It is an indication of the lack of effective opposition from Churches, from other faith groups (who largely share our moral teaching concerning homosexual activity) and in particular from the Catholic Church, that the leader of one of our mainstream parties feels that it is a politically advantageous move to threaten the persecution of "Faith Schools" and the enforcement of regulations that could not be followed in conscience by many such schools.
See also the post from John Smeaton.
28 comments:
It is with some trepidation that I suggest this, but, has anyone contacted the Muslim population about this requirement that their schools be required to promote this aberration?
JARay
Unless there is a radical change in the voting patters of the electorate the good news is that it is almost certain Nick Clegg will not be forming a government.
What else should we expect from this party? Wasn't it David Steel who proposed the Abortion Bill in 1967? Isn't Baroness Trumpington a supporter of euthanasia? Didn't Clegg himself boast of his own promiscuity?
This is outrageous, and typical of the man. He has sidelined the issues of homosexual promiscuity, and the whole gamut of STDs including HIV/AIDS.
Homosexual activists have managed to whitewash history which you and I Father will easily recall. In the 80's AIDS was known as the gay plague - now vigorously denied by gays and their fellow travellers. But the statistics tell their own tale.
In 2008, US Government statistics report that in 2006 over 53% of new cases of HIV arose from what they coyly described as 'male-to-male sexual contact' i.e sodomy. A further 4% is due to sodomy + injection drug use and 31% due to high risk heterosexual contact, i.e with one partner an HIV/AIDS sufferer or drug user.
As the American Family Association said in 2003, denial that AIDS/HIV is not due to homosexuality creates a paradox:
"If AIDS isn't a 'gay plague'; if it doesn't affect homosexuals more than any other group, then federal funding for AIDS research should not top the homosexual legislative agenda.
Yet such funding is atop their agenda; indeed, the homosexuals incessantly caterwaul about it. Special-interest groups, after all, don't lobby on issues that do not primarily affect them.
The homosexuals can protest, but they can't change the truth."
Healthy and normal? Well it might be to the likes of Nick Clegg and his predecessor Mark Oaten, but certainly not to the rest of us.
It would appear that Mr Clegg is using the words 'normal and harmless' in the same sense that the Devil uses them . . . it's tragic how even the desire for power appears to corrupt otherwise decent men.
That apart, even if I accept his argument that this is appropriate teaching for State-run Schools (which I certainly don't), imposing it on Faith Schools must surely be a breach of their rights under Article 9.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
(Mr Clegg's argument, of course, would be that under Article 9.2, that Right is qualified by 'such limitations as are prescribed by law', conveniently forgetting that such limitations must be 'necessary . . . for the protection of public morals' !)
Meanwhile, let us not only deplore this and fight against it verbally and by argument; let us also pray the Rosary, asking Our Immaculate Mother to help us resist Mr Clegg's proposal, at least as far as Faith Schools are concerned - and let us hope that someone convinces Mr Clegg that the 'Catholic Vote', and the 'Moslem Vote', and all sorts of other 'Faith Votes' are far larger and better organised than the 'Pink Vote' he appears to be wooing with this scheme.
We are being asked to worship public idols as in the days of old.
We need to pray more to keep this evil out of our Catholic Schools. In fact there should be more prayer said in our schools, but alas this is not the case.
At a time when marriage is under attack in every walk of life we do not need a politically correct MP to tell us homosexuality is 'Normal and Harmless' just to gain votes. How cheaply these politicians sell themselves, the devil must be laughing all the way to the soul bank.
St Michael the Archangel protect us in this day of battle.
He expresses the view unfortunately of rank and file Catholics in the absence of clear episcopal teaching . My bishop used the gay film Brokeback Mountain as a reference point about relationships in his pastoral letter. Unfortunately there is no effective Catholic opposition at national media level.
To be a LibDem is neither normal nor harmless. BTW isn't his wife a Catholic?
Mmmmm ?
Catholic schools are in receipt of large amounts of government money, and they are essentially part of the the State education system.
That being the case, it does not seem unreasonable to me that Catholic schools in their teaching and culture reflect that moral landscape that is supported by the majority of the population, by the government, by legislation, and by the law. And, homosexuality is by all those criteria a way of being that is perfectly legitimate and protected by law in its rights. Catholic schools need to communicate that message to its pupils. If they feel disinclined to do so, then they should opt out of the State education system which bankrolls them and go fully private and independent - rather like in the USA.
