As part of the celebrations of the 800th anniversary of the transistus of St Francis, his mortal remains are currently on display for the veneration of the faithful in the main basilica in Assisi.
CRUX has a report and photographs from the event. The reporting is from Associated Press, and the photo gallery included in the report has been curated by AP photo editors.
The Decree of the Second Vatican Council on the Means of Social Communication, Inter Mirifica, acts as a kind of introduction to the much more detailed Pastoral Instruction, Communio et Progressio, that was prepared at the request of the Council Fathers. (In passing, it is worth looking at n.21 of the latter and recognising how pertinent are the questions that it raises, though the Instruction was written in days well before the widespread use of the internet.)
Inter Mirifica n.5 includes the following paragraph (I have slightly adapted the translation from the Vatican website against my reading of the Latin original, and added the bold):
The first question has to do with "information," as it is called, or the search for and reporting of the news. Now clearly this has become most useful and very often necessary for the progress of contemporary society and for achieving closer links among men. The prompt publication of affairs and events provides every individual with a fuller, continuing acquaintance with them, and thus all can contribute more effectively to the common good and more readily promote and advance the welfare of the entire civil society. Therefore, in society men have a right to information, in accord with the circumstances in each case, about matters concerning individuals or the community. The proper exercise of this right demands, however, that the news itself that is communicated should always be true and complete, within the bounds of justice and charity. In addition, the manner in which the news is communicated should be honest. This means that in both the search for news and in reporting it, there must be full respect for the laws of morality and for the legitimate rights and dignity of the individual. For not all knowledge is helpful, but "it is charity that edifies".The keynote event of the main programme for the Jubilee of the World of Communications is a session "In Dialogue with Maria Ressi and Colum McCann", which is also followed up by a session "Communication and Hope" that afternoon.
Maria Ressa was jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2021 for "efforts to safeguard freedom of expression, which is a precondition for democracy and lasting peace." A notable aspect of her journalism has been her criticism of the rule of President Duterte in her native Philippines. A full account of her life and activity in the field of journalism can be found at Wikipedia: Maria Ressa.
Colum McCann is an Irish writer of fiction and non-fiction. His most notable non-fiction work is American Mother, published in 2024. It tells the story of Diane Foley, the mother of the journalist Jim Foley, who was held captive and then executed by ISIS. Colum has also co-founded an initiative Narrative 4 which uses shared story telling to build empathy within communities. An account of Colum McCann's life in journalism and as a novelist can be found at Wikepedia: Colum McCann.
In their contributions to the Jubilee of the World of Communications, Maria Ressa and Colum McCann are able to offer a considerable witness to the work of journalists in relation to the reporting of world events.
UPDATE: The text of Colum McCann's keynote address can be found here: Jubilee of the World of Communications: Colum McCann. That of Maria Ressa is here: Jubilee of the World of Communications: Maria Ressa.
What is the raison d'etre of our Catholic media? Have we as an object to take part in the missionary mandate for evangelising the public: Or do we exist to take part in the formation of Christian readers, to help them grow in the faith? Or do our media take part in general information, bringing a Christian reading of events, particularly in these times when crises succeed crises? Or are our media all of these at once?
In a world that appears always more de-Christianised, in the West at least, is there still a place for Catholic media? Do the public still have an interest for our titles, be that for a Christian vision or even to live a daily life of Christian prayer? If we are celebrating now the Jubilee 2025, will we still be here for the Jubilee 2050?
Plenary 3: Is the Catholic media an intermediary for the magisterium like other media?
Our media have an altogether particular positioning, between an editorial line and journalistic demand on the one part, and following the Catholic faith on the other part. How can and must our media situate themselves vis a vis developments of the magisterium? Are we there to relay them, to accompany them or to question them?
The Encounter is also animating an event within the main programme for the Jubilee of the World of Communications, with a session entitled "How can Catholic media be peace makers?". The sister of Pere Hamel (see below) will take part in this session.
On the occasion of the Jubilee, the Holy Father encourages us to be "pilgrims of hope". What does that mean for us, professionals in Catholic media? Have our media a particular responsibility to communicate this hope, in being voices for peace in a world where conflicts, "the Third World War being fought piecemeal", appears sadly to spread and never to end?
A final noteworthy feature of the Encounter will be the presentation of the Prix Pere Jacques Hamel. Pere Hamel was killed whilst celebrating Mass in his church in July 2016, and afterwards the Federation des Medias Catholiques, along with the family of Pere Hamel and the Archbishop of Rouen, established this prize. It is awarded for a media contribution that favours the promotion of peace and of inter-religious dialogue. The prize will be presented during the Encounter by the French ambassador to the Holy See.
