? Because they take the Church's position? Some say that the Catholic position on sexuality is aberrant, and this view should be grounds for discrimination at the EU, or in regard to holding public office. I do not want this to become accepted practice. They have established that a Catholic who says that perhaps it is possible that homosexuality would be a sin can be discriminated against. I found myself in a position in which I clearly had to decide with respect to whether I would keep my position, between my faith (or if not my faith at least the doctrine of my faith) or to accept being discriminated against. For my faith I was able to sacrifice a seat in the EU, which is not such an important thing. Ultimately, this is what happened.

At the present time, the question that Catholics face in this regard arises from the legalisation of marriage between people of the same sex. How do we go about maintaining a testimony in favour of the Church's teaching in the circumstances created by the recent referendum in the Republic of Ireland and the earlier legalisation of same sex marriage in the United Kingdom?

In France, the movement Manif pour tous, and the vigil movement that started on the edge of its protests against "la loi Taubirau", have used the term "resistance" to articulate a permanent stance in favour of their opposition to the law. It is of great interest to me that these movements are not explicitly Catholic - indeed, the vigil movement is expressly non-denominational/non-religious and the suggestion recently in the Catholic Herald that Manif pour tous had largely ecclesial backing from the Catholic Church is not one that I share. The statement from Senator Mullen after the referendum in the Republic of Ireland suggests the emergence of a similar movement, at least in sentiment, in that country. These movements call, not for the engagement of the Catholic Church as institution, but for the engagement of citizens, the lay faithful, translating into a lived experience "in the world" of  a stance rooted in their Catholic belief. It is their proper "office", irreplaceable by the action of clergy or religious in the Church.

I have not thought through the full implications, but I do think there is something to be said for Catholic priests/parishes no longer acting as the civil registrars of marriages conducted in their churches. It would provide one way of clearly saying that the term "marriage" in a Catholic Church is not the same as the term "marriage" in a register office. However, whilst this suggestion might provide a testimony on the part of the officiating Catholic priest, it still leaves the couple themselves with the compromise of their testimony when they have additionally to go through the civil form of marriage at the register office. And perhaps the compromise of testimony has been there in a different way for many years already, by way of legal provision for divorce.

Coming out

For the first time in a number of years I attended my union's annual conference over the Easter holiday. One of the motions debated at Conference, proposed on behalf of the Executive Committee, was the following:

Tackling workplace homophobia, biphobia and transphobia

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

THAT Conference notes a recent YouGov survey revealing that 2.4 million people have witnessed verbal homophobic bullying at work over the past five years and that a further 800,000 people of working age have witnessed physical homophobic bullying at work. Further polling shows that over a quarter of LGBT people are not at all open to colleagues about their sexual orientation.

Conference applauds the establishment of a union-wide network for LGBT members and those who are supportive of LGBT issues, and the keynote speech given by our general secretary at the Stonewall Education Conference. Conference notes the good work being done by ATL to eradicate homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying in the classroom and applauds the Stonewall campaign 'Lots to do' to eradicate homophobic bullying in the workplace.

Conference calls upon the Executive Committee to continue to work with Stonewall, Schools Out, the Forum for Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Equality in Post-School Education and other organisations:

(i) to raise awareness of homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying in the workplace

(ii) to issue guidance on tackling homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying and harassment in the workplace

(iii) to update ATL's guidance on homophobic bullying and its model LGBT equality policy.

The prepared text of my speech opposing the motion is below. The speech as delivered differed in some respects from the prepared text due to the time limit (the aside in italics, for example, was omitted, and the two notes have been inserted for the benefit of readers of this blog). I was the only person to speak against this motion.

“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family …” 

These are the opening words of the Preamble to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document that I would commend to the Equality and Diversity Committee in the drafting of future Conference motions. 

I want to draw out an implication of those words “equal”/”universal” and “inalienable”.
The rights articulated in the UN Declaration belong to each and every human person, precisely because of their dignity and worth as a human person – or, in the opening words of the preamble – precisely because of their being a “member of the human family”. 

The rights are equal or universal – that is, they apply to each and every member of the human family without distinction, and without any regard to one characteristic or another that a member of the human family might manifest. 

They are inalienable – that is, they are not to be removed or taken away from any member of the human family on any grounds whatsoever. 

From the principle expressed by these words derives a principle of non-discrimination that applies to the life of peoples, the life of societies and the life of nations. 

