On blessings and on assisted dying

The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has published a Declaration on the meaning of blessings, particularly addressing the question of how blessings might be appropriately used with same sex couples and couples whose marriage situations are not fully in accord with Catholic teaching. News reporting inevitably offers a part of the whole, so I do think it is worthwhile going to the website of the Holy See to read the entire document itself: Fiducia Supplicans. There are some careful distinctions that can be easily lost in reporting.

Before highlighting the possibilities of blessings for same sex couples etc,  the Declaration offers a concrete affirmation of Catholic teaching on the nature of marriage:

Therefore, rites and prayers that could create confusion between what constitutes marriage—which is the “exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children”[6]—and what contradicts it are inadmissible. This conviction is grounded in the perennial Catholic doctrine of marriage; it is only in this context that sexual relations find their natural, proper, and fully human meaning. The Church’s doctrine on this point remains firm.

And, subtly, there is also a clear intention that the style of informal blessings envisaged for same sex couples or couples whose marriage situations are not fully in accord with Catholic teaching, is given to those who (my italics added)

....recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help—do not claim a legitimation of their own status, but who beg that all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships be enriched, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit. 

And correspondingly:

How often, through a pastor’s simple blessing, which does not claim to sanction or legitimize anything, can people experience the nearness of the Father, beyond all “merits” and “desires”? 

The blessing of a same sex couple that recently took place at an Anglican Church in Felixstowe clearly has, and was seen as having, the character of a legitimization of the status of the couple involved - and would not be countenanced by Fiducia Supplicans. 

The BBC news website is reporting that  Esther Rantzen, being treated currently for a Stage 4 cancer, has joined the Dignitas assisted dying clinic in Switzerland.

Speaking about her decision to join Dignitas, Dame Esther said it was driven in part by her wish that her family's "last memories of me" are not "painful because if you watch someone you love having a bad death, that memory obliterates all the happy times".

For those, like myself, who do spend time with patients and family/friends as a patient comes to the end of their lives, there are two elements of Esther Rantzen's words that prompt a sadness. Whilst accompanying a loved one as they die is often going to be challenging, we should not assume that it is going to be "bad". It is for those who surround the dying person to use their time with them to create positive memories in that time; and this is a responsibility that is wider than just the immediate carers. It is a matter of creating a culture, that runs alongside the provision of good clinical, palliative care. In visiting with patients and family/friends in these circumstances, there is a very particular opportunity for them to share anew the memories that have been lived before, as well as living together the present experience. It is a question of accompanying, so that the memories of this time will not be ones that exist to the exclusion of all other memories, and so that they are memories that are enhancing rather than debilitating.

Drag Queen Story Hour: ideological colonisation of the family?

 Pope Francis is well known for advocating in favour of an approach of welcome and closeness to people who identify as LGBT+. He has done this on a number of occasions and in different contexts - in-flight interviews, response to LGBT+ persons when he meets them, correspondence with Fr James Martin. It is not possible to accuse him of advocating a hateful attitude towards an LGBT+ community.

However, in his most recent in-flight interview he distinguished this approach of welcome towards persons from "groups" and "lobby". And he has also spoken over the years of an "ideological colonisation of the family".

Story time certainly isn't over for Aida H Dee , the Drag Queen and founder of Drag Queen Story Hour UK says "hateful" protesters need to "get a job" instead of turning up at their events.

The Drag Story Hour UK consists of Drag Artists reading books to children across the country, in nurseries, libraries and museums. Aida’s aim is to ensure that children are given the opportunity to listen to stories that are diverse and inclusive of all people. They want children to have positive LGBTQ role models, something Aida says they didn’t have growing up.

Aida H Dee, the drag persona of Sab Samuel who founded Drag Queen Story Hour UK, says that most protesters don’t know what they’re protesting over. "They think they’re protesting against gender ideology and the concept of LGBTQ being out on children in some way," Sab said. "Kids have always been gay and trans and queen and non-binary, kids were always a part of the LGBTQ community, even before they knew it themselves."

The above is taken verbatim from an ITV News website report: "They should get a job" : Story time drag queen hits back at protestors". The accuracy of their reporting of the quotations attributed to Sab Samuel/Aida H Dee can be verified from the video clip included in the report.

The last sentence quoted above does express an ideology, what I think Pope Francis would recognise as an "ideological colonisation of the family". It is reasonable to expect that not all families will want their children to take part in an event such as this, which clearly has an intent with regard to LGBT+ ideology. 

As Sab Samuel/Aida H Dee suggests in the video clip, the idea of drag artists telling stories to children has been around for a long time - Christmas pantomime is in some ways its typical manifestation. But it does now seem to have gained an ideological intention that would have been absent from those earlier expressions, when a drag act would not have been identified as an expression of an LGBT+ identity.

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.

Conservatives, condoms and chocolate

The BBC news website is reporting that free condoms will be distributed to delegates at their forthcoming annual conference: Tory conference: LGBT group unveils politics-themed condoms. 

