Marriage lite comes to England

I have a new post on LifeSiteNews. It begins:

Following a ruling of Britain’s Supreme Court over the summer, Prime Minister Theresa May has announced that the Government will make the necessary changes to allow heterosexual, and not just homosexual, couples to contract ‘Civil Partnerships’, as opposed to marriages, in England and Wales. (Scotland will probably follow.)

Bishop Peter Doyle of Northampton, on behalf of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, urged couples not to use this option:


God blesses the marriage bond only when the couple freely and without conditions exchange their consent. We hope that today’s ruling does not deter people from that sacred and life-long commitment.

Back in 2004, when Civil Partnerships were introduced for same-sex couples in the UK, the Bishops of England and Wales did not oppose the legislation, on the basis of government assurances that they would be clearly distinct from marriage. The idea seemed to be that Civil Partnerships addressed the legitimate grievances of same-sex couples, notably over hospital visiting rights and exemption from Inheritance Tax when leaving each other money, and that it would obviate the need for same-sex ‘marriage’.

Things did not turn out that way. Having established the principle that the state has an interest in regulating same-sex relationships in a way clearly paralleling the regulation of marriage, the scene was set for same-sex ‘marriage’ itself in 2014.

Read it all there.
  Support the work of the LMS by becoming an 'Anniversary Supporter'.

What Rees-Mogg could have said

Every Catholic politician from Parish Councillor up needs to have a rehearsed answer to the 'bloody questions' of today, just as the Jesuits and seminary priests of penal times had a rehearsed answer to the 'bloody question' of penal times (viz.: if the Spaniards invaded to topple Queen Elizabeth, who would you support?).

Today's 'bloody questions' are these:

Is gay sex a sin?

Would you force a woman pregant from incestuous rape to continue with the pregnancy?

The thing about such questions is that they are framed in a slanted way, but if you refuse to answer, it will look not only weasally but also a tacit admission that you hold the most unpopular views possible. In answering them, you have to try to reframe it, but you have to do this in a few words, before you get interrupted. You have about ten seconds, and each ten-second statement must make sense on its own.

I don't claim to be an expert on media engagement - though I have been in the hotseat a handful of times. The point of this post is not to criticise anyone who has no time to think under pressure, but to make some suggestions about how we can think about these things when we do have the chance: in advance.

So, Mr Shaw, is gay sex a sin?

Why Rees-Mogg is wrong

The knives are out for Jacob Rees-Mogg MP for saying that, as a Catholic, he opposes Same Sex Marriage (SSM) and abortion in all circumstances, in this TV interview. I agree and support him, but I feel I must qualify the way he expressed himself, not on a matter of mere technical accuracy but in relation to questions of fundamental importance.

First, he repeatedly notes that he accepts Church teaching, and this is why he opposes these two things. Since many non-Catholics agree with him, today and in the past, this seems a curious way of talking. It seems to be an implicit appeal to religious freedom, and this is indeed how the debate about his comments is now playing out in the media: the question has become 'can Catholics lead political parties, or hold important government positions?' The argument for answering that question in the affirmative is 'religious freedom'. We shouldn't exclude people from positions just because of their religious affiliation. Rees-Mogg and other Catholics should be allowed their eccentric views because those views are part of being Catholic.

Bullying and ostracism from the Catholic Education Service

Update: as well as Mark Lambert, CCFather has written three posts about this which are worth reading.

Something which has emerged is that much of this document is cut and pasted from materials created by Stonewall, the charming gay advocacy group which gave Cardinal O'Brian its annual 'Bigot of the Year' award for opposing same-sex marriage, and a group called 'lgbtScotland'.

----------------------------------

Copies of a guidance document entitled 'Made in God's Image', on homophobic bullying, from the Catholic Education Service are doing the rounds. It is going to be sent to Catholic schools soon but Mark Lambert has put the pdf on DropBox and made a few comments.

The document has both superficial and deep problems. Superficially, I'm suspicious of documents which don't include the names of the people who drew them up, or indeed the name of anyone willing to take responsibility for it. This document has the logos of the CES, St Mary's University, and the Aquinas Centre for Theological Literacy on it. Is it actually endorsed by these institutions? (Did St Mary's ask its governing body to vote on it? I hardly think so.) Where does it come from? Who paid for it? Who composed it? No matter, the CES is promoting it, maybe that is all we need to know.