And what I want to suggest, Conference, is that the embracing of a vigorous principle of non-discrimination is sufficient to underpin any work that ATL might want to do with regard to workplace bullying in general, and the particular examples of workplace bullying that are the subject of this motion. [Note: cf here the position expressed by Rocco Buttiglione]

My own commitment to that principle of non-discrimination is total and unequivocal. I would argue to the hilt that LGBT communities in countries such as the Russian Federation and Uganda are entitled to the same protections from violence and intimidation as their fellow citizens, protections that should be provided by a rule of law in those countries. I condemn the absence of those protections without qualification. 

However, I am going to vote against this motion today for two reasons. 

Firstly, I do not believe the motion adequately identifies a principle of non-discrimination such as that I have just outlined, and which I believe should be the basis for ATL’s work on equalities. It therefore gives the Executive Committee a blank canvass to continue to align ATL with whatever stance the different organisations named in the motion choose to follow. 

This, and the fact that Conference is being asked for its approval after ATL are already firmly seated at the top tables of those organisations, is not good news for an organisation that prides itself on member led policy making. 

Breaking “the gender binary of male and female” and including the terms “’undecided’ and ‘other’ for those who do not relate to the …essentialist categories of lesbian, gay, bisexual and heterosexual”.  This is the proposal advocated in the Chair’s update in the most recent newsletter of the Forum for sexual orientation and gender identity equality in post-school education.  

 It is not a question of equality; it’s a question of insisting that we all sign up to a particular ideology which gives no objective content to notions of sex and gender.  It is not a question of an equal and inalienable right deriving from the dignity of a human person, but a kind of dictatorship of thought [Note: cf Pope Francis' words preaching at one of his morning Masses] as far as sex and gender are concerned. 

And the reverse intolerance that this involves is shown very clearly by Stonewall’s “Bigot of the Year” award. 

This award was described by a New Statesman column as “offensive and out of date”. That same column describes the intolerance shown towards one of Stonewall’s  award winners, Ruth Davidson,  in 2012. Ms Davidson was booed at the awards ceremony that year for suggesting that Stonewall should drop the “Bigot of the Year” award. 

And as an aside. 

Do not try telling me that the policy expressed in this motion represents “member led” policy. It’s first sentence is, bar a rearrangement of the word order to suit a conference motion, verbatim from a Stonewall press release. 

The figures need to be put into context, too, appalling as any bullying is. The YouGov data (from Nov/Dec 2011 – hardly recent)  is that just 6% of people witnessed verbal homophobic bullying in the workplace, and just 2% physical homophobic bullying, over a 5 year period. It would be interesting to compare these figures to corresponding figures for other forms of workplace bullying, so that we can judge whether or not the attention given to homophobic bullying is proportionate to the genuine needs of ATL members in the workplace. 

As I vote against this motion I make two very clear statements. 

I make a statement that I do not subscribe to the ideology of sex and gender represented by the range of organisations named in the motion and to which this motion indicates ATL’s alignment. I do not believe that this alignment is necessary in order for ATL to maintain a robust policy of non-discrimination with regard to LGBT persons. 

I make a total and unequivocal commitment to the principle of non-discrimination, based on the universal and inalienable nature of the rights that belong to each and every member of the family, rights that belong without regard to one characteristic or another that any such member of the human family might manifest.

 A member of Conference suggested to me afterwards that people saying the kind of things I said in my speech were now in a rather similar position to a gay person ten or twenty years ago.  It is not just a case of "how times have changed", but of just how rapidly they have changed. My own afterthought was to think of my speech as analogous to an LGBT person "coming out" ..... but in the opposite sense.

As I post this, Abbey Roads has a post that is worth reading alongside mine: Something about SSA.

The "margin of appreciation"

.... is a legal term relating to the way in which the laws of the European Union are implemented in individual member countries. We do not hear very much about this concept from those who would rather represent the implementation of European laws in the UK as being "UK law being made in Brussels". It does not usually make its way into the media reporting of EU court judgements on instances of legal determinations that have been the subject of appeal in the European Court of Human Rights, though often the judgement of that European Court is less one that upholds the UK legal decision per se but rather one that says that the UK determination can stand because it lies within that "margin of appreciation". The idea of a "margin of appreciation" allows individual member states to enact legal provisions to implement European Union directives in a manner that reflects their own particular situations. This consideration, for example, can be found in the judgement of the European Court with regard to the Christian registrar who was subject to disciplinary action by Islington Council because she did not feel able to register civil partnerships. One can see the whole of the ECHR judgement, which brought together four different cases of Christians claiming discrimination on the grounds of their religion, here. Whilst is is worth reading the whole (OK, there is a lot of it!), n.106 of the judgement concluded, with regard to the Christian registrar (my italics added):