This quotation cited in the BBC report makes one wonder, firstly, why "a good time" is assumed to be defined only in terms of sexual activity; and, secondly, how many conference attendees will really believe that the distribution of free condoms really reflects conservative values. 

"We all know people like a good time at conferences, and we're here to help ensure that happens safely."

It is also a point for reflection that the LGBT+ Conservatives have chosen to make their impact at conference with a highly sexualised messaging. Again, does such a highly sexualised presentation reflect genuinely conservative values that might be held by LGBT+ people in the Conservative party?

Whilst the BBC report suggests a humorous intent, one wonders about the political and social maturity of that particular sense of humour.

I am reminded of the incident at Corpus Christi College in the late 1970's, recorded at Fr Tim Finigan's blog: Contraceptives and Chocolate. This occurred when a motion was proposed to install a condom machine in the undergraduate student common room.

Paul Haffner was there at the time so it must have been my first year (1977-8). He lobbied the Catholics at the College to turn out to support an amendment he was intending to propose. There were not all that many of us but a couple of hearties from the Officer Training Corps ensured that we were not entirely overwhelmed.

Paul's moment came and he announced with his very careful and laboured enunciation "I should like to propose an amendment." This was duly noted and he was invited to make his proposition. With similar dramatic effect, he said "That the motion should be amended by replacing the word 'contraceptives' with the word 'chocolate'." This brought the house down and his amendment (and the amended motion) were carried on a wave of enthusiasm.

Now, I wonder .... will Jacob Rees-Mogg organise a campaign for the distribution of free chocolate bars at the Tory party conference, in order to counter the distribution of free condoms?

On a more serious note, I recall reading C P Snow's novel The Corridors of Power in my much younger years and taking away from it the message that, if nuclear disarmament was to be achieved in the UK, it would occur when Conservative politics came to support it. The politics of the left would always be insufficient to achieve it. Likewise, I think what we have seen in the field of LGBT issues is that, when Conservative politics gave way it made possible the "ideological colonisation" of which Pope Francis regularly speaks.

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.

The greengrocer's slogan - updated for 2021

 Some five years ago I posted on St Charles Lwanga and companions, on the occasion of their feast day (3rd June): St Charles Lwanga and Companions: an opportunity to comment on recent events.That post included an explanation by Rocco Buttiglione of events which occurred when he was nominated as a commissioner for the European Union.

When we compare the experience of St Charles Lwanga and his companions to that of Rocco Buttiglione, what occurred for the former as a physical persecution has been replaced now by a discrimination at the level of culture. At root, what is at issue is the same - Catholic teaching on homosexuality, explained very clearly by Rocco Buttiglione in my earlier post. But the challenge experienced by Catholics now is in resisting a cultural imposition of an opposite teaching rather than in facing a direct threat to life. The timing of St Charles' feast is surprisingly pertinent, with the annual display of LGBT flags and banners that is currently under way just about everywhere. 

I am reminded of a passage from Vaclav Havel's famous essay The Power of the Powerless, in which the author reflects on the role of ideology in a post-totalitarian society such as that existing in Czechoslovakia (as it then was) during the Communist era. The passage begins at the bottom of page 5 of this post of the essay, and forms section III of the essay. Reading the whole of this section, but with "Pride" flags in mind rather than "Workers of the world unite!" slogans, prompts the thought as to how far Vaclav Havel's essay can be applied to the very different time and context that prevails now. Think about it, especially when you visit your supermarket during this month.

The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moments thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean? 

I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life “in harmony with society,” as they say.

Do follow the link to read the rest of Vaclav Havel's analysis. 

Equalising "equality"?

 In introducing the recent Westminster Hall debate on LGBT conversion therapy, conversion therapy was defined by the member of parliament leading the debate in the following way:

First, we must ask ourselves what conversion therapy is and why it needs to be banned. According to a May 2020 report by the UN Office for Human Rights, and indeed according to a definition from the Government Equalities Office, so-called conversion therapy is an umbrella term used to describe interventions of a wide-ranging nature, all of which have in common the belief that a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity can and should be changed. These so-called therapies can manifest in many forms, from pseudo-psychological treatments and aversion therapies to practices that are religiously based, such as purification or fasting. At the most extreme, there has been evidence that this practice can also involve physical and sexual violence, including so-called corrective rape.

 What is interesting in this definition is that it refers to "orientation" and "identity"; it leaves out any reference to the question of how behaviours that follow from orientation and identity might be considered. Is it a definition that assumes that an orientation and identity are of necessity only experienced in intimate sexual activities that align with that orientation and identity, and that an orientation or identity only exist when they are experienced in such sexual activities? 

The question matters, and it matters because it touches on the right of communities such as the Catholic Church to propose their teaching on marriage and human sexuality (cf Article 18 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, cf Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights). That teaching is that the sexual act is ordered only between the male and female person, engaged in a married relationship, and in a manner open to the gift of new life. It is a teaching about a sexual behaviour; it is a teaching that has both a moral character based in human reason and a theological character in terms of the analogy of the wedded relationship of man and woman to the relationship of Christ and the Church.