And, I say this as a Catholic. But, I recognise that if we choose to live in this country with all the privileges and benefits it gives us, we have a responsibility to reflect the mainstream thinking and culture of this country. We don't have to become homosexual, or live out ways of life that we think are wrong, but we need to realise that others have the right in law to live their lives freely as they desire and are inclined, and students in Catholic schools have the right to understand that. What they choose to do after hearing this is up to them
Remember that it was a Liberal Democrat who got the abortion mill bill started. Even peripheral leaders can instigate change for the worse and lets face it, he is probably echoing Labour sentiments.
If homosexuality is harmless it is strange that homosexuals are not allowed to be blood donors. Will Mr Clegg be fowrading his harmless argument to defend the right of gays to give blood?
servingblogger - the 1944 Education Act is often referred to as achieving a "historic agreement" on the basis that if Catholic children all went to state schools, the state would have to pay the staff and running costs, and therefore that it would cost the state no more to pay the same costs for Catholic schools. In fact the state gained because Catholics paid 50% of the cost of building the schools (this proportion was later reduced considerably.)
On the substantive issue, the problem is not that Catholic schools will be required to teach the fact that homosexuality is protected by law, but the moves towards requiring Catholic schools to teach that homosexual acts are morally neutral, and that homosexuality is "normal" as Clegg would have it.
check out some of my comments and posts on homosexuality: http://loveundefiled.blogspot.com/search/label/homosexuality
Can't see the lib dems being elected very soon.
We have a similar problem in the USA.
The "education czar" has, in the past, not only promoted homosex, but has been involved (in some sordid way) with NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association)...nice, yeah?
Uh uh...
Servingblogger, your reasoning is hopelessly faulty.
In a liberal democracy there neither is nor should there be any requirement for individuals to make public recantation of their faith, or make public statements of ideological purity which is what Nick Clegg's proposals amount to. Freedom of speech, expression and conscience are the basic democratic rights which underpin liberal democracies and these rights remain inviolable whether or not individuals or institutions are in receipt of public money.
Or to put it another way, there is no duty on anybody to reflect public opinion, mainstream or otherwise. Public opinion which is, at any rate, a notoriously malleable thing.
Your views are off-key, Servingblogger, whether you speak as a Catholic or not.
In fact the state gained because Catholics paid 50% of the cost of building the schools (this proportion was later reduced considerably.)
Except for the fact that the Catholic Church had already built 100% of the existing Catholic schools from the pennies of the poor, saving the State a vast amount.
servingblogger;
sorry, but your logic is entirely wrong, and (IMHO) dangerously misleading.
You say 'I recognise that if we choose to live in this country with all the privileges and benefits it gives us, we have a responsibility to reflect the mainstream thinking and culture of this country.'
First, most of us did not 'choose' to live here, but were born here and could not easily go and live elsewhere, so the logic is defective to start with.
Secondly, and much more importantly, your logic would suggest that the majority is always right; in which case you would not be a Catholic, because the original Christians would have followed the majority, sacrified to idols, and the Faith would have died out.
The Martyrs - and not only those of Ancient Rome, but the English Martys much more recently - died precisely because they would not 'reflect the mainstream thinking and culture of (their) country'. They would certainly not have agreed with your premise that Catholic Schools ought to 'reflect that moral landscape that is supported by the majority of the population, by the government, by legislation, and by the law' when that 'moral landscape' is contary to God's law. (S. Thomas More, you may remember, said on the scaffold that he died 'the King's good servant, but God's first').
I find it worrying that you cannot see the dangerous fallacy in your thinking.
Of course homosexuals have a right in law to live in the way they are inclined; no-one is suggesting otherwise, and (as far as I know) no-one is suggesting that schools should teach anything to the contrary about their (or anyone's) right to live in any way that is legal.
The question is rather whether Catholic (and other Faith) schools should be compelled to teach that a homosexual lifestyle is 'normal and harmless' when such a statement is wholly contrary to the truths of the Faiths in question; in other words, do we allow the Government to demand - as Caesar did - that Religion should kow-tow to 'public opinion'; or will we (and particularly the Bishops) refuse to do this, and fight it in the way that the Crucifix ban is being fought in Italy ?
Remember that comment of Pastor Niemoller's ?
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out.