In all the circumstances, the Court does not consider that the national authorities, that is the local authority employer which brought the disciplinary proceedings and also the domestic courts which rejected the applicant’s discrimination claim, exceeded the margin of appreciation available to them. It cannot, therefore, be said that there has been a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 9 in respect of the third applicant.

What has prompted this reflection is the controversy currently raging in the news media about a legal provision in the Russian Federation which makes it illegal to provide information about homosexuality to those under the age of 18. Some of the BBC reporting can be found here: Russian Duma passes law banning 'gay propaganda',  Q&A: Gay rights in Russia, Stephen Fry calls for Olympics ban over Russia's anti-gay laws. More recent reporting picks up its implications for sport: Yelena Isinbayeva says anti-gay remarks were 'misunderstood' (and the links to other reporting contained in this report).

I would ask three questions about the controversy with regard to the Russian legislation.

1. The BBC reporting readily identifies the legislation as being an "anti-gay law".  As reported, though, the terms of the law seem to have some comparability to Section 28 which used to apply in this country, a law which would now be characterised by the great and good as "anti-gay" but was actually expressed in terms that forbade the promotion of homosexuality by public bodies. The extent of the promotion of homosexual/LGBT culture in our country since the repeal of Section 28 (see, for example, Nick Clegg's observation with regard to the passing of a law allowing same-sex marriage, that he didn't believe we could have gone so far so quickly) is very telling. Does the characterisation of the Russian law as an "anti-gay law" and the mobilisation of the international gay lobby in the media represent an attempt to bring about exactly the same course of events in Russia as has happened here, that is, a legitimisation of a promotion of the acceptability of LGBT behaviours? If that is the case, does not Russian society have some entitlement to resist the promotion of that acceptability if it wishes to do so? [But note: resisting promotion is not to be equated with a campaign of persecution ... the two are not the same thing.]

2. As Stephen Fry suggests in his letter, there may well be a question to be asked about the purpose of those politicians who have taken the lead in enacting the Russian legislation, and its effect as a convenient scapegoating of a minority in Russian society. And there may also be a question about the effective rule of law in protecting all citizens of Russia, something which I expect has implications in other circumstances as well as that of violence directed against members of the LGBT community. If the passing of the law has legitimised this violence, then that needs to be the subject of media reporting and protest. However, to protest these concerns - and to publish the specific evidence of incidents and people as the human rights movement of the 1970's and 1980's did during Communist times - is one thing. To "picky back" on to that the same promotion of LGBT culture that we have seen in the developed nations of the West is something different. Whereabouts within this consideration does the campaign to move the winter Olympics sit? If it sits as a protest against a violation of the human rights of a section of Russian society, then I have no difficulty - or indeed hesitation - in supporting it. However, the added aspect of the promotion of LGBT culture is one that I will not support.

3. The third question is one I cannot answer without an understanding of the details of the Russian legislation, and I do not have that detailed understanding. If the Russian Federation were a member state of the European Union, would a judgement of the ECHR allow the law to stand as being within the margin of appreciation that would allow it as proportionate for the achievement of a legitimate aim in the particular situation of the Russian Federation?

[And, so far as I can tell from the BBC reporting (here and here) and a report on the Telegraph website (here), Yelena Isinbayeva has expressed what Rocco Buttiglione referred to in rather different circumstances as "the principle of non-discrimination" - indicating that the lifestyle choices of individual citizens should not be the subject of public scrutiny. That she has expressed a different view, as her own conviction, than some of her fellow athletes with regard to homosexuality .... why should she not have the freedom to express a different view? As Rocco Buttiglione suggested, the key issue in the public arena for the promotion of equality is that "principle of non-discrimination", not the holding of different views.]

Aux barricades, citoyens

Catholic Voices noted on 9th January that the engagement of the Catholic Church in France in the political debate on same sex marriage has taken a different pattern than has the corresponding debate here in the United Kingdom: On gay marriage, we have much to learn from France.