Circumstances can clearly be envisaged where the way and situation in which the proposal of this teaching takes place might constitute an abuse of the freedom of the individual to whom it is proposed; but, equally, and probably more commonly in mainstream churches, circumstances can also be envisaged where it is proposed in a respectful and considered way that is totally fair to the freedom of the individual. And leaving aside the cases of individuals, the Catholic Church will propose this teaching generally to wider society as a whole.

But would this proposal of a teaching that is focussed on sexual behaviours fall foul of legislation banning conversion therapies that is framed exclusively in terms of "orientation" and "identity", and mistakenly assumes a congruence of "orientation" and "identity" with corresponding intimate sexual behaviours? Would the proposal of such a teaching be seen in law as a form of conversion therapy?

Perhaps it is considerations such as this that are prompting considerable caution on the part of Kemi Badenoch, the Minister for Equalities, and the present government in the UK. As she said towards the end of the recent parliamentary debate:

The Government have been clear that we do not intend to stop those who wish to seek spiritual counselling as they explore their sexual orientation, but there will be cases when a line is crossed, where someone is actively seeking to change another’s sexual orientation—an innate aspect of their personal identity—via coercion under the guise of spiritual support. The Government will exercise great care when considering what does and does not constitute conversion therapy, and how to intervene. ....
We continue to work to ensure that the actions we take are proportionate and effective, and will set out our next steps soon. We have heard a range of views and voices, and it is imperative that we continue a constructive dialogue to ensure that we get our proposals right.

Pope Francis and same-sex unions

 Catholic teaching on same-sex unions - and, I would suggest, Pope Francis' attitude to them - have not changed despite the reporting of his remarks in a recent film. The BBC include some balanced commentary, but the London Evening Standard are suggesting a "major step forward" that appears unjustified.

Catholic teaching is expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Pope Francis has been very clear in critiquing the "colonization of the family" by an ideology of gender, and in critiquing theories of gender that undermine the proper complementarity of the male and female sexes. He has also upheld the idea that marriage is rightly understood as being a vowed relationship between one man and one woman. No-one should be under any misapprehension about this.

I have added the italics in n.2358 in the quotation above because, so far as I can tease it out from the media reporting, Pope Francis' remarks on same sex unions in the film are addressed to particular circumstances for which he articulates the principle of non-discrimination. He does not appear to me to be seeking to change Catholic teaching, or the perception of Catholic teaching.

There is, for example, no moral approval intended of the same sex relationship between the two people contained in the encouragement that they and the children they are bringing up should attend Mass. Applied to the particular circumstances, this appears to me nothing other than "accepting with respect, compassion and sensitivity". The observation that people "have a right to a family" appears to me to address two possible situations: firstly, where children are being brought up by a same-sex couple, where it represents a statement of the care due to those children whoever might provide it; and secondly, to a situation where a member of a family identifies as LGBT and might at that point be cast out from their family as a result. In both cases we again have an articulation of the principle of non-discrimination applied to a specific instance, and, in addition, a thought provoking suggestion as to how Catholic families might prepare to respond should such an instance occur in their own family or extended circle.

The difficulty with expressing support for legislation for civil unions for same-sex couples is that those unions can be perceived as a form of same-sex marriage in all but name (and, as has now happened, represent just a stepping stone on the way to further legal provision that does equate same-sex unions with opposite sex marriage). They can be perceived as an acceptance of the moral legitimacy of such relationships. However, there is some justice in making provision for same-sex couples who may have lived a shared common life over many years to have similar protections over their goods and property that a married opposite sex couple would have - but, of course, this does not have to be linked to the sexual aspect of their shared life. Such provision can be framed for any people who have lived such a shared common life, of which same-sex couples would be one example. In speaking out for a legal provision for civil unions, Pope Francis is again attempting (perhaps in a way that lacks precision) to articulate the principle of non-discrimination.

Mark Lambert has some very useful additional comment on the question of Pope Francis' words about  the "right to a family" and about civil unions here: No, no he didn't actually ..

As the BBC commentary observes, there is no indication what so ever that a change in the substantive position of the Catholic Church on this subject is likely, and media coverage that suggests a "major step forward" is not helpful either to expectations in the Church at large or to the expectations of the LGBT community.

Workers of the world unite! (or revolution at Felbrigg Hall) - UPDATED

I have been brought back to Vaclav Havel's text The Power of the Powerless (full text available by following this link) in reflecting on the position of the National Trust in its "Prejudice and Pride" programme, its participation in gay pride events and in the position in which it put some of its volunteers (the more cautious BBC reporting is here). Though, of course, the BBC's Gay Britannia programming equally prompts it.

What exactly are we doing when we ask people to wear that T-shirt, that badge, that lanyard or to walk in Pride marches? What are we asking of them in seeking their reception of that TV and radio programming?