[The full programme for the Jubilee of the World of Communications is here, and notably opens with the celebration of Mass for the feast of St Francis de Sales.]
Is the current anxiety for "decolonisation" of our culture and some of its institutions genuinely about "de-colonising"? Or is it in reality the replacement of a physical/historical colonialism by a new, ideological colonialism - an ideological "re-colonisation"?
In Bristol, this question has arisen around the figure of Edward Colston (this Wikepedia link includes a description of the renaming of a number of institutions in Bristol previously named after Edward Colston). Money that he made in trade at sea, which included a significant governance role in a company that traded in African slaves, was used in part to fund a wide range of philanthropic and civic projects in Bristol.
In Shoreditch, in East London, the question has arisen around the figure of Robert Geffrye. The museum that is now known as the Museum of the Home was formerly known as the Geffrye Museum, and is located on the site of almshouses that were originally endowed by Robert Geffrye. Like Edward Colston, some of the investments from which Robert Geffrye benefitted were related to the slave trade; and, also like Edward Colston, Robert Geffrye was responsible for charitable endowments.
Should figures such as Edward Colston and Robert Geffrye be excised from our contemporary cultural expression? Today we see the trade in African slaves as being akin to a mortal sin; at the times of Edward Colston and Robert Geffrye the prevailing culture did not see it in that way. Thinking philosophically rather than historically, we should recognise that, whatever the prevailing cultural acceptance at the time, participation in the slave trade represented a denial of the dignity and respect due to other human persons (African slaves). In other areas of their activity, however, we should also recognise that figures like Edward Colston and Robert Geffrye acted in a way which favoured the dignity and respect due to other human persons (the beneficiaries of their almshouses or educational institutions).
They are figures who represent a mixture of wheat and tares, to use a Biblical analogy. Until recently, our cultural expression was very willing to reflect the wheat and to disregard the tares; and now it is perhaps very willing to reflect the tares and disregard the wheat. I think that a just cultural expression needs to reflect a correct assessment of both the wheat and the tares; and that cultural re-assessment may not be a correct assessment if its only outcome is the removal of the names of Edward Colston and Robert Geffrye from institutions associated with them. If their presence is excised, the question is not concluded until we look at what replaces that presence; and a recent visit to the Museum of the Home, formerly known as the Geffrye Museum, raises exactly that question of what has replaced the former expression.
In 2021, the museum reopened after an extensive redevelopment, which added a series of exhibition spaces in what had originally been the basements of the almshouses. The museum has also undertaken a process of engagement with its local community in East London, which is reflected in some of the displays in the new exhibition "alcoves" in the basement and in the narratives associated with the long standing "Rooms through Time" along the main corridor above ground. [One might recognise, though, as was suggested by my fellow visitor, that those who have taken part in the resulting displays are of middle or professional class.]
Of the new displays, I found two to be of particular interest. One used recorded video, photos and objects to discuss the range of religious belief that might exist in the locality of the museum, basing it on the objects of religious significance that might be displayed in a person's home. I found the representation of Christianity disappointing in two ways. Firstly, it didn't express the practical act of charity and advocacy in its relation to specific belief about the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus; and secondly it did not refer to Christian churches. The person who spoke came over as if they might be a Christian without any specific denominational affiliation, which whilst it may be fair to the particular individual who contributed, may not be true of the local community as a whole.
The other display that I found interesting was one that explored what it means to speak of "home". This was represented by photographs and accounts of residents from the local area. I was struck by how many of he displays described people who had lived long term in rented accommodation that they had made "home". This, I thought, was an interesting exploration for a museum whose "charism" is that of representing the physical displays of homes through time.
The "Rooms through Time" displays show a series of full size recreations of living rooms from different times. Each display includes the decor - carpets, wall paper, windows, curtains - and furniture of the time. From visits that we made before the redevelopment of the museum, I recall these displays being tweaked to reflect the time of year. Our recent visit was in early December, so the narratives associated with the rooms and materials displayed on dining tables reflected Boxing Day or the Jewish feast of Hannukah. In one or two cases, the new narratives did not really reflect the content of the room, with a certain sense that a narrative had been imposed on a room that did not necessarily express the narrative. A room whose narrative was that of an Imperial Airways pilot contained some features of art deco style - Critall windows, an art deco style dining table, a fireplace - that I recall from an earlier visit to the museum being the real point of this particular display. Likewise, a 60s/70s open plan home with a mezannine sleeping area above a kitchen area to one side of the main living space, is now accompanied by a narrative of a lesbian friend who has been kicked out of her home staying overnight after a late night party (a mattress and bedding on the floor having been added to the previously existing display). Here in particular, the "home" being displayed - a style of open plan living - really does not justify the imposed narrative. In both of these examples, the narrative does not produce a style of home-making - furnishings, furniture, displayed objects - that one would expect in a display of a "home".