Whilst the opposition of the Catholic Bishops of France to Francois Hollande's proposed legislation cannot be in doubt, the leadership of the huge "manif pour tous" demonstrations on 17th November of last year and, more recently, on 13th January this year has not been explicitly Catholic in nature. When Cardinal Barbarin (Lyons) supported a march against same sex marriage in his own city, he was reported as saying that he was present, not as a bishop, but as a citizen. Cardinal Vingt-Trois attended the start of one of the three marches in Paris on 13th January to indicate his support, but did not join the march itself saying that, as a Bishop, he had other ways of making his views known to the government. Indeed, the "manif pour tous" movement has succeeded in maintaining a type of neutrality with regard to specificity of religious, social or political affiliation. There is a counterpart in the United Kingdom to the "manif pour tous" of France, and that is the Coalition for Marriage, an organisation which in a similar way brings together different supporters of marriage properly understood. And what corresponds to the street demonstrations in France is the petition opposing David Cameron's proposed legislation, with over 600 000 signatures.

The approach taken by the French bishops reflects a sensitivity towards the laicite (separation) characteristic of the relationship between Church and state in France. However, I think it also reflects the difference in office (in the theological sense) between those Catholics who form part of the ordained hierarchy and those Catholics who are the lay faithful. It is the lay faithful who have the first responsibility for activity that takes Catholic teaching into the social and political fields; it is an "office" that belongs properly, though not exclusively, to them and in which they have a certain priority over the clergy (that is, if they do not fulfil it, the clergy of the nature of things are not going to be able to make up the lack).

It is interesting in this context to read the Decree on the Lay Apostolate of the Second Vatican Council, n.7 (my italics added):

The laity must take up the renewal of the temporal order as their own special obligation. Led by the light of the Gospel and the mind of the Church and motivated by Christian charity, they must act directly and in a definite way in the temporal sphere. As citizens they must cooperate with other citizens with their own particular skill and on their own responsibility. Everywhere and in all things they must seek the justice of God's kingdom. The temporal order must be renewed in such a way that, without detriment to its own proper laws, it may be brought into conformity with the higher principles of the Christian life ...

There is a similar passage to be found in the Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, n.43:

Secular duties and activities belong properly although not exclusively to laymen. Therefore acting as citizens in the world, whether individually or socially, they will keep the laws proper to each discipline, and labor to equip themselves with a genuine expertise in their various fields. They will gladly work with men seeking the same goals. Acknowledging the demands of faith and endowed with its force, they will unhesitatingly devise new enterprises, where they are appropriate, and put them into action. Laymen should also know that it is generally the function of their well-formed Christian conscience to see that the divine law is inscribed in the life of the earthly city; from priests they may look for spiritual light and nourishment. Let the layman not imagine that his pastors are always such experts, that to every problem which arises, however complicated, they can readily give him a concrete solution, or even that such is their mission. Rather, enlightened by Christian wisdom and giving close attention to the teaching authority of the Church, let the layman take on his own distinctive role.

What is very apparent on the French scene, partly because of historical circumstances both political and ecclesial, and perhaps only implicit amongst traditionalist Catholics from time to time in the UK, is a tendency that might be covered by the term integrism. This is a tendency which seeks an absolute identity between the Catholic Church and one particular line of political action. I, for example, have a certain wariness about those who might lobby members of the Bishops Conference to a greater mobilisation of Catholics towards a particular political action; and a similar wariness about those who suggest that Catholics should write to Catholic MPs who are seen as intending to support legislation on same sex marriage reminding them of Catholic teaching on the matter.

This is not to say that Bishops do not have a role as far as legislation on same sex marriage is concerned. That role is to present clearly (and in this day and age that does include the use of the media of social communications in addition to the more immediate pastoral tools of preaching and pastoral letters) Catholic teaching on marriage according to natural law and to divine revelation. It also extends to identifying a particular legislative proposal as being incompatible with Catholic teaching and therefore such that it should not be supported by Catholics. In the United Kingdom, some of our Bishops have fulfilled this role well in recent months.

But the first responsibility for a political mobilisation rests with the lay faithful, and the lay faithful, not under the category of Catholic as such, but as (Catholics who are also) citizens. The activity of Frigide Barjot in France and of Rocco Buttiglione in Italy are good examples of exactly this. Reminding Catholic MPs about Catholic teaching is not really to the point; in their political office, it is the activity of citizens to which they will rightly respond and not a "Catholic lobby". And the more this weekend's exercise in sending postcards to local MPs can be seen as a mobilisation of citizens/electors and the less that it is seen as "signing a card at the back of Church because Father said to do so" the more effective it will be.