Are we asking people to adhere to an ideology (of gender, of sex) that is unrelated to an authentic understanding of the dignity of the human person and therefore related only to ethical indifference? Are we asking people to adhere to an ideology that should be subject to the level of critique that Vaclav Havel offered to the communist ideology of his times in Czechoslovakia?

I suspect those National Trust volunteers who have preferred not to wear the requested badges and lanyards have exercised an ethical freedom that is becoming less common.

See Wrong rights? for my fuller account of Vaclav Havel's essay:

Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. It offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier for them to part with them. As the repository of something suprapersonal and objective, it enables people to deceive their conscience and conceal their true position and their inglorious modus vivendi, both from the world and from themselves.

UPDATE:

The National Trust have now issued a statement reversing their instruction to volunteers:

The National Trust was established “for the benefit of the Nation” and we passionately believe our purpose is to make everyone feel welcome at our places, as our founders would have wanted. 

We are using the 50th anniversary of the partial decriminalisation of homosexuality as an opportunity to tell the stories of the people at some of our places, whose personal lives were outside the social norms of their time. 

We hugely value our volunteers and many across the country have taken the opportunity to get involved in developing our Prejudice and Pride programme, which explores LGBTQ heritage. 

At Felbrigg, many volunteers have enthusiastically supported a new exhibition, which looks at the life of the extraordinarily generous Robert Ketton–Cremer.  His decision to leave the house to the Trust was the result in part of the fact that he had never married and had no heirs. 

We asked all our staff and volunteers at the house to wear rainbow lanyards or badges during the six-week event as welcoming symbol to all our visitors.  We remain absolutely committed to our Pride programme, which will continue as intended, along with the exhibition at Felbrigg. 

However, we are aware that some volunteers had conflicting, personal opinions about wearing the rainbow lanyards and badges. That was never our intention. 

We are therefore making it clear to volunteers that the wearing of the badge is optional and a personal decision.  We will be speaking to all our volunteers at Felbrigg over the coming days about this issue.

The change of policy does not appear to apply to National Trust employees.  The Trust's earlier statement is as follows (I have added emphasis - it would be interesting to know the nature of the "training and support" and the meaning of feeling "confident to take part").

Annabel Smith, Head of Volunteering & Participation Development said:

“All of our staff and volunteers sign up to our founding principles when they join us – we are an organisation that is for ever, for everyone.  We are committed to developing and promoting equality of opportunity and inclusion in all that we do regardless of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

“Relating specifically to the Prejudice and Pride programme, we do recognise that some volunteers may have conflicting, personal opinions.

“However whilst volunteering for the National Trust we do request and expect individuals to uphold the values of the organisation. We encourage people with any concerns to chat to our teams. As part of Prejudice and Pride we have worked closely with Stonewall and the University of Leicester who have been providing training and support to help as many volunteers as possible feel confident to take part.”

As part of our ‘Prejudice and Pride’ programme our staff and volunteers are wearing rainbow badges and lanyards, as an international symbol of welcome.

Some volunteers at Felbrigg have said they feel uncomfortable wearing these and we have offered them the opportunity to take a break from front facing duties if that’s what they would prefer.

Reflecting on Gay Britannia

The BBC is currently in the middle of broadcasting a wide range of programmes, on both television and radio, under the branding "Gay Britannia". The programming marks the 50th anniversary of the Sexual Offences Act of 1967 "which partially decriminalised gay sex" according to the web page just linked or, as a trailer I heard on Radio 2 yesterday expressed it, "legalised gay sex". The distinction is not trivial, as an observation below will show.

I am struck by the willingness of the BBC's web page to use the terms "gay" and "queer" in their titles/strap lines for programmes. That they have not been more consistent in the use of what, so far as I can tell, is the current more "correct" terminology of LGBT (or LGBTQ+) suggests some recognition of the unusual in the subject matter of their programming.

The strap line for the two Radio 2 programmes Born this Way reads as follows:

Andrew Scott presents the remarkable story of how gay people transformed pop culture.

Which is interesting in its recognition of something implicit in the whole of the Gay Britannia programming: that the movement in favour of LGBTQ+ equality represents a wholesale alteration of our public culture, and not just a movement in favour of equality. This creates a bit of a catch-22 for Catholics who, on the one hand would wish to defend the rights of LGBTQ+ persons precisely as persons (and not because of their LGBTQ+ characteristics) who therefore have the same inalienable human rights as each and every other person, but on the other hand would wish to oppose a transformation of culture that embeds the LGBTQ+ characteristic as normative.

The BBC Gay Britannia programming indicates how much the culture of media and entertainment has been the subject of this cultural transformation. But that transformation now reaches into many other areas of society via an assimilation of a genuine concern for the rights of LGBTQ+ persons to a cultural transformation that, on the part of most people, is quite inadvertent and unrecognised.

It would be naïve to think that this does not have its effect on Catholics, who, in the workplace and elsewhere, will find it difficult to maintain a resistance to a cultural transformation they do not support whilst at the same time acknowledging the rights as persons of those who live according to a lifestyle that is different than their own.