If the Church gives in now, very soon there will be no-one left. I doubt if anyone has to die about this; but the Church must resist now, as always, the attempts of others to make it deny the truth - however persausive their arguments.
I would caution against Catholics opting out of mainstream political parties. We are not, like some Protestant sects, a body which urges all to opt out altogether of civil society. Our faith is not one which lays down precise descriptions on how the state should be run, therefore it should be possible to hold to our faith and yet have quite different political views on MANY things from others who also hold to our faith. Many, not ALL, obviously.
Therefore, a sprinkling of Catholics in all political parties will serve better to promote those of our views where orthodox Catholics would be in agreement even if they disagree on other things, and where mainstream opinion would disagree with those Catholics.
A Catholic who argues the case against the contraceptive mentality will be better listened to in that party if his opinions on other issues in that party where there would be no reason to be opposed from a Catholic perspective are in accord with that party's. He will also be in a position to know what lines would best be used from that party's standpoint to argue the Catholic line. It would not be so easy to dismiss him as some "Catholic loony" who only talks about these things, if he has been a valued colleague on others.
I am concerned that the "opting out" mentality makes it harder for those of us who are Catholics in mainstream political parties to defend our ground within them when we have to, because we turn round and find no-one supporting us.
If it is considered to be unacceptable to be a member of a certain party because of the views of its leader on things such as abortion and homosexuality, then without anyone in the party putting the opposing case, it is likely the party's views on these things will grow more extreme and here will be no chance of ever getting them changed. It is likely to that the party will shift to no longer making these an issue of conscience as has traditionally been the case in British politics.
I oppose the idea of a specifically Christian or Catholic political party, because I don't feel there's one line on most issues that is the only line a good Catholic could take, and it would damage rather than enhance our position if the impression was given by such a party that there was.
The Liberals in the past have had a reasonable record on this. Although Steel was the leader of the party, (though his promotion of the Abortion Act was before he was leader) it was always made clear in that party that it would have no party line on abortion, what Steel had done on that issue was done by him personally rather than by him as a party member. So David Alton, the most passionate anti-abortion MP in British history was also member of the Liberal Party. I am aware that Alton left because he felt certain aspects of the party's policy in effect conflicted with conscience, but so far one does not have to agree with abortion to be a party member. If one had to, of course, it would no longer be possible to be a Catholic and a party member.
All of this in defence of my current position as a member of the Liberal Democrats and a Catholic.
I am no supporter of Clegg, however, in fact I have dropped out of the sort of activity I had in the party because of him. He was pushed in the party as someone who was supposed to be very clever and a good communicator, he has turned out to be neither. He is always making basic mistakes in his interaction with journalists. His views have very little originality, and often seem to be a sloppy adoption of whatever is current received opinion. I doubt he thought very much about this one. He has already been attacked by many thoughtful members of the party, plenty who would not be pro-life on most issue bit nevertheless recognise the idea of the use of state force on schools on this issue ought to be obviously against more general liberal principles.
It should be recalled that the Liberal Democrats are not a Stalinist party. The personal views of its leader are not what party policy is. There are democratic mechanisms for setting out party policy, it is not necessary for all party members to be in agreement with all party policy. Just because the leader says it does not make it party policy which all members must agree to, and long may it be that way, however much the lazy British media can't see it when they report politics.
On Clegg's "boasting of his promiscuity", I seem to recall what actually happened was he was asked a question "How many women did you sleep with, X?" and he just answered "less than that". Which in time came to be believed and reported as him having boasted of "sleeping" with X women. We Catholics ought to recall that what the British media report about some organisation may be very far from the truth. The answer Clegg ought to have given is "none of your business", of course. This is not to say it is none of our business how our leaders live their personal lives, but that the rude way in which this was introduced in this interview was not an appropriate way to deal with it.
The day that happens is the day I will pull out my kids and grandkids from mainstream British education!
It is unlikely that any Catholic School will stand up against this onslaught, especially when our Bishops continue to remain 'close mouthed', or worse, come out in favour of all this......
'Speaking to The Tablet, Britain’s leading left-liberal Catholic paper, Bishop Malcolm McMahon, the chairman of the Catholic Education Service, said that he had no objection to homosexuals in civil partnerships working in Catholic schools'. Here's the link:
http://by127w.bay127.mail.live.com/default.aspx?n=1069163937&wa=wsignin1.0
I believe we should all be honing our skills for the coming 'New Era', one in which Catholic children will need to be Home Schooled and kept away from the rampant, psychologically damaging, sexually abusive and ever more daring diabolical attacks on their innocence!