Which leads to the question raised at the beginning of this post. Has the former Geffrye Museum, in distancing itself from the person of Robert Geffrye, chosen to replace that former association with a historical colonialism with a new, ideological form of colonialisation? And, at the same time, to make itself less a Museum of the Home?
America magazine, a journal published by the Jesuits in the United States, have recently carried an -interview with Pope Francis. A full text has been published online: Pope Francis discusses Ukraine, U.S. bishops and more.
The first thought is less a thought, but more a feeling that this particular observation by Pope Francis should give every Catholic cause to pause and reflect:
I go to confession every 15 days.
[I suspect that the reference to 15 days might properly translate from Spanish to English as every two weeks.]
The second thought is to suggest that there is some parallel between my previous post on abortion as an ideological or an existential question and Pope Francis' account of abortion as a political or as a pastoral question:
The problem arises when this reality of killing a human being is transformed into a political question, or when a pastor of the church uses political categories.Each time a problem loses the pastoral dimension (pastoralidad), that problem becomes a political problem and becomes more political than pastoral. I mean, let no one hijack this truth, which is universal. It does not belong to one party or another. It is universal. When I see a problem like this one, which is a crime, become strongly, intensely political, there is a failure of pastoral care in approaching this problem. Whether in this question of abortion, or in other problems, one cannot lose sight of the pastoral dimension: A bishop is a pastor, a diocese is the holy people of God with their pastor. We cannot deal with [abortion] as if it is only a civil matter.
In answering a question about the role of women in the Church, Pope Francis spoke of a ministerial or Petrine dimension of the Church and of a feminine or Marian dimension. The theme of the Petrine and Marian dimensions of the Church can be found in Charles Journet's Theology of the Church and, perhaps more explicitly, in Hans Urs von Balthasar's The Office of Peter and the Structure of the Church. There is therefore rich hinterland lying behind Pope Francis' references here. Pope Francis then offers a context for his repeated remarks about giving women a greater role in the Church - that there is an administrative principle, which is not theological, but more about the every day running of the Church:
There is a third way: the administrative way. The ministerial way, the ecclesial way, let us say, Marian, and the administrative way, which is not a theological thing, it is something of normal administration. And, in this aspect, I believe we have to give more space to women....
And why can a woman not enter ordained ministry? It is because the Petrine principle has no place for that. Yes, one has to be in the Marian principle, which is more important. Woman is more, she looks more like the church, which is mother and spouse. I believe that we have too often failed in our catechesis when explaining these things. We have relied too much on the administrative principle to explain it, which in the long term does not work. This is an abbreviated explanation, but I wanted to highlight the two theological principles; the Petrine principle and the Marian principle that make up the church. Therefore, that the woman does not enter into the ministerial life is not a deprivation. No. Your place is that which is much more important and which we have yet to develop, the catechesis about women in the way of the Marian principle.
My last thought refers to how Pope Francis understands the relationship between a Bishop and the people of his diocese, a relationship which he characterises by the word "pastoral". The discussion occurs in a couple of different places in the interview, at one point contrasting it with the role of episcopal conferences:
A bishops’ conference has, ordinarily, to give its opinion on faith and traditions, but above all on diocesan administration and so on. The sacramental part of the pastoral ministry is in the relationship between the pastor and the people of God, between the bishop and his people. And this cannot be delegated to the bishops’ conference.
In the interview, Pope Francis does not connect this to the idea of synodality. I do think, however, that the responsibility of a bishop towards his diocese is one key point on which the practice of synodality turns, and Pope Francis articulation of this responsibility has implications for the synodal pathway.
The news coverage of the conflict in the Ukraine alerts us to the way in which the same events can be the subject of widely different narratives, depending on the source of the information used in the coverage.
But this happens in other situations, too. One is the Family Sex Show, recently cancelled. Care's report is here: Family sex show "cancelled" following backlash. It links to reports on the BBC news website (The Family Sex show cancelled amid threats and abuse at staff) and at the Guardian (Sex education theatre show for children cancelled after 'violent threats'). As Care point out, the emphasis in the wider media reporting, and in particular in the choice of headlines, follows the statement from the producers of the show with respect to threats and abuse. There is little acknowledgement that the show has been cancelled following significant concern about its explicit content for a target audience of children aged 5+.