In this context, it is worthwhile for Catholics to recall some considerations of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and to measure our current experience against them. The considerations refer to an earlier letter from the Congregation on the pastoral care of homosexual persons. The considerations are limited to considerations of sexual orientation (they were published as long ago as 1992), though they nevertheless do have some application to the wider LGBTQ+ context.

6. “She (the Church) is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to or as acceptable as the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society's understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy” (no. 9).

7. “It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.

13. Including “homosexual orientation” among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homo-sexuality (cf. no. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person's homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.

14. ...Homosexual persons who assert their homosexuality tend to be precisely those who judge homosexual behavior or lifestyle to be “either completely harmless, if not an entirely good thing” (cf. no. 3), and hence worthy of public approval. It is from this quarter that one is more likely to find those who seek to “manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil statutes and laws” (cf. no. 5), those who use the tactic of protesting that “any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people... are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination” (cf. no. 9). 

[The observation at n.13 is pertinent to the distinction between "partially decriminalising" and "legalising" noted at the top of this post.]

To update these considerations, we should make reference to Pope Francis' repeated condemnations of "gender theory", which he has termed an "ideological colonisation of the family". That we are made as persons who are either male or female in their physiology is a matter of the creative wisdom of God, and to promote the notion that it is we who can decide our own gender and change it if we wish - this Pope Francis identifies as being opposed to God's creative act. It is an ideology because it wishes to alter reality, rather than to recognise and explore reality. The abolition of the word "sex" to refer to male or female persons, and its almost universal replacement by the word "gender", is a sign of just how much, under the label of equality, an ideology of gender has already contributed to an alteration of culture.

The way ahead for gay Catholics

Read here.

This makes interesting reading. The point that I found thought provoking was the observation about the need for a pastoral/theological approach that can be verified in the experience of those who live from an LGBT background. There is something in this thought that reflects the charism of Communion and Liberation which I might try to explore ...

The Catholic Education Service: an essay in error

As usual, Caroline has offered a reasoned and extensive commentary: The Catholic Education Service: an essay in error. I have added italics to her concluding paragraph, as I do think the CES/St Mary's document has completely misunderstood the need that Catholic school leaders have, and may have expressed. The guidance they needed was not with respect to managing homophobic bullying - one might hope that school leaders are already up to speed as far as responding to bullying of all types in their schools is concerned. What was needed was guidance as to how they can present and live Catholic teaching on the disordered nature of LGBT sexual activity without falling foul of equalities legislation, and this both in terms of curriculum and pastoral systems, and in terms of how they might manage situations should LGBT activism have a presence in their school. I feel sure that this is entirely possible, and reflects that second aspect of Catholic teaching on this question, namely that people who identify as LGBT should not be subject in any way to unjust discrimination. But it does require an acute intelligence and considerable care.

This need does not seem to me merely incidental to the mission of a Catholic school, particularly at secondary level. That mission is characterised by the Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education as promoting two connected syntheses, those between "faith and culture" and between "faith and life" on the part of the members of the school community.

Homophobic bullying in our schools should be identified a source of shame, but so too are all other forms of bullying which undermine the dignity of the person. What Catholic schools really need is guidance and support in terms of how to remain faithful to Church teaching at a time when it is in opposition to the current zeitgeist. Sadly, this document is not that and has proved to be a wasted opportunity as well as a potential source of scandal and confusion. Very serious questions remain about the content, authorship and funding for distribution of this document and whether or not the CES may actually have overstepped it’s remit, which is after all, to serve the cause of Catholic education and educators rather than override and undermine the basic truths of Christ.

Tim Farron: well done for standing up to continued attack!

According to the report on the ITV news website, Tim Farron has again this morning resisted the pressure to express a view in favour of gay sex.

According to that report and its headline, two other well known MPs labelled him as "pretty offensive" for this, and expected that it will anger a lot of people.

Two thoughts:

Firstly, whilst I am not a defender of the giving of gratuitous offence, a reasoned expression of a diverse point of view that offends others who disagree with it is something quite different. That some might be offended by Tim Farron's way of responding to the challenges that he has faced on this issue seems to me to be a case where one can rightly say that there is no human right not to be offended - it is simply that they do not agree with what they think that Mr Farron might believe on the matter (and Tim Farron has been, so far as I can tell, and like Rocco Buttiglione before him, quite careful in not saying in the political forum what he might or might not believe on the matter). As Mr Farron is reported to have said, perhaps we should be talking about what genuinely might affect the election.

Secondly, Mr Gove's reported remarks display a quite considerable indifference to the notion that there might be an ethical question to be discussed with regard to the nature of the sexual expression of the love between persons (and his views of whether or not gay sex is a sin really do not have any relevance to political discussion - he has shown himself to be somewhat superficial in his political acumen compared to Mr Farron). I compare Mr Gove's words to those of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, adding italics to highlight their contrast:

Mr Gove added: "I agree with Liz. It'd have been perfectly possible for him to say 'Of course it's not a sin, it's how people love each other'.