Again, this is a 37-page document on homophobic bullying, which sets out lesson plans for eight 50-minute lessons to be devoted exclusively to this topic. What about other forms of bullying? What about other forms of bullying which target 'protected characteristics' under English law? No doubt the CES has policies on all these things but there is no sense of an integrated approach here. How does this fit in with Sex Ed, Religious Studies, or anything else? It is not even clear what teachers are supposed to deliver these lessons, which make frequent reference to gospel passages, but stray into history, current affairs, and Sex Ed. In some places the reader gets the impression that it would be PE teachers who are most relevant to the issues raised.

The Supreme Court and the Call of the Ghetto

I've been reading a few posts about the infinitly depressing US Supreme Court decision that, contrary to what anyone would have thought until five minutes ago, the US Constitution guarantees the right of men to pretend to marry other men, and women women.

A couple of them (Rod Dreher and Steve Skojec) mention the 'Benedict Option': as Dreher expresses it, this takes inspiration from St Benedict of Nursia's monastic vision.

'learning how to resist, in community, in a culture that sees us orthodox Christians as enemies.'

Skojek talks moving out of the cities and about living off the land.

I can understand the reaction, but we need to remember the differences between our situation and St Benedict's. St Benedict lived at a time when the power of the state was at an extremely low ebb. We live our lives during a time in which the reverse is the case. Moving to the countryside is going to make no difference at all. If social services are going to enforce gender theory onto homeschoolers, they'll do it in the countryside just as much as the towns.

The chicken run

We must accustom ourselves to the sight of prominent Catholics abandoning public positions in favour of the teaching of the Church, of the Natural Law, or simply of common sense, under pressure from an increasingly intolerant consensus contrary to those things. It is depressing, but somehow we must not be depressed by it.

Here's Michael Coren's explanation for his apostasy: a man who made himself famous as a Catholic apologist, on television and in books.

The change was to a large extent triggered by the gay issue. I couldn’t accept that homosexual relationships were, as the Roman Catholic Church insists on proclaiming, disordered and sinful. Once a single brick in the wall was removed the entire structure began to fall.

I refused to base my entire world view and theology, as so many active Catholics do, around abortion, contraception and sex rather than love, justice and forgiveness. Frankly, it was tearing me apart. 

Dr Tina Beattie in Wimbledon

My own comment on Dr Beattie's roving apostolate of apostasy, and the pathetic argument about academic freedom, can be read here.

From 'Protect the Pope':

The parish newsletter of the Catholic Church of the Sacred Hear, Wimbledon:
“NEWMAN CIRCLE WEDNESDAY 23 JANUARY at 7.30 pm in the Lounge. Dr Tina Beattie will be speaking on ‘As Mary goes, so goes the Church’. All are welcome.”

These invitations to Prof. Beattie to speak in Catholic parishes follow her being banned from delivering a lecture in her own diocese of Clifton, and her fellowship being withdrawn from San Diego university because of her public support as a Catholic theologian of same-sex marriage in open defiance of the position taken by the Bishops Conference of England and Wales, and the Holy See.
Prof. Beattie, along with others, wrote to The Times on 13 August to state that “it is perfectly proper for Catholics, using fully informed consciences, to support the legal extension of civil marriage to same-sex couples”, and who equally scandalously quoted Cardinal Basil Hume, the late Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, in a way which suggested he might have supported their case. They used words from his 1997 document, ‘A Note on the Teaching of the Catholic Church Concerning Homosexuality’: “love between two persons, whether of the same sex, or of a different sex, is to be treasured and respected” whilst omitting to mention that he went on to say that “the Church does not approve of homosexual genital acts” and “homosexual genital acts … are morally wrong”.
The catalogue of Prof. Beattie’s dissent includes:

• In an examination of the morality of abortion Prof. Beattie justifies  the argument that the embryo is not a person by using the doctrine of the Trinity. http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/14789
• Prof. Beattie uses the doctrine of the marriage between Christ and His Church to support gay marriage. http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/162433
• Prof Beattie condemns as ‘perverted’ a CTS booklet defending the Church’s doctrine on divorce and contraception.
• http://www.thetablet.co.uk/blogs/355/17
• Prof. Beattie describes the Mass as an ‘an act of (homo) sexual intercourse…’. ‘God’s Mother, Eve’s Advocate’, p.80.
• Prof. Beattie supports government plans for same-sex marriage http://quehttp://www.thetablet.co.uk/latest-news/4459eringthechurch.com/2012/08/13/gay-marriage-catholic-diversity-expressed-in-england-and-wales/
• Prof. Tina Beattie imagines the apostles and women disciples having sex in her meditation The Last Supper According to Martha and Mary (2001) which the publishers describe as ‘part fiction, part Biblical reflection’.

Dr Tina Beattie is a director of and regular contributor to The Tablet which in its issue for Saturday 12 January published a version of Dr Beattie’s lecture on Mary.
Protect the Pope comment:  It is significant that in the week after the announcement that the Soho Masses are being transferred to the Jesuit church of Farm Street, that members of the same Jesuit community have invited such a notorious supporters of same-sex marriage to speak at their parish in Wimbledon.

We should recall the words of Pope Benedict XVI to the English and Welsh bishops during their ad limina visit to Rome in February 2010: “it is important to recognise dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate. It is the truth revealed through Scripture and Tradition and articulated by the Church’s Magisterium that sets us free.” Very few doubt that Pope Benedict had The Tablet and many of its contributors in mind when he uttered those words.

The Church in England and Wales is now entering a period of intense public conflict with David Cameron’s coalition government over its  intention to legislate for “gay marriage”. And yet, a renowned parish run by the Jesuits (whose special charism is a vow of obedience to the Holy Father) has chosen to host a public lecture by a Catholic theologian who publicly supports same-sex marriage.

Please pray to Blessed John Henry Newman so that this lecture may be cancelled and that no further invitations to speak are extended to Prof. Beattie by the dioceses and parishes of the Catholic Church.
Protect the Pope asks anyone who is a parishioner of Sacred Heart Church, Wimbledon or lives within the Archdiocese of Southwark to write and/or e mail urgently with a respectful request that the lecture be cancelled to :

Dr Bill Russell, Secretary, Wimbledon Newman Circle. E mail: William_russell@talktalk.net

Why I won't be voting for David Cameron

[Update: Fr John Boyle has posted in a similar vein here.]

I happen to live in the constituency of David Cameron, 'Witney'. It is a 'safe' seat, so he has nothing to fear from me, but I just thought I'd share this: h-t Peter Hitchens.

Paxman: "You're in favour of faith schools being able to teach sex education as they like". Cameron:"Not as they like. That's not right. What we voted for was what the government suggested in the end, which is proper sex education..." Paxman: "Should they be free to teach that homosexuality is wrong, abortion is wrong, contraception is wrong?" "No, and the government discussed this and came up with a good idea , which is to say that we wanted a clearer path of sexual education across all schools, but faith schools were not given any exemption but they were able to reflect some of their own faith in the way that this was taught. But no, you must teach proper lessons in terms of gay equality and also combat homophobic bullying in schools, I think that's extremely important."

The Latin Mass Society, I'm glad to say, has always attracted people from accross the political spectrum. One early supporter was the founder of the Welsh Nationalist party; a founding member, the convert Hugh Ross Williamson, was once deselected as a Labour candidate for being too left-wing. My involvement in party politics, in the past, was with the Tories: I canvassed for them in the 1987 election, while I was still at school, and was a party member for a few years after that.

But I won't be voting for Dave on 6th May. He clearly doesn't believe in the right of parents to bring up their children according to their beliefs (a right enshrined in international law, for what it is worth), and regards the beliefs of Catholics with contempt, indeed as worthy of legal suppression. I hope that all Catholics consider the views of their local candidates with care, and that whatever party ends up dominating the House of Commons there are more MPs there who will support the right of Catholics simply to live in accordance with their religion. It's not much to ask: just let us exist!