In the light of more recent events there is a subtlety in the purpose of the Family Sex Show, as stated in publicity for the show itself:
Using real life bodies, personal stories, songs and movement, The Family Sex Show puts the good stuff at the forefront of conversation and imagines a future where there is no shame; but a celebration of difference, equality and liberation.
The idea of a "future where there is no shame" hides a subtle intent. This week Neil Parish MP has resigned after watching pornography in the Houses of Parliament and, commenting on the same, Lord Bethell of Romford has referred to a complete lack of any moral sense that he saw when suggesting to a fellow tube traveller that it was not appropriate to be watching pornography in easy view of others. The idea that young people should be encouraged to have a future where there is no shame hides that subtle intent of undermining any moral sense.
Likewise, there are two very different narratives surrounding strike action being taken by teachers at the John Fisher School in Purley. For the union, and much of the media coverage, this is a story of discrimination against an LGBT+ children's author - the strike action is directed against a "discriminatory working environment" and aims to reinstate dismissed Foundation Governors and the cancelled visit by the author. But, as the responsible Catholic Diocese points out in its most recent statement, the question has always been one relating to the content of the books being promoted and does not reflect any discrimination against the author or others. The Southwark Diocesan statement cites what might be termed "highlights" as far as inappropriate content goes; having spent the last few days reading the book cited, there is a sustained sexualised content with additional scenes that give rise for concern. The content is questionable for promotion in any school, where there are likely to be pupils of the Christian faith even when the school does not have a religious designation, let alone a Catholic school.
As a bit of an aside, the union taking industrial action at John Fisher School seem to have missed the disparaging view of the school work force that is shown at some points in the book. They seem to have missed (on page 2 of the book!) a female teacher shouting "Get the hell down, you skinny little runt!" at a pupil and this paragraph in chapter 14:
Mrs Peters was the surly woman who guarded reception (and the photocopier access) like it was Fort Knox and, like most people who worked in schools, she utterly despised kids.
It is worth noting that the snap OFSTED inspection has spoken highly of the school's care for its pupils.
UPDATE: This morning (2nd May), Mona Siddiqi delivered the "Thought for the Day" slot on BBC Radio 4's Today programme. It will have occurred at about 1:45 into the programme, and will in due course be accessible on the programme website: Radio 4 Today Programme. In the context of the Islamic feast of Eid and the end of the month of Ramadan, she spoke about the significance of the idea of shame, in its unhelpful sense (that in which one person actively "shames" another) and in its valuable sense (in which a person's own sense of shame acts as a prompt of conscience). She recognised how this reflection was significant for standards in public life.
I was in central London yesterday, Good Friday, for the passion play in Trafalgar Square and for the 3pm liturgy. Extinction Rebellion were evident at Trafalgar Square and, credit to them, as they walked round the outside of the square at one point during the 12 noon performance of the passion play, they did so in silence and without beating their drums. They did get media attention, and prompted the deployment of the police helicopter with its attendant use of fossil fuels, though the headline on the Evening Standard website strikes me as a great exaggeration compared to the experience of many in London yesterday: XR did not bring London to a standstill.
So far as I could judge, the numbers who participated in the two performances of the Wintershall passion play will have far exceeded those taking part in XR protests yesterday. We can add to that the number of people who will have attended the 3pm liturgy in central London churches yesterday, or taken part in processions or other services to mark Good Friday.
Which of these events is really the most worthy of news coverage?
Zero made the suggestion just over a week ago that we might go along to a broadcast of BBC Radio 4's Any Questions? The broadcast on 22nd October was coming from Sydney Russell School, very near to us.
The students who helped to host the event and were the main source of the questions asked during the programme were excellent. I suspect they had a very exciting experience - they were certainly very keen to meet the Education Secretary, Nadhim Zahawi, at the end of the broadcast (I think this encounter had been pre-arranged).
The full broadcast can be heard at BBC Sounds for at least the next 12 months from the date of this post. If you listen from 32:40 onwards you will hear the answers given by the panel to a question about assisted dying, which had been the subject of a debate in the House of Lords that same day.
I reacted with considerable sadness when Nadhim Zahawi and Dr Rosena Allin-Khan, unsure of exactly what they felt about the legalisation of assisted dying, both included in their remarks an expression of concern as to how they would feel if they were to become a burden to their loved ones. I found it sad that two very capable individuals, in good health and contributing significantly to public life, should have this sense that, at some point in the future, they might feel that they were a burden to others.
