The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published its sixth report: Legislative Scrutiny: Sexual Orientation Regulations. (pdf) If the recommendations of the Committee are accepted, it is difficult to see how Catholic schools could continue in Britain. Here are two key extracts from the report. The first makes it clear that Catholic schools will not be exempted in any way from the regulations:65. We welcome the Government’s acceptance that the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation should apply to all schools in both the maintained and the independent sectors, without any exemption for particular types of school such as faith schools. In our view, it follows from the fact that protection against sexual orientation discrimination is rooted in recognition of the equal dignity of every individual that there should be no exemptions for faith schools.The second extract makes it clear what will be required:
67. We do not consider that the right to freedom of conscience and religion requires the school curriculum to be exempted from the scope of the sexual orientation regulations. In our view the Regulations prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination should clearly apply to the curriculum, so that homosexual pupils are not subjected to teaching, as part of the religious education or other curriculum, that their sexual orientation is sinful or morally wrong. Applying the Regulations to the curriculum would not prevent pupils from being taught as part of their religious education the fact that certain religions view homosexuality as sinful. In our view there is an important difference between this factual information being imparted in a descriptive way as part of a wide-ranging syllabus about different religions, and a curriculum which teaches a particular religion’s doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true. The latter is likely to lead to unjustifiable discrimination against homosexual pupils. We recommend that the Regulations for Great Britain make clear that the prohibition on discrimination applies to the curriculum and thereby avoid the considerable uncertainty to which the Northern Ireland Regulations have given rise on this question. We further recommend that the Government clarifies its understanding of the Northern Ireland Regulations on this matter.The wording has been deliberately muddied in order to present Catholic teaching in a crude manner. Our faith does not teach that "homosexuality" itself is necessarily sinful, it teaches that it is disordered. It is homosexual acts that are sinful.
However, I hope that nobody is foolish enough to try to make a compromise based on that point. The people who framed this guidance will not accept our teaching that homosexuality is a disorder nor that homosexual acts are sinful. They have the bit between their teeth. Although the direction in which public policy has been moving is obvious enough, I am a little surprised at the pace it has now picked up.
Make no mistake - this proposal will make it illegal for Catholic schools to teach that the Catholic faith is true.
32 comments:
CARE have put out a very good press release taking up the point that the regulations clearly limit freedom of religion to cover what one believes in the head,and worship in buildings, and not any aspect of putting beliefs into practice. They point out that if Clarkson, Wilberforce etc had not put their Christianity into action, the abolition of the slave trade, whose bi-centenary we are all celebrating this month, would not have happened.
Substituting a few words:
We do not consider that the right to academic freedom requires the school curriculum to be exempted from the scope of the Human Rights regulations. In our view the Regulations prohibiting Scientific Beliefs discrimination should clearly apply to the curriculum, so that creationist pupils are not subjected to teaching, as part of the religious education or other curriculum, that creationism is wrong. Applying the Regulations to the curriculum would not prevent pupils from being taught as part of their ... education the fact that certain scientists view creationism as benighted. In our view there is an important difference between this factual information being imparted in a descriptive way as part of a wide-ranging syllabus about different scientific systems, and a curriculum which teaches a particular science's doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true. The latter is likely to lead to unjustifiable discrimination against creationist pupils.
If only some Catholic (secondary) schools did teach that the Catholic faith is true! I keep hearing of RE teachers who refer to the "Catholic Christian viewpoint" as if it is just one among many to choose from.
I'm afraid that the majority of Catholic secondary schools are Satan's own playground and that we need to close many of them. If we do, we may well find that more Catholic teenagers come to Mass. It is interesting that these days many vocations to the priesthood have blossomed amongst those who did not have the 'benefit' of a Catholic secondary education. There must be something in this.
There must be a loophole somewhere, we just need a good Catholic Barrister to find it? Suggestions please. What about privatising Catholic Schools - surely all the Catholic Schools were originally private/church funded.
Looks like Home Schooling will take a leap forward. The bigger it becomes the better it will be for parents to work together.
In Fatima they prayed the Rosary to protect them from War. This is war, we need every Catholic in the country praying the Rosary. What chance is there of that?