Go on Government! Do your worst! Enshrine yet more depravity in law! Seems that in order to ride high in politics these days no qualities of real Statesmanship are required - you just need to be a homosexual! No - I don't get it either, but that's the way it is.
O Blessed Virgin Mary
Mother of God and our most gentle Queen and Mother
Look down with mercy upon England thy dowry.........
Holy Michael the Archangel
Defend us in this day of battle....
Steve says 'We are being asked to worship public idols as in the days of old'.
'Asked'? - Steve. Poor choice of words my friend. They are not asking us. No, with their new found power they are far more brazen and brash! We are being TOLD to worship idols and we are being TOLD to believe that up is down and down is up, that good is evil and evil is good, and lies are being peddled as truth!
We are being TOLD to teach our children that what is filth, abomination and abhorrent MUST pass for being normal and harmless! Like poison is normal and harmless. Because these people cannot control themselves and give in to immoral sexual behaviour they seek to justify themselves and what better a way than to have society accept all they do as normal. Well sorry, but it is NOT NORMAL nor is it HARMLESS. Were it normal the human race would have died out eons ago and statistics show clearly that the vast majority of paedophiles are homosexual men.
And anyway none of this has any business being taught in schools Catholic or otherwise! At a time when so many kids leave school and can barely read or write or count up the loose change in their pockets - Government Ministers can think of nothing better than to teach them about homosexuality then frankly what the **** are these people doing in government!
Better stop - the blood pressure is going up and I feel a mighty RANT about to boil over!
What a storm in a tea-cup. Who cares if the make it obligatory for schools to teach that homosexual acts are normal.
Most Catholic schools put a fairly positive (or very neutral at worst) spin on homosexuality anyway, without any legal obligation. In any disucssion of this vice teachers usually cover themselves by adding, almost as an afterthought, "But the Church disaproves". Rare indeed is any explanation of why.
You think I exaggerate? Ask any pupil that attends a Catholic school if he has any idea of what they Church's teachings on homosexuality are. More importantly ask him why the Church teaches this.
No, legal obligation isn't necessary, most teachers in Catholic schools have been cowed into accepting the secular elite's views by fear of being 'out of step' with the zeitgeist.
... and statistics show clearly that the vast majority of paedophiles are homosexual men.
George, that is completely untrue and a gross libel on gay men everywhere. If you are an honourable man, you will withdraw that comment unreservedly.
Your cod-Darwinism is also deeply tedious. If you want to have a chat about human sexuality and the survival of the species, let me steer you in the direction of Professor Steven Rose. He knows what he's talking about.
Why does this sort of thing always happen? I object to Nick Clegg's proposals because I object to religious people, in fact any people being forced to make statements of ideological correctness by the state. But that is not, repeat not, a welcome sign for screaming homophobes to spread their nasty lies.
I agree wholeheartedly with Matthew Huntbach, who's made some very sensible points. I don't want to see Catholics or people of other religions, for that matter, marginalised into sterile sectarianism, or even worse, paranoid reactionary politics.
For one thing, reactionary paranoia doesn't fit with our religion at all; we're an Easter people, remember. For another, we are rooting our defence in the language of a pluralist liberal democracy. We speak of the rights of free speech, expression and conscience and so forth.
Clegg has revealed himself to be an authoritarian and a statist. His comments should alert us to the dangers of these positions while pointing up what we should be arguing for: more local democratic accountability and more, much, much, more political engagement on the part of the laity.
Following on from what you say Stephen
'You think I exaggerate? Ask any pupil that attends a Catholic school if he has any idea of what they Church's teachings on homosexuality are. More importantly ask him why the Church teaches this'.
Ask a child in a Catholic School how many of their friends have had sexual partners of either or the same sex and you will be shocked. I am talking about Year 9, 10 and 11.
They neither know the teachings of the church nor is there anyone there to teach them. Heavens, some of them don't even know what a tabernacle is and Whom it holds.
Yes, the government is doing its utmost to damage childrens innocence, to destroy their dreams aswell as any future relationships they may want to develop, but there is no one there to stop the rot or give them the Catholic view full of hope and love.
If you don't teach your children morals yourself, no one else will.