I was able at the end of the broadcast to catch a brief word with Nadhim Zahawi, to say to him how sad I found it that he felt the way he did. I shared with him that I have been able to see some quite special moments as a volunteer visiting with patients in my local hospital trust who are nearing the end of their lives. I ended by expressing my hope that, as he nears that point, he might not feel as he does now. Unfortunately, I was unable to catch Dr Allin-Khan to share the same thoughts.
Though the discussion of assisted dying in Any Questions? was only a short part of the programme as a whole, the topic was the only topic in the corresponding Any Answers? broadcast on 23rd October. That programme can also be found on BBC Sounds here, though it only appears to be available for the next 29 days from the date of this post.
I made two mistakes in my attempt to contribute to Any Answers? (I wasn't able to phone in at the time of the programme as I was involved in an all day Teams meeting at the time). I sent in an email, when I should have sent in a text or tweet at the time of the programme itself; and I also tried to respond to things said during the Any Questions? programme. If you listen to the Any Answers? programme you will very readily recognise my tactical errors.
The text of my emailed comment is below:
After attending Any Questions this evening at Sydney Russell School in Dagenham, I would like to submit the following comment to Any Answers:
SUBJECT: assisted dying
In their remarks about assisted dying, both Nadhim Zahawi and Dr Rosena Allin-Khan were torn as to whether or not they supported proposals to legalise assisted dying.
What saddened me greatly, however, was that both of them expressed a real concern that they might, at the end of their lives, feel that they had become a burden to their family and friends.
In a volunteer role at my local NHS hospital trust I am able to visit with patients and their loved ones as a patient approaches the end of their life; and I see some lovely moments that friends and family are able to spend with a patient at this time in their lives.
Perhaps as a society we need to re-frame the conversation so that it is one about how we love and care for those who are seriously ill; and how we recognise what they in turn have to offer to those who love them and care for them. We need to abolish the language of burden from our discourse.
I hope, at a personal level, that both Mr Zahawi and Dr Allin-Khan will be able, as they grow older, to feel that the experience of illness is not one of being a burden to others but instead an experience of a shared love and care between them and their loved ones.
The BBC news website has reported that Demi Lovato is non-binary and is changing pronouns to they/them. Their report includes this observation:
Many fans have said they're "proud" of Demi's announcement, with some describing the singer as a "role model".
Another comment in the report quotes a fan of Demi Lovato as now feeling able to speak about their gender identity to their parents in a way that they had not felt able to do before.
I do wonder, though, whether there are other narratives that are not being reported - of young people who would otherwise happily have a certainty in a conventional gender identity as they experience puberty but who now feel that they should question that certainty; not because they are in themselves uncertain, but because the surrounding culture is telling them that they should be uncertain.
Interestingly, the report is being carried in the Newsbeat section of the BBC site, part of BBC news programming (for Radio 1 and Radio 1 Extra) aimed at younger listeners and particularly carrying news relating to entertainment and social media.
My first thought is one that I have expressed before on this blog. There is a common courtesy in addressing another person in the manner in which they wish to be addressed, and this represents a respect for their person, precisely as person. This would certainly apply to someone who was a work colleague, for example, and would stand alongside such a simple thing as someone like myself having a preference for being addressed as "Joe" or "Joseph".
But Ms Lovato's very public announcement, and widespread media following, provide an added complication to this principle. From the point of view of Ms Lovato, is there an intention in making the announcement that those who adopt the use of the preferred pronouns, particularly in the media, are in effect being asked to consent in the public domain to an underlying ideology of gender? Is there, not just an announcement of a personal decision, but an intention to promote for acceptance in wider society a particular ideology of gender? Whilst Ms Lovato is due the respect of my using her preferred pronouns as a question of respect for her person, at what point does that also become an expression of belief on my part in a notion of gender fluidity to which I do not subscribe (and therefore come into conflict with my own conscientiously held belief)?
Too often the term gender is conflated with that of biological sex, to the extent that the part to be played by biological sex is disregarded in discussions of gender identity. If gender can be considered as being determined by social conventions and roles, biological sex is not - it is determined by the physiology of a human body. So, whilst I might accept non-binary as being Ms Lovato's identification in terms of gender, I would still wish to say that she is a person of the female sex.
Once the question of biological sex is included in the conversation, we can then ask if the pronouns that are used of people should, objectively speaking, follow their identified gender or follow their biological sex - the question cannot, of course, be asked if gender and sex are conflated together. The usage of language by the vast majority, if we are honest about it, is that pronouns follow from the biological sex of people; and for those who do not subscribe to gender ideology this is of added significance. If we wish to adopt a use of language that is consistent with this, we should still be able to use female pronouns to refer to Ms Lovato without that being seen as disrespectful towards her or towards others who identify as non-binary at the level of gender. Rather it is a recognition by us of her female sex and not an adverse comment about her identified gender; a statement about what we believe rather than an attack on Ms Lovato.