To the barricades, O citizens!

No place for Catholics in the Conservative Party?

I have copied these extracts from the text of the BBC news report in case it disappears at some point.

Tory election candidate Philip Lardner has been suspended for describing gay people on his website as "not normal", the party has confirmed.

Scottish Conservatives chairman Andrew Fulton described the Ayrshire North and Arran candidate's comments as "deeply offensive and unacceptable".

"These views have no place in the modern Conservative party," he said. ....

[Mr Lardner's] suspension was provoked by comments in the "What I believe in" section of his website, under the sub-heading: "Homosexuality is not 'normal behaviour'."

The former Territorial Army soldier wrote of his support for the controversial "clause 28", which was introduced by the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher and banned public bodies from promoting homosexuality. ...

... Mr Lardner wrote: "As your MP I will support the rights of parents and teachers to refuse to have their children taught that homosexuality is 'normal' behaviour or an equal lifestyle choice to traditional marriage.

"I will always support the rights of homosexuals to be treated within concepts of (common sense) equality and respect, and defend their rights to choose to live the way they want in private, but I will not accept that their behaviour is 'normal' or encourage children to indulge in it.

"Toleration and understanding is one thing, but the state promotion of homosexuality is quite another."

The comments have since been removed.

The first point worthy of comment is that the BBC report misrepresents what Philip Lardner would appear to have said on his website (before it was censored). It seriously misrepresents him to say that he described gay people as "not normal". Even a cursory reading of the quoted words later in the BBC report show that Mr Lardner's descriptor of "not normal" referred to homosexual behaviour, and expressed what he believed about a form of behaviour, and not what he believed about the people who form a section of our society. If the Conservative Party's decision to suspend Mr Lardner from the Party is based on the same misrepresentation of his words, then he is the victim of a serious injustice.

The second point is to compare the quoted views of Mr Lardner to the teaching of the Catholic Church. As expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, this teaching recognises that "homosexual acts are intrisically disordered" (n.2357); the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church includes homosexual acts as one of seven "grave sins against chastity" (n.492). Now, there is a subtle point of political philosophy as to whether or not a statement of one's own moral beliefs have a place in public, political discourse - Rocco Buttiglione argued, for example, when talking about his being prevented from taking up a position as a European Union commissioner after a controversy about his views on homosexuality, that, in the political sphere, the real point was that of accepting the principle of "non-discrimination" and not one of insisting that those in public office hold one particular moral view or another on the matter. So a Catholic candidate standing for the Conservative Party might well affirm the principle of non-discrimination with regard to the treatment of homosexual persons, but not expect that they will have to also affirm their belief in the moral licitness of homosexual behaviours (preferring, perhaps, in the political sphere to keep a certian silence about their own beliefs). And this might also lead them on to want to say, as did Mr Lardner, that - also based on the principle of non-discrimination - they would support the rights of teachers and parents who out of conscience do not want homosexual behaviour to be taught to children as morally equivalent to chaste heterosexual behaviour.

Which leads me to ask: If the Scottish Conservatives Chairman considers that Mr Lardner's views "have no place in the modern Conservative party", will he come clean and also admit that this is equivalent to saying that "Catholic views have no place in the modern Conservative party"?

[Let's also read this in the light of David Cameron's remarks about Pope Benedict's forthcoming visit to the United Kingdom, made during the recent television debate: here and here.]

H/T to Kate, where there is some additional reporting. Kate's post suggests that Mr Lardner's website did (before being censored) express something of his own moral beliefs.

Can't read; Won't read

The letter below appeared in the Times today. My comments are inserted.

Sir, I write as someone who has no hostility to the modern Catholic Church and respects the faith it represents and its progress since Vatican II [Rabbi Romain is, as evidenced by his chairmanship of ACCORD and other interests, of a not illiberal tendency in Judaism - which is why he may not appreciate that the modern Catholic Church is also the ancient Catholic Church] . However, there is no doubt that Archbishop Williams was correct in his comments (“Church in Ireland has ‘lost all its credibility’,” Report, Apr 3) about its colossal trauma. The number and global spread of paedophile cases means that it is no longer possible to blame a few rogue priests, but the whole institution is under scrutiny.