How many Catholic parents are concerned about what is happening?
God Help Us.
Oh my life!
And based on their track record on the Gay Adoption issue, who thinks that the Bishops will come out fighting, and who thinks they will try to do a behind-the-scenes compromise which will fail completely at the last moment?
most of them find this hard enough to do already.
Regulation 65 talks about human dignity. Where in God's great Universe is dignity to be found in homosexual acts.
The human rights lobby is grossly misusing it's legislative powers and enshrining sexual depravity in law.
Catholic parents should begin to prepare themselves for the main onslaught which will come soon enough. Read up on relevant scripture, read legal documents on these issues, get to know your legal rights both UK and EU, pray incessantly. Be prepared to fight this diabolical assault on true family values because this is a battle worth every ounce of our combined strength.
Our Jewish and Muslim brothers and sisters and all people of goodwill who value the family unit, should not wait for Catholics to be sacrificed on the 'altar of secularism' but should come into the battle now. Don't wait on the sidelines, it will be too late for you!
ARGH! I have been living Britain for four years, and can not BELIEVE what people in this nation accept. I laud the fact that you have presented this information here, but I long for the Catholics of Britain to unite. On the tails of Thatcher, I swear that this government has done more to further the social, cultural, and philosophical degradation of the UK than any other government in the Western world could have, by sheer force of legislation.
I have no intention of fleeing the situation, but we Catholics must find a common course to follow by which we deal with these issues proactively and constructively, or we risk leaving our children a bizarre dystopia: a mix of the glorious literary culture of our past and this modern legacy of idealogical cowardice. Lord, save us and help us save ourselves.
If it isn't inappropriate to mention, I discuss this on my own blog, in and entry entitled 'Nineveh's Choice'
(http://durendal.wordpress.com/2007/01/12/ninevehs-choice/).
Good luck to them, trying to homosexualize the Muslims. Or will a convienient exception be made for them as it is in NYC where Muslim children in public schools are provided prayer rooms and breaks during the day for their prayers.
I suspect the Protties and pagan fear their necks if they tick off the Muslims. Roman Catholics need to present an equally fearsome face to the world, and perhaps, unite with the Muslims on this issue.
" ... it follows from the fact that protection against sexual orientation discrimination is rooted in recognition of the equal dignity of every individual that there should be no exemptions for faith schools."
Quite - very well put (by the HR Committee).
I do not see how you can teach that homosexuality is "disordered", and that homosexuality is "sinful" while preserving the "equal dignity of every individual".
If catholics wish to teach their doctrine on this point, they are free to do so, but not in a school partially funded by the state.
But I almost admire Fr Tim for his heroic attempts to put the genie back into the bottle. I am sure that some of the heterosexual readers of his blog are comforted. I am equally sure that a homosexual reader would simply say "very interesting" and move on. As Thomas Merton said once, ".. you might as well tell priests to give up whiskey ..."
Anon - thank you for your comment. I think that the fact that our schools are "partially funded by the state" is not really relevant. For one thing, the Government will have to fund education for the children who used to attend Catholic schools if ours are forced to close. for another, the Government is equally determined to impose its values on independent schools, and indeed on parents who choose to educate their children at home.
The Catholic catechism condemns "unjust discrimination" and Catholics ought to be opposed to violence against or hatred of homosexuals - and indeed nasty remarks etc.
But the SORs clearly intend to prohibit any discrimination and I agree with you that our teaching does imply a degree of discrimination in the sense that we would not say that heterosexuality was disordered or that heterosexual acts within marriage are sinful.
Merton's comment is indeed to the point. We would also say that alcoholism is a disorder and the excessive use of alcohol is a sin. but we still love alcoholics and try to do whatever we can to help. But of course, I understand that such a comparison will be insulting to homosexual people who beleive that being gay is natural or "the way God made me." That is why I am not convinced that the "compassion and sensitivity" line is of much use nowadays - gays will not be that interested in people trying to be compassionate.
Your assessment of the present state of affairs is probably accurate too. As you say, it will not matter much what I say given the Government's support for the promotion of homosexuality in public life.
God bless.