What is now known as "gender reassignment surgery" would, in an earlier time, have been referred to as a "sex change operation". The latter term is perhaps more honest in public discussion, avoiding as it does the conflation of the idea of physiological sex to that of social presentation that occurs with the current prevalent usage of the term "gender".
In February 2008, I saw a film called Juno, starring Ellen Page (who has since transitioned to a man and is now known as Elliot Page). See here for comments relating to Juno that have appeared previously on this blog. The part played by Ellen Page in Juno, as an unexpectedly pregnant high school teenager, attracted very significant acclaim at the time the film was released.
Elliot Page has recently gained media coverage following an interview with Oprah Winfrey, in which he speaks of how liberating he found being able to have "top surgery" and so present visibly to himself as male. UK coverage can be read on the BBC news website and the Guardian newspaper website.
“I want people to know that not only has it been life-changing for me, I do believe it is life-saving and it’s the case for so many people,” the actor told Oprah Winfrey on her new show for Apple TV+...
Page said the surgery has given him newfound energy “because it is such a freeing, freeing experience”, adding: “This is incredibly new. I feel like I haven’t gotten to be myself since I was 10 years old.”In the interview, Elliot speaks of feeling a discomfort with his own body that was only partly relieved by coming out as a gay woman (and entering a same sex marriage from which he has divorced); and how his (partial) transitioning enables him to now feel comfortable with his body. He goes on to challenge steps being taken in the United States in response to concerns about the treatment of children for gender reassignment, that he sees as limiting access to important health care. (There is some echo in those steps of concerns raised here in the UK about the work of the Gender Identity Development Service at the Tavistock Clinic.)
Whilst it is important to treat Elliot Page's account of his own experience with respect - it is a courtesy, I think, to refer to him now as he would wish to be referred, and hence my use of "Elliot" and masculine pronouns in this post - it does nevertheless raise two questions in the context of a wider debate.
Firstly, a narrative such as Elliot Page's should not be seen as the only and normative narrative. Alongside those suffering from gender dysphoria who may be helped by transitioning, there are also young people who may not be helped by considering transitioning, and who simply need health care as they grow up through puberty in the sex that they already have. Our public conversation needs to recognise that there are differing background stories - multiple narratives - around gender dsyphoria, and that an assumption in favour of transitioning is not always going to be helpful. The public acceptance of transitioning by the media and wider culture, which in effect promotes this acceptance to others, is not going to be helpful for everyone.
Elliot Page's earlier experience as Ellen Page in the film Juno also highlights a second question in a very visible way. He has transitioned (at least partly) from the female sex to the male sex; he is now someone who was of the female sex but is now of the male sex. How far can someone identify fully with their new physiological sex, or, as is implied by the identification as part of a "trans" community, is the fundamental identification that of a person who was of one sex and is now of the other, that of a person who has changed sex?
[In December 2020, I posted indirectly on this last point, in the context of the alacrity of media sources such as Wikipedia in changing the previous "Ellen Page" in their cast list for the film Juno to "Elliot Page": Ellen or Elliot?]
After recent events, it is important to recognise the sorrow and anguish of Sarah Everard's family and friends, and I join in offering my prayers and condolences to them.
The subsequent debate on violence against women has prompted three thoughts.
The concern being expressed by protestors and others about the safety of women on the streets of our towns and cities is primarily a concern about violence directed towards women by men. Whilst the fashion might be to describe this as "gender based violence" - with all that the ambivalence contained in the word "gender" implies - we are in reality, even when we use this language, designating a violence directed against women because of their physiological sex. And likewise the men responsible for this violence are being designated, in reality, by their physiological sex.
I think I can be forgiven for thinking that, in recent years, the prime ethical principle governing sexual behaviours is that of consent. The #MeToo movement drew to public attention circumstances where men in powerful positions have taken advantage of their power to engage in unwelcome sexual behaviours with women. In educational circles, attention is given to enabling young people, both boys and girls, to properly understand the significance of consent. But, in terms of building barriers that will discourage men from abusing women, would it not also be helpful to have a recognition that some sexual behaviours are wrong even if the parties involved consent? It would then be crystal clear to all concerned that men in positions of power, or boys exerting peer pressure, should not be engaging sexually with the women and girls they encounter.