Moreover, it is not yet possible to talk about “a new future”, as some Catholic bishops do, while past misdemeanours and cover-ups are still coming to light. [This doesn't readily square with the assertion of the writer that he "has no hostility to the modern Catholic Church"]

A papal missive is not enough to restore the Church’s moral credibility. What is needed is a large and highly public act of contrition, with a week of sorrow being declared, culminating in a day of fasting by all Catholics. [Oh dear, the poor Rabbi has not read the papal missive to which he refers! In that letter, Pope Benedict asks Catholics in Ireland - and many Catholics in countries other than Ireland will no doubt join with that initiative to make it an international one - to offer their Friday penances for a whole year, a whole year, do you get that, a whole year, that's 52 days, one Friday for every week of the year, that's 7 and a half weeks of Fridays, and not just one week ... for precisely the purpose that Rabbi Romain suggests.]

It would both demonstrate the Church’s deep regret and be a powerful act of self-cleansing.

Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain

In a similar vein, see the reports of Rocco Buttiglione's interview on Radio 4 this morning. He is one of my heros, as an outstanding model of how one brings Catholic faith into encounter with the political and cultural milieu of the 20th and 21st centuries, so I am rather disappointed I missed his interview. The BBC website is currently carrying a recording of the interview, though I am not sure how long it will remain on the Today programme site. If you are able to listen to the recording, you will find that Rocco Buttiglione is suitably robust, as exemplified by his concluding words:

There is a criticism that continues, because the anti-Catholic prejudice is the only prejudice that is fashionable in the world of today.

Rocco Buttiglione on abortion

Rocco Buttiglione is one of my role models, because of the stance that he took with regard to the question of equality for homosexuals when he was put forward to be a Commissioner of the European Union. His stance, and his explanation of it, communicated to me a complete vindication of a stand I had taken on the same issue in resigning from the Executive Committee of my trade union.

This article at ZENIT gives an account of recent reporting of his "changing his position" on abortion - which he didn't. As the report says, he remains one of the most prominent pro-life politicians there is. And, if you read the article through, you will see that he has managed to have the Italian parliament pass a resolution calling on the UN to oppose forced abortions worldwide.

Pope Benedict XVI: my hero

I am away from home at the moment, and so do not have the ease of access to news media (and to print materials) that I normally have. And one thing I usually try to avoid doing is posting on the basis of news reports of a speech without reading properly the original text... but I am going to do that here.


Several years ago, I resigned from the Executive Committee of my trade union when it adopted a policy statement that was headlined as opposing discrimination against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) persons. In the small print, it included definitions that meant that those supporting it considered LGBT lifestyles/behaviour as morally licit, and effectively, would be willing to present that view in all educational settings, including pre-school settings. That was what presented a difficulty to me, so I resigned from the Executive Committee to have greater freedom to oppose this policy.


About a year or so after this, Rocco Buttiglione was proposed by the Italian government as a Commissioner for the European Union. He was prevented from taking up the post when a media controversy followed his response to a question during the appointment process about his beliefs with regard to homosexuality. Rocco carefully and cautiously stated the Catholic position on this matter and, as he observed later, he was not sure whether he would be able to offer his head like St Thomas More, but a seat on the European Commision, yes that he could give up.


And now Pope Benedict XVI has presented a carefully articulaed account on the same matter. His concept of a "language of creation" that contains a male-female distinction that must be respected in the field of human sexuality is quite brilliant. An argument can be made that this language is present throughout creation in the ascent from asexual reproduction in lower living forms to sexual reproduction in the higher plants and animals. At the human level it gains a spiritual and, in the realm of grace, a theological meaning too.


I feel totally supported in the stand that I took in opposing my own trade unions policy. Pope Benedict XVI is my hero!



PS. Pope Benedict's Regensburg Address, which drew serious criticism at the time, led to a number encounters of Catholic-Muslim dialogue that did not exist before, and probably would not have happened with Pope Benedict XVI's address. The final statement of one such scholarly meeting between Catholics and Muslims has just been published. I wonder if this statement about sexuality will issue in a similar dialogue between the Catholic Church and LGBT advocates? If such a dialogue is going to happen, LGBT advocates are going to have to be willing to argue the case itself, and not just to argue, ad hominem, that anyone who opposes them is guilty of homophobia.

Bishops, laity and politics

The following is from a recent ZENIT news report:

After being criticized by the secular media for being reticent on moral issues, the archbishop of Quebec acknowledged that the country's bishops really should speak out more.