"I'm a churchgoer too. I don't have any problem in saying that I think gay sex is absolutely not a sin."

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

It is not simply a question of "how people love each other". It is a question of what are ethically correct ways in which persons express their love for each other. Whilst the religious beliefs of a particular protagonist are not of relevance to the political arena - it is the question of non-discrimination that is of priority there - neither is indifference to the ethical question an appropriate stance.

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.

Proud of our diversity?

The commitments, particularly in the field of education, contained in the Labour Party's recent Proud of our Diversity document make it timely to re-post the Catholic teaching below.

Perhaps the proposed changes to the National Curriculum will also include the discrimination against those who oppose the legislative outcomes achieved by gay activists in recent years?

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,¹⁴⁰ tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."¹⁴¹ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

And from Pope Francis' Amoris Laetitia:

56. Yet another challenge is posed by the various forms of an ideology of gender that "denies the difference and reciprocity in nature of a man and a woman and envisages a society without sexual differences, thereby elimination the anthropological basis of the family. This ideology leads to educational programmes and legislative enactments that promote a personal identity  and emotional intimacy radially separated from the biological difference between male and female. Consequently, human identity becomes the choice of the individual, one which can also change over time". It is a source of concern that some ideologies of this sort, which seek to respond to what are at times understandable aspirations, manage to assert themselves as absolute and unquestionable, even dictating how children should be raised. It needs to be emphasised that "biological sex and the socio-cultural role of sex (gender) can be distinguished but not separated"..... It is one thing to be understanding of human weakness and the complexities of life, and another to accept ideologies that attempt o sunder what are inseparable aspects of reality. Let us not fall into the sin of trying to replace the Creator. We are creatures, and not omnipotent. Creation is prior to us and must be received as a gift. At the same time, we are called to protect our humanity, and this means, in the first place, accepting and respecting it as it was created.

The Church: "catholic" or "inclusive"?

At the time of posting, gay activists within the Church of England are calling for "a way forward to greater inclusion" that will allow those parishes that wish to do so to celebrate same sex marriages in Church. It follows the reporting of Bishop Nicholas Chamberlain's long term and committed gay relationship, a relationship that is celibate; and the response of Gafcon that his appointment was a "major error".

There is a first difficulty in the use of the word "inclusive" here. The word can have two distinct senses, and, typically for the debate about LGBT issues, the word is used in the letter to the Times in a way that does not distinguish between the two senses. The outcome of this failure to distinguish is an unjustified presumption that "inclusion", poorly defined, should become a characteristic of the life and practice of the Church.

If the object of the term "inclusive" is persons, then one can quite rightly say that the Church should have an openness to everyone, as persons, regardless of their origins or lifestyles. Pope Francis' use of the term "accompaniment" expresses something of this idea.

If the object of the term "inclusive" is the teaching of the Church on matters of marriage and sexuality, then it is quite another matter. And the meaning is quite different. It is the assimilation of this second sense to the first sense in the common sensibility of both Christians and others that is the unfortunate, and, I suspect, intended consequence of failure to distinguish between the two senses on the part of pro-gay advocates.

A first reflection, from the point of view of Christian life, arises from the moment of Baptism, the Sacrament by which a person becomes a member of the Church. The Baptismal profession of faith expresses a turning away from sin and a turning towards the person of Christ, a conversion of life. That call to a conversion of life asks those who enter the Church to live a changed life, not just at the temporal moment of Baptism but existentially in the subsequent living of the Christian life. Each individual might face that call in a different specific manner, and so the specificity of that call experienced by a person who identifies as LGBT will differ from the specificity of the call for a person who has, say, pursued a life of crime.

A second reflection arises from considering whether or not the Church should use the term "inclusive" to describe its nature. According to the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, n.166:

The Church is catholic, that is universal, insofar as Christ is present in her: "Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church " (Saint Ignatius of Antioch). The Church proclaims the fullness and the totality of the faith; she bears and administers the fullness of the means of salvation; she is sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole of the human race.

This is more fully developed in the corresponding paragraphs of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, nn. 830-831:

Secondly, the Church is catholic because she has been sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole of the human race:

All men are called to belong to the new People of God. This People, therefore, while remaining one and only one, is to be spread throughout the whole world and to all ages in order that the design of God's will may be fulfilled: he made human nature one in the beginning and has decreed that all his children who were scattered should be finally gathered together as one.... the character of universality which adorns the People of God is a gift from the Lord himself whereby the Catholic Church ceaselessly and efficaciously seeks for the return of all humanity and all its goods, under Christ the Head in the unity of his Spirit.

It is clear, I think, that the Church describes herself as "catholic" or "universal", and does not use the term "inclusive" to describe her own nature.  I would suggest that, in responding to the misguided claim in favour of an "inclusive" Church, we should instead respond with an account of the catholic, or universal, nature of the Church.

Ideological colonisation?

During his visit to the Philippines in January, Pope Francis warned against an "ideological colonisation" of the family - Pope says "ideological colonisation" threatens traditional family.