Another dimension as yet unexplored is that Church schools will be forced to employ staff, including headteachers, who are living openly in a sexual relationship with a person of the same sex.
I will be fascinated to read the advicethat will have to be drawn up by the Catholic Education Service.
I was the anonymous poster of the message 3 before Hilary's message. I am not sure if I am included in "these people". I suppose so.
If I have offended anyone, I apologise. My comments were not written from a particularly personal point of view, and my identity didn't seem to be relevant. I certainly didn't see Fr Tim's post as any sort of attack on me or my lifestyle. If it is of any relevance, I am quite prepared to state that I am 47 years old, very happily married, and living and working in London. My Christian name is Tom.
I have read Fr Tim's blog for some time. I find much of it enjoyable and thought-provoking. I haven't commented before, but felt moved to do so because it seemed to me to expose a difficult dilemma. Fr Tim's reply to me gave me further food for thought, and I am grateful.
Although I am not a lawyer, I personally doubt whether the regulations could extend to home-schooling Catholics, and one possible solution to this problem is for education on these issues to be left to parents, rather than to schools.
Whether being gay is or is not natural / "the way God made me" is a question which I am not remotely qualified to answer. Some commentators on this list have made their positions quite clear. All I would say is that I have seen some very intelligent and gifted men struggle with the conflict between the teachings of the Church they were brought up in and their deepest feelings and perceptions about their own sexuality and its origins. It is in this light that I feel that the public use, in a possibly unsupportive environment - such as a classroom full of teenagers - of words such as "disordered" and "sinful" is hardly likely to be helpful. There is a great challenge here to Catholic educators, priests and parents, and there are no simple answers.
Maybe Hilary, it's because they are raving liberals or fundamentalists who prefer keep their identities safe amongst such hostile environments.
The sexual aspect may seem important, but we really do need to look where this is going.
The essential issue, which Fr Tim highlighted to begin with and several other commentators have not missed, is that there are people in power who want to prevent educators teaching any religious faith (let alone the finer points of christian sexual ethics) as if it were true.
The more we oppose these people on specific issues, the more we will be seen as fighting our particular corner - as one small interest group pursuing our own agenda.
Instead, we should identify, from their own writings, what is the true goal of these people who seek to control us and the way we educate our children. We should expose this agenda for what it is.
When people object to things being taught as if they were true, they are proposing that children should be brought up with the idea that there are a number of competing world-views out there on the supermarket shelves, like rival brands of baked beans, and that it is OK to view them as competitors in some kind of market for "mind share"; maybe it's OK (they seem to say) to prefer one brand or another. Maybe baked beans are bad for you. It's for the consumer to choose. It's a free market.
This not pseudo-relativism. This is not nineteen-sixties hey-anything-goes. This is hard, didactic relativism.
What if you don't happen to like relativism? Hitherto, we have had faith schools in which we have been able to put forward an alternative view. It seems that this is about to end. After all, these people are not academics or thinkers or journalists or broadcasters. These are members of a parliamentary committee. These people are legislators, and their blood is up.
We should not be in the smallest degree surprised. We were warned about this a couple of years ago by a prominent Christian thinker who at the time coined a memorable phrase: the "dictatorship of relativism".
But it was not just an inspired phrase, an arresting idea. No, this prophecy has become true even as we hear it. This is real, literal relativism, and if there are legislators behind it - and there are - it is going to be a real, literal dictatorship.
They will not allow us "a curriculum which teaches a particular religion’s doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true", exactly. They will not allow...; we cannot concede that the Faith is anything less than objectively true.
Fr Tim, thanks for posting that. Writing to my MP, for all the good it'll do...
Helen
I think this extract from the ECHR Hat Tip "South Ashford Priest" suggests that any government attempts to do this to schools will ultimately fail:
"No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the state shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religions and philosophical
convictions."
I used to think that the EU & ECHR were a disaster from us. I am now coming round to agree with the view of the late Auberon Waugh that we would be better off run by a bunch of Belgian Ticket Inspectors than our own politicans. We increasingly seem to need the ECHR to protect us from the increasingly authoritiarian Zanulabour-PE (Party of Envy)
Cardinal Winning was right - we can't say we were not warned.