The term "sex worker" has now become common place in referring to women who would previously have been described as "prostitutes". (Though men do also engage in such work, women do predominate). In effect, this change of terminology encourages a societal acceptance of a situation where a man pays women for sex. But, from the point of view of such a man, with an inevitably weakened sense of right and wrong, what is the difference between this paid-for sex on Friday night and an approach to a non-consenting woman in the street on Saturday night? If the only difference we expect him to observe is that of consent, the difference is not a strong one.
So there are my three contributions to the discussion, for all they are worth: honesty about treating it as a question of physiological sex, being willing to consider the ethics of sexual behaviours to have an objective content other than just consent, and recognising that cultural accommodation of prostitution is not going to reduce risk to women.
"Tom and Dustin are thrilled to share that they are expecting their first child in 2018".No mention of the mother who is expecting to give birth to the child. One might expect, just as a matter of honesty in language, that coverage would report that a mother is expecting a child conceived on behalf of the all male couple.
Agree or disagree, it should be noted that our society accepts without question a world in which women can be used to give birth.... having been airbrushed out of the equation for the sake of promoting in the media a couple whose marriage was described by Daley only in December as "far from perfect".
Daley and Black are not the first high profile couple to do this....
But questions should be raised about babies becoming commodities, the result of transactions.Do read the full comment at Christian Today.
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.
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.]
If the moral principles underpinning the democratic process are themselves determined by nothing more solid than social consensus, then the fragility of the process becomes all too evident - herein lies the real challenge for democracy.
"I think it is time to give women a say on their own reproductive rights,"...is the strap line of a beauty contestants recent intervention in Ireland. But the reality of legalised abortion does not follow that single narrative of the empowerment of women with respect to their bodies.
For some of us the availability of legal abortion releases us from the emotional and physical trauma associated with an unwanted pregnancy, but for others there can be various feelings which differ in intensity and depth. Therefore we can only be approximate about the possible effects of abortion and point out those who may be exposed to the threat of extreme long-lasting feelings. Those who appear to suffer, from moderate to severe feelings, tend to be women who:
- have little support, from family, friends and partners;
- wanted the baby but were pressurised into having an abortion by others;
- are already stressed, eg a recent bereavement;
- have a psychiatric history;
- show ambivalence during the decision phase;
- do not involve their partner in the experience;
- experience late abortion;
- are young;
- consciously or unconsciously use the pregnancy to resolve conflicts, eg bring their relationship back together;
- are deserted by their partners as a result of their pregnancy.
... welcome back to the 'twilight zone' that was well and truly entered by the Catholic Church on 13/3/13. In the vortex of diabolical mayhem known simply as the 'post-Benedict XVI era', Catholic bloggers are tasked with the mission of encouraging Catholics to stay faithful to the Faith passed down to us while it is further polluted, corrupted and overthrown centrally by men who have overseen its decline locally for the past 30-40 years, while lauding the wisdom of the 'new direction'. Yes, vocations can plummet, Churches can empty and close and the souls of millions can - through deliberate, wilful ambiguity on the part of prelates - be placed in graver jeopardy that ever before, but the esotericist can still claim the 'new direction' to be a success even when objective statistics suggest anything but success. I guess that's just part of what makes the new Catholic gnosticism so much fun.And this from the rather unintelligent extreme of Tradition (again, I have added the underlining):
A Christian is not supposed to give up hope. She is not to despair.
But after three very uplifting and incredible years under the prophetic leadership and compelling personal witness of Pope Francis, many reform-minded Catholics have again become quite worried about the future direction of their church.
It is not that their honeymoon with the first New World pope is over. (The memory of what a disastrous state the church was in before his election has prevented that from happening just yet.)
But there are growing concerns that, despite being able to effect a seismic change in attitude and ethos throughout the worldwide Catholic family, Francis has done nothing to ensure that this will not all be tossed aside once he is gone.
It should be stated again, without any gloss, that he must move more quickly to make structural and juridical changes that cannot be easily undone by one of his successors.I am reminded of Abbot Vonier's insight, on which I have commented at length - The Church we are in. I concluded that post as follows:
To return to the reflection based on Abbot Vonier's notion that the Church should not be seen as divided into an "ideal" and a "real", but exists as a single entity whose beauty and holiness shine out to the world. If we look around us during the papacy of Pope Francis, we see the Church that we are in, and some of it - perhaps more on the reform-minded side than on the Traditionalist side - appears pretty far off the wall. But if we take Abbot Vonier's insight seriously, there is an abiding beauty and splendour that is there in all of it. And we need to trust that it is there and that it does still shine out.
The touchstone of that shining out is, as it has ever been, the office of the Successor of Peter. Nothing is to be gained by excoriating - or mis-representing - its holder.