Peter Kavanaugh of CBC radio admitted last week at the International Catholic Media Convention in Toronto of being envious of the United Kingdom, where the bishops there are willing "to actually engage in public, in the fiercest of terms, an issue that they saw as being vital to the future of the nation and the future of humanity," reported LifeSiteNews.com.

I have found it quite interesting to reflect on the role taken by the Catholic Bishops of the United Kingdom during the recent debate on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. Over quite a long period of time, briefing material was produced on their behalf and circulated and posted on their website. Speeches were made by a number of Bishop and press statements released by them; lay Catholics were encouraged to lobby their Members of Parliament. The Bishops deep seated opposition to key points of the Bill was made clear by those four or five bishops who acted as spokesmen for the others.

Thought 1: it is quite right that the Bishops should "teach" and "give a lead" on these issues.

Thought 2: the fields of politics, and of science and technology, and of medicine could rightly be seen as areas of lay engagement, where lay Catholics take their (secular) professional expertise into action in the light of faith, so it is really up to lay people to take the lead on these sorts of issues.

There is clearly a balance to be achieved between these two thoughts, and also a reflection to be made on whether that balance was correctly and effectively achieved during the recent events surrounding the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

I think the balance of the two thoughts could be reflected in two role models. My role model for the "Thought 1" approach would be Archbishop Oscar Romero. His pastoral letters are profoundly rooted in the Magisterium of the Church, and then apply that Magisterium to the situation in El Salvador at his time. His Sunday homilies, broadcast to the nation by radio, spoke out the truth about violence and injustice that otherwise would not have been admitted or generally known. However, he incessantly called for an end to violence and for an end to injustice; and while these calls may have most often been addressed to those in Government, they were in principle equally applicable to opposition groups as well. So, I think the Bishop's role is to teach the truth of the Catholic faith, applied to the current local situation, and be willing to express judgements as to whether or not particular actions or proposed policies are in accordance with truth and justice as taught by Catholic faith.

My role model for the "Thought 2" approach is Rocco Buttiglione. He was proposed by Italy as a commisioner for the European Union in 2004 (I think!). At a pre-appointment hearing, he was put on the spot about the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality, since he had been nominated for the Commission portfolio that would have included equalities issues. As result of making a very cautious and carefully expressed statement of that teaching and refusing to deny that it was what he believed (but at the same time clearly defending the principle of non-discrimination in public life, which is what mattered to his holding public office), Rocco Buttiglione became the subject of considerable public criticism. Eventually, the withdrawal of his nomination as a European commisioner was forced on Italy. What is of interest here (and, I suspect, in other areas of Rocco Buttiglione's political and academic career too) is that, as a lay person, in the area of his own professional expertise and experience, he made a stand for a point of Catholic teaching that cost him a prestigious politcal appointment. For me, Rocco Buttiglione is the outstanding contemporary lay witness to Catholic teaching on homosexuality. So, I think the lay person's role is to use their professional expertise to judge when and how to act in witness to the content of Catholic teaching, and to do this on their own initiative and not just at the direction of the Bishops.

To evaluate the recent approach by the Catholic Church towards the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, we can perhaps ask some questions.

Question 1: Did the Bishops do more than teach the content of faith and apply it in making known their judgements as to whether the provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill were compatible with truth and justice as expressed in Catholic teaching? Did the Bishops engage in a politcal campaign that might have more appropriately been led by lay people?

Question 2: Did Catholic politicians, particularly Cabinet members, really
act in witness to the judgements expressed by the Bishops and rooted in Catholic teaching? Or did they fudge it? Did other lay Catholics really run with political and media campaign that was properly theirs, rather than relying on the public stance of the Bishops?

On a more personal note that reflect this discussion, I was a Parliamentary candidate for the ProLife Alliance during the 1997 General Election (a fascinating experience which taught me a lot about the electoral process). At the time, my parish priest received some criticism from others for not coming out in support of my candidature. But it had never occurred to me that he should (or could) endorse the particular approach to pro-life politics represented at that election by the ProLife Alliance. I considered it to be up to me a as a lay person to make the decision about what I was doing and how I was going to translate pro-life principles into political action. If I recall correctly, not everyone who was pro-life thought that the ProLife Alliance activity at that election was appropriate, and it clearly had great potential for mishap.