As parents are the primary educators of their children, all parents are 'home-schoolers' to a greater or lesser degree.
Will all parents have to be OfSTEDed to make sure that they present religious belief and practice as a particular brand of the 'mind share' market? (CCTV cameras in homes? Now I'm sounding like one of those cookie Americans seeing a conspiracy everywhere - but things do seem to be escalating very quickly in a totalitarian direction.)
I do wonder what the civil servants in the legal departments in Whitehall make of all this. The incitement to terrorism phrase was silly enough, this is on an even more bizarre path. It makes no sense as law, aside from striking at our religious freedoms and undermining the family.
Tom,
I value your comments - you make good points. I am sorry you felt the need to justify yourself, especially as this was the first time you commented.
Dear Fr. Tim Finigan,
I'm writing you from Lisbon, Portugal. I share all your concerns, which should really be the concerns of every conscious catholic around the World.
Here in Portugal, I sense in society the feeling that the faithful no longer follow the Church's teaching on these matters.
What's happened to us? This very society, when enquired on the streets, will present itself as "christian" or event "catholic". But many of them stand proud in saying that they divert from the Church's hierarchy in most of today's important matters!
I believe that all catholics, clergy and layman, should unite strongly, in order to show the World (and the Holy See) that we stand together to defend our faith and our Church from all these attacks.
The anti-catholic strategy has always been "divide and conquer". We should not fall inside that trap.
Best regards, and all the best for you and your Parish!
Espectadores - thank you for your comment. I appreciate that Portugal is experiencing some similar trials at this time. God bless you.
Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.
The government has absolutely no right whatsoever to legislate how a Catholic school teaches its students, nor does it have the right to redefine morality. What few Catholic faithful remain in Britain must refuse these laws and stand by to weather the storm.
Realise that this all might involve martyrdom.
Greetings,
If they cannot descriminate by sexual orientation. Then base hiring on sexual ACTIONS. If a person does certain actions, then they cannot work someplace. It would be following the law of NOT descriminating by orientation. Orientation and actions do not always go together.
Thanks for brining this to our attention-please keep up the good work. john
Anon - you are right that orientation and actions do not always go together. But within this legislation, discriminating against someone because of homosexual actions would cut no ice. The Government does not accept our distinction.
John - many thanks.
Fr. Tim, it seems that UK government inspectors are already entering peoples' homes and censoring the books read by children.
My sister, who lives in the UK and has two very young children, has a childminder who receives regular visits from inspectors. Apart from ensuring that the children are being properly looked after, the inspectors also look at the reading material which the childminder is using with her charges.
It seems that the thrust of these book inspections (so far) is to make sure that the books (1) "reflect ethnic diversity in the UK" (i.e. older toddlers' books which only have pictures of white people are no longer allowed), and (2) "use inclusive language" (so books have to refer, for example, to "firefighters" and "police officers" and not "firemen" and "policemen").
I can't object to rule (1) -- as a father, I always try to impress upon my children that all people, regardless of race, are created in God's image and likeness, and deserve equal respect and love. But I have to say that rule (2) somewhat irritates me, in the same way that a seminary-based priest who often says Mass at our parish irritates me when he systematically works his way through the Mass expunging every mention of "man," "men" and "mankind" from the liturgy as if they are as obscene as the f-word.
But what really disturbs me is the potential for this petty censorship to become the thin end of the wedge, and in fact I am sure that it is. Surely the next thing the inspectors will be looking out for are books that only portray married couples or parents as being one male and one female...
Francis - very astute of you and of course you are right. Rest assured that the thin edge of the 'PC wedge' is being firmly hammered into the brickwork of Christian family and social values upon which the UK and Europe have been built for the last 2000 years.
Verbal engineering always precedes social engineering. All this inclusive language garbage calling firemen 'firepersons', snowmen 'snowpersons' and 'happy' families consisting of three 'fathers' and one child is the softener and guess what, it's diabolically targeted at the most trusting and vulnerable members of our society - our children.
This is Great Britain 2007! Welcome to the Gulag.
Post a Comment