They learn by example and this reflects itself in the company you keep.
The one thing I have learned over the years is that the Catholic Faith is to be taught and lived at home. There is no more reliance on the school, not even for support. All I ask from our Catholic Schools is that they educate our children and then I pray for damage limitation when it comes to morals and the teachings of our Catholic Church.
Red Maria – in response to the first part of your comment I will quote from articles and from people who are ‘expert’ in this field:
Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover reflects on the Journal of Homosexuality's "Male Intergenerational Intimacy":
"This special issue reflects the substantial, influential, and growing segment of the homosexual community that neither hides nor condemns pedophilia. Rather they argue that pedophilia is an acceptable aspect of sexuality, especially of homosexuality. Indeed, the San Francisco Sentinel, a Bay Area gay-activist newspaper, published a piece arguing that pedophilia is central to male homosexual life" (7).
Gay advocates correctly state that most child molesters are heterosexual males. However, this is a misleading statement, since most males are heterosexual.
While no more than 2% of male adults are homosexual, some studies indicate that approximately 35% of pedophiles are homosexual (9). Further, since male-on-male pedophiles victimize far more children than do heterosexual pedophiles (10), it is estimated that approximately 80% of pedophilic victims are boys who have been molested by adult males (11).
For the full article and details of the Journals and sources annotated numerically above together with many more links to the real world of statistics on these issues please follow this link:
http://www.narth.com/docs/pedophNEW.html
Red Maria states that my cod-darwinism is deeply tedious. Yes I agree with you Red Maria – and the fossil record shows that Darwin was indeed a cod, closely related to a red-herring (second cousin thrice removed I believe).
As it happens I actually hold a science degree in Biology, but for me Darwin’s musings (certainly not a theory) on evolution were always a stumbling point since grammar school biology, and just don’t square the circle. I have read extensively on this subject for many years and some recent writings on these issues by an amazing lady called Dorothy Vining (who is 86 years young!) ask some particularly important questions. I hope you find this interesting…
‘If we accept evolutionary theory we are required to imagine that each animal that today reproduces sexually, in the distant past was going about its business of reproducing asexually, dividing and budding away, when all of a sudden it accidentally produced an egg and at the same time, in the same locale, another animal of the same species just happened to make a sperm cell. Also, simultaneously and independently they each accidentally acquired the apparatus to get the egg and sperm together so they could produce offspring with a full set of genes.
Are you buying this?
If ever there was a case of "irreducible complexity", we have one in the transition from asexual to sexual reproduction. Irreducible complexity means simply that the process cannot be reduced to a series of simple steps one after another. If a number of things do not happen and come together all at once, nothing works. Irreducible complexity has been defined in various ways but I prefer Darwin's own language: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case" (Origin of Species, Chapter VI)'.
Sorry Mr Darwin but Sexual differentiation is exactly just such a case.
I really have no issue with Creationism, after the world was created to a point where 'God saw that it was good, God then made Adam and to complete His plan, He made Eve.'
If we truely believe that NOTHING is impossible to God then we shouldn't be trying desperately to fit God, who is infinite, into a tiny pidgeon-hole niche of His own Universe! But that's scientists for you - they will not believe a miracle because it transcends the limits of what they can measure with their meters and gadgets. When you start questioning this you might then start pushing more boundaries and question the Virgin Birth of Jesus - oh yes it was all down to IVF at the time. Very soon that takes you into Carl Sagan's 'Was God and Astronaut?' la-la world of fantasy!
Certainly God did not require apes, orang-utans, green monkeys and gorillas as some sort of 'human precursor'. He created matter after all from nothing!
Dorothy Vining once worked for the philosopher Mortimer Adler on the Syntopicon, an index to the ideas in the 54 volume set of The Great Books of the Western World. As her field was the biological sciences, she was assigned to index the biological works of Aristotle, Hippocrates, Harvey, Galen, and Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species and The Descent of Man. An enthusiast then, she became increasingly critical of Darwin’s theories. She blogs at Musings at 85.
For the full article go here:
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/vive_la_difference_but_how_did_it_begin/
Sorry this is so long Fr Tim.
Just for the record, when I was collecting signatures to stop the age of consent (for permitting homosexual sex) being lowered from twenty one to eighteen, a number of people were in favour arguing it would be a brilliant way of reducing the population.
So there goes the idea of the suvival of the species???
Post a Comment