Pope Francis on Friday warned against an "ideological colonisation of the family," a reference to gay marriage around the world and to a heated debate in the Philippines about a government population control plan.

The Pope made his impromptu comments at rally for families in Manila on a day that began with an appeal to the government to tackle corruption and hear the cries of the poor suffering from "scandalous social inequalities" in Asia's most Catholic country.

It is interesting in this context to watch Kenya's President Uhuru Kenyatta's response to  US President Barack Obama's comments on gay rights, during a press conference. It can be found in the second embedded clip of the BBC News report: Kenya: Trials would aid fight against corruption - Obama. (There is a certain disingenuity in President Obama's reference to "love", the term "love" here being typically undefined).

More recently, President Obama urged world leaders to heed Pope Francis' call in Laudato Si for action on climate change: Obama calls for world leaders to heed Pope Francis’s message.

“We have a profound responsibility to protect our children, and our children’s children, from the damaging impacts of climate change.”

But Laudato Si, n.155, reads as follows (emphasis added):

Human ecology also implies another profound reality: the relationship between human life and the moral law, which is inscribed in our nature and is necessary for the creation of a more dignified environment. Pope Benedict XVI spoke of an “ecology of man”, based on the fact that “man too has a nature that he must respect and that he cannot manipulate at will”. It is enough to recognize that our body itself establishes us in a direct relationship with the environment and with other living beings. The acceptance of our bodies as God’s gift is vital for welcoming and accepting the entire world as a gift from the Father and our common home, whereas thinking that we enjoy absolute power over our own bodies turns, often subtly, into thinking that we enjoy absolute power over creation. Learning to accept our body, to care for it and to respect its fullest meaning, is an essential element of any genuine human ecology. Also, valuing one’s own body in its femininity or masculinity is necessary if I am going to be able to recognize myself in an encounter with someone who is different. In this way we can joyfully accept the specific gifts of another man or woman, the work of God the Creator, and find mutual enrichment. It is not a healthy attitude which would seek “to cancel out sexual difference because it no longer knows how to confront it”.

A reference from this paragraph refers to Pope Francis' General Audience catechesis of 15th April 2015, during which Pope Francis discussed the significance of the "alliance between man and woman":

God entrusted the earth to the alliance between man and woman: its failure deprives the earth of warmth and darkens the sky of hope. The signs are already worrisome, and we see them. I would like to indicate, among many others, two points that I believe call for urgent attention.

The first. There is no doubt that we must do far more to advance women, if we want to give more strength to the reciprocity between man and woman. In fact, it is necessary that woman not only be listened to more, but that her voice carry real weight, a recognized authority in society and in the Church. .....

A second reflection concerns the topic of man and woman created in the image of God. I wonder if the crisis of collective trust in God, which does us so much harm, and makes us pale with resignation, incredulity and cynicism, is not also connected to the crisis of the alliance between man and woman. In fact the biblical account, with the great symbolic fresco depicting the earthly paradise and original sin, tells us in fact that the communion with God is reflected in the communion of the human couple and the loss of trust in the heavenly Father generates division and conflict between man and woman.

Across all three - President Obama, President Kenyatta and Pope Francis - there is an intriguing similarity of themes, but also a striking difference.

President Kenyatta appears to have articulated a very competent resistance to the colonisation of the culture of his country by an issue that is not foremost in the minds of its citizens.

[Whilst decriminalisation of homosexual activity might well be a step that the Catholic Church would consider desirable, I think we should recognise that the agenda represented by President Obama's remarks goes further than that.]

Same sex marriage is not a human right - UPDATED

According to the BBC News reporting:

The US Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex marriage is a legal right across the United States.

But it is interesting to note that the European Court has ruled that the European Convention on Human Rights does not impose on countries adhering to the Convention an obligation to legalise same sex marriage - see here, paragraphs 60-64. And by a strong implication, since the European Convention is in some respect derivative from it, this suggests that the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights likewise does not articulate any right of same sex couples to marry as being a human right.

Article 16 (1) of the UN Declaration, therefore, should be seen as articulating only a right of a man and a woman to marry:

Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

As with all the human rights expressed in the UN Declaration this is a right that is universal (it applies equally to all men and women), and it is inalienable (that is, in the context of this post, it is neither conveyed by the positive law of a country and nor can it be taken away by that law).

According to the preamble to the  UN Declaration:

.... human rights should be protected by the rule of law ....

In other words, it is not the proper task of the law to convey human rights that do not in fact exist. It is rather the task of the law to protect and allow the exercise of rights that arise from the very nature of the human person, that is, rights that are universal and inalienable. A system of law that attempts to create a human right has overstepped its competence.

So, as we read the news of the US Supreme Court decision, I think we should be careful to recognise, first of all, what the decision has and has not done. And then we should also resist the suggestion that the decision is one that makes the United States a more equal or fairer place - in so far as the decision does not protect a recognised human right it can only be seen as being neutral in this regard.