E poi, una persona che pensa soltanto a fare muri, sia dove sia, e non a fare ponti, non è cristiana. Questo non è nel Vangelo. [Now, a person who thinks only of making walls, wherever that might be, and not making bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel.]Pope Francis' "approval" of the use of contraception to avoid pregnancy during the Zika virus crisis: in effect, there was an affirmation of the principle, already expressed in Humanae Vitae n.10, that for good reason a couple might seek to postpone the conception of children. There was no affirmation of artificial contraception as the means to achieve this. The question of "lesser evil" (a term used by the journalist asking the question, but not fully taken up by Pope Francis in his answer) is applicable in an extremely restricted way - with regard to the principle of children as a good of marriage being in some way the subject of a counter-witness if conception is deliberately postponed - and the example of Pope Paul VI's dispensation for religious sisters is not applicable at all in the situation of the Zika virus. (I think Austen Ivereigh's comment for Catholic Voices is seriously misleading in this regard, and, indeed, is not supported by the quotation of Pope Francis' words at the end of his post.) Pope Francis condemnation of abortion could not be stronger. Where abortion is to be seen as an absolute evil, always to be condemned (Pope Francis choice of word):
Invece, evitare la gravidanza non è un male assoluto, e in certi casi, come in quello che ho menzionato del Beato Paolo VI, era chiaro. Inoltre, io esorterei i medici che facciano di tutto per trovare i vaccini contro queste due zanzare che portano questo male: su questo si deve lavorare.. [Instead, avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil, and in some cases, as in that I have mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, that was clear. However, I would encourage doctors to do everything to find vaccines against the two mosquitos that carry this illness: it is necessary to work on this ..]The press conference is very wide ranging - there is a detailed answer to a question about the Church's response to abuse of minors by priests and the practice of Bishops just moving guilty priests from one parish to another (with a strong tribute to Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI's work on this matter), a discussion of relations between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches (in the context of some criticism of the joint statement with the Patriarch of Moscow) and a discussion of family situations (in the context of the Year of Mercy, and reaffirming the Church's rule with regard to Holy Communion for the re-married).
Ma, grazie a Dio che ha detto che io sono politico, perché Aristotele definisce la persona umana come “animal politicus”: almeno sono persona umana! [But, I thank God that he (Donald Trump) has said that I am political, because Aristotle defines the human person as a "political animal": at least I am a human person!].....
Caroline Pigozzi di “Paris Match”
Sì, Santo Padre, buona sera. Due cose. Volevo sapere cosa Lei ha chiesto poi alla Vergine di Guadalupe, perché è rimasto molto tempo nella chiesa a pregare la Vergine di Guadalupe. Poi, la seconda cosa, se Lei sogna in italiano o in spagnolo? [Yes, Holy Father, good evening. Two things. I wish to know what you asked of the Virgin of Guadelupe, because you remained a long time in the Church to pray to the Virgin of Guadalupe. Then, the second thing, do you dream in Italian or Spanish?] - this last a reference to an earlier reference in the press conference for Pope Francis' "dreams" in a quite different sense.
Papa Francesco
Sì, dirò che sogno in esperanto… Non so come rispondere a questo, davvero. Alcune volte sì, ricordo, qualche sogno in altra lingua, ma sognare in lingue no, con figure, sì. La mia psicologia è così. Con parole sogno poco . [Yes, I will say that I dream in Esperanto ... I do not know how to answer this, really. Sometimes yes, I remember a dream in a different language, but dreaming in languages, no, with images, yes. My psychology is like that. I dream very little with words.]
Carl Bernstein, the veteran investigative journalist of Watergate fame, was the first writer to get some sense of Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka's importance in John Paul's life. He interviewed her for the book His Holiness in the 1990s.
"We are talking about Saint John Paul. This is an extraordinary relationship," he says. "It's not illicit, nonetheless it's fascinating. It changes our perception of him."The BBC website coverage ahead of the Panorama programme is here and here. It is interesting to note that Ed Stourton admits that his suggestion that Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka declared that she had fallen in love with Karol Wojtyla/Pope John Paul II is speculation on his part, his reading into the latter's letters what might have been in Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka's side of the correspondence (not seen by the BBC). According to a Guardian report, Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka denied any romantic involvement with John Paul II; and a Vatican source has observed that the forthcoming programme is "more smoke than fire". Ed Stourton is very clear that nothing that he has discovered would have been a barrier to Pope John Paul II's canonisation.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.In the context of the journal Charlie Hebdo, the drawing of a distinction between "faith" and "religion" can be seen in its explicitly secularist intent. It is more subtly present when politicians or public figures here in the UK use a language of "faith" and are shy of using the language of "religion".