UPDATE 1: Neil Addison analyses the dissenting judgements of the US Supreme Court here - and, interestingly, the dissenting judges appear to be raising a question about the Court's action from the point of view of the nature of law, but in a rather different way than I suggest above. There is a further post by Neil Addison here.

UPDATE 2: The President of the Conference of Catholic Bishops in the United States has issued a statement, the full text of which can be found here. The opening paragraph of the statement reads:

Regardless of what a narrow majority of the Supreme Court may declare at this moment in history, the nature of the human person and marriage remains unchanged and unchangeable. Just as Roe v. Wade did not settle the question of abortion over forty years ago, Obergefell v. Hodges does not settle the question of marriage today. Neither decision is rooted in the truth, and as a result, both will eventually fail. Today the Court is wrong again. It is profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage

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.

Je suis Stefano, je suis Domenico (UPDATED - AGAIN)

Messrs Dolce and Gabbano are taking some criticism from the great and good over the content of an interview given to the Italian magazine Panorama. In publishing the text of the interview online (sorry, no time to translate), Panorama observes that much of the (international) controversy has arisen as a result of Elton John's intervention rather than from a reading of the text of the interview itself. Unfortunately, the words that provoked the ire of the great and good occur early in the interview thus losing a certain context that is gained by reading the rest of the interview.

The first context is a project of Dolce and Gabbano to gather images of families from all over the world: #DGfamily, with its strapline "The family is our point of reference". The #DGfamily archive is also the subject of a study at the Centre for Fashion and Cultural Production at the Catholic University of Milan. There is also a context in their recent presentation of their collection at Milan Fashion Week.

The recognition that it is not possible/appropriate that a relationship such as their own should be seen as a marriage or a family, or that it should issue in children, represent an interesting contribution to contemporary discussion on the family. The Panorama interview, seen as a whole, offers a fascinating reflection on the question of the family, from the point of view of two gay men (at one time in a relationship but now just professional colleagues) and from  the point of view of  their own experiences of lives lived in families. The interview offers an argument for a permanence in value of the "traditional family" - they do not believe there is any family other than that. Clearly Elton John - with two children conceived through IVF and carried by a surrogate mother - has a stake in trying to silence this point of view.

Which is why the most fundamental thing to be said in the context of the controversy following Elton John's intervention is said at the beginning of further coverage at Panorama online:

"Dolce e Gabbana sono liberi di esprimersi sulla famiglia e sui figli, nessuno ha diritto di censurarli, come hanno preteso di fare Elton John e altri"... [Dolce and Gabbana are free to express themselves on the family and on children, no-one has the right to censor them, as Elton John and others have tried to do...]

Or, as the title of this post says:

Je suis Stefano, je suis Domenico 

The Catholic theologian commenting in Panorama does not accept the description of IVF conceived children as "children of a chemistry" or "synthetic children" given by Domenico Dolce in the interview, wishing instead to refer to them as children who "remain human individuals ... who have a dignity and value as such". However, he insists that it is possible to remain critical of the means used to conceive such a child whilst still respecting and recognising them fully as human persons. Mgr Cozzoli goes on to offer a very capable exposition of a Catholic position for a general audience.

The whole original interview is worth reading, but I offer a flavour here. Domenico Dolce's reply to the question "Would you like to have been parents?":

Sono gay, non posso avere un figlio. Credo che non si possa avere tutto dalla vita, se non c’è vuol dire che non ci deve essere. È anche bello privarsi di qualcosa. La vita ha un suo percorso naturale, ci sono cose che non vanno modificate. E una di queste è la famiglia. [I am gay, I cannot have a child. I believe that it is not possible to have everything in life, if it is not possible one can say that it must not be. And it is also beautiful to deny oneself something. Life has a natural course, there are things that cannot be changed. And one of these is the family.] 

This article offers more comment on the Dolce and Gabbana vs. Elton John controversy, and usefully summarises the substance of the interview as follows:

The sexual complementarity of parents, the indispensability of the mother and father, and the centrality of love in procreative relationships, are serious issues, and Gabbana’s praise of the ‘supernatural sense of belonging’ in family life strike me as a charismatic endorsement of the family.

UPDATED: Thinking Faith has a post here that comments on the Elton John/Dolce and Gabbana flare up in terms of the nature of the internet and how St Ignatius might suggest we use that medium: #BoycottOnlineAnger: Elton John and Dolce & Gabbana . I quote from this post:

...St Ignatius’s advice to spiritual directors in the famous Paragraph 22 of the Spiritual Exercises, which says the following:

“To assure better cooperation between the one who is giving the Exercises and the exercitant, and more beneficial results for both, it is necessary to suppose that every good Christian is more ready to put a good interpretation on another’s statement than to condemn it as false.”

This is often referred to as the ‘Presupposition’, and it has a wider application than the Exercises: is a foundation stone for all civil communication. 

Whilst I have not followed events fully, it is apparent that Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana have received more support for the position on marriage articulated in their interview than one might have expected.

UPDATED - AGAIN: see also this blog post at the Tablet website: Children raised by gay parents thank Dolce and Gabbana.