Catechism of the Catholic Church (675)

Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh. ~ Catechism of the Catholic Church (675)

Thursday, 24 January 2013

Schools and Same-Sex Marriage


The SPUC Anthony Ozimic's apperance on This Morning has caused a stir in the marriage debate, both within Catholic new media circles and doubtless in the so called "equal marriage" camp. Generally, I think Anthony did very well in a heated debate which left him facing three opponents, instead of the one opponent discussion which was meant to be overseen by two impartial television presenters.

Opinion appears divided over the approach that Anthony took on the range of issues forcefully and emotionally presented to him. Some commentators have described Anthony's approach to the issue as the right one, while one Catholic commentator on Twitter described the debate as a 'train crash'. This is somewhat unfair, I think, and given that Anthony single-handedly, against three opponents, reduced public support in the live opinion poll for same-sex marriage to be taught in school by 20%, quite untrue.

This debate is highly charged - since we are now such a highly charged and hyper-sexualised country - and the language being used is so emotionally loaded. Anthony was accused, in what is now the most consistently employed gay lobby truth missile defense system, of 'homophobia'.

Is Anthony 'homophobic'? I really doubt it, but, that said, one Catholic I know who has same-sex attraction reacted very angrily to the interview yesterday. As well as mounting a 'homophobic' attack on 'gay marriage' and it being taught in schools, Anthony's crime appears to be one of 'pathologising' homosexuality. I personally found Anthony's approach to the issue refreshing precisely because he refused to buy into or accept any part of the LGBT campaign's propaganda.

In refusing to do this - by asserting that there is something 'not normal' or disordered or even unhealthy about homosexuality, Anthony was able to do the one thing that people at home who are uncomfortable with the LGBT agenda feel unable to do - that is - he spoke his mind. He refused to take this issue on the terms presented by the media and also refused to publicly accept the sacred cows so cherished by the LGBT brigade.

Assessing homosexuality as something that is plausibly linked to issues grounded in childhood development, environment and psychology, rather than genetic or necessarily 'chromosomal' factors, may be an avenue that Anthony did not have to explore, nor perhaps the particular angle from which the Church comes from, or even an argument grounded in natural law.

Anthony's defense, however, was a defence mounted in defence of children. The Catholic Church states quite clearly that homosexuality is a disorder of the natural sexual state. Why should we not explore the possible reasons as to why a child may grow up into an adult with a disorder of the natural sexual state and find himself only able to form sexual relationships with members of the same-sex? Are we saying that there is a whole field of psychological enquiry which has been closed off? Who closed it off? Was it closed off by 'Peer Review'? Are 'Peer Reviews' infallible documents or could it b,e that on the subject of homosexuality, enquiry into this was called off because the liberal, taboo-smashing orthodoxy requires consensus of psychiactric opinion?

Personal experience

I'll be quite frank. I continue to live a life with what the Church, more helpfully and dispassionately describes as 'same-sex attraction'. This, I whole heartedly accept to be a disorder. The very phrase, 'same-sex attraction' itself is more helpful to understanding ourselves than 'gay' - a term which was robbed by the 'gay community' from the English dictionary and distorted to fit their political and frankly Marxist agenda.

My experience of homosexuality or same-sex attraction is that it developed in childhood. My first sexual experience was with another boy at about the age of 9, though I cannot recall the exact age. This person shall of course remain nameless. This experience, however, was initiated by him. It then came to pass that an older boy of around 14, known to me and the boy, took me to a wood and got me to hold his private parts and do things 'for him'. Looking back, this was some kind of abuse encounter. I was very young and impressionable.

Secondly, I found it difficult to form a strong relationship with my father. At the same time, I had a very close relationship with my mother. It so happens that most homosexuals I have encountered, in which I mean 'met', as well as myself, have had distinct 'father' issues. One I know, actively despises his own father. Another clearly never had one. Another cannot forgive his father for what his father did to his mother. Another, his father was never at home because he was always at work and meetings. Whenever I have met a homosexual, I have picked up the distinct impression that this individual has either no bond or a severed bond or only partial bond with father. I don't have a psychology degree, but just looking at my own sexual formation and that of others I know, does it not make perfect rational sense for a child with no father bond to seek bonding with a man he is perpetually searching for?

Thirdly, if there is one psychological disorder prevalent in the gay community (indeed rampant throughout society), it is the psychological disorder of narcissism. I'll be frank, I have this disorder too. Anyone who blogs as much as me must think rather highly of himself that his thoughts are so valuable they must be posted extremely regularly. Indeed, the age in which we live (Facebook, Twitter, fashion, trends etc) actively encourages this most pernicious of disorders.

Self-glorification, self-worship, even, is elevated to an astonishing degree, to the detriment of the health of family, society and indeed the individual. It is a "me, me, me" age. The brazen selfishness and self-obsession of the political gay lobby, indeed, is the very reason why all of society is now being ordered to usher in an age and a Brave New World at that in which the family is to be re-ordered so that their unjustified wrath may be appeased and the unnatural unit of two men and a baby is to be seen as equal to the natural family unit of man and woman and children.

The Rainbow: Policy is being made through an LGBT Prism

This is what, in fact, lies at the heart of the marriage debate - a debate taking place only because the LGBT community have launched an astonishing attack on the institution of marriage by insisting that, by some intrinsic right created out of nowhere, this institution that comes about through the union of man and woman belongs equally also to them. The truth of course is that it belongs to the whole society and uniquely to those who enter into it in order to unite two complementary, but uniquely different, genders. Man and woman. Nobody is excluded by the institution of marriage. Men and women are both catered for. The only people not catered for by the institution of marriage are those who refuse, either willingly or unwillingly, to unite with a person of the opposite sex for the procreation of children.

Public policy is now being made through an LGBT prism. That's why there are rainbows everwhere. Everything in the LGBT world is seen through a prism of self - even a prison of self - that ignores, holds in contempt or esteems as of trifling importance those natural bonds of love that every civilization has valued.

Marriage is one of these natural bonds, for marriage is a natural institution. Another is motherhood - a widely disparaged vocation. Another is fatherhood and the bond between father and son. Another is grand-parenthood and the role of extended family.

The LGBT lobby, in truth, will never be happy - another word for 'gay' - even if society, Church and State should bend over backwards to give it all that this voracious lobby requires. Why? Because the truth is that the LGBT lobby present to the nation, to families and to children a philosophy regarding sexuality in which slavery is promoted. What is this slavery? It is the slavery of sin and the slavery of the self and of the fulfillment of selfish desires that refuse to respect the role and purpose of sexuality and sexual expression for children, for family and and society.

In truth, this vision of sex for purely pleasurable and selfish reasons in terms of homosexuality is merely an extension of what is already taught widely in schools - that sex has no objective moral dimension or purpose - and that neither does marriage. This is what Anthony Ozimic was talking about in terms of giving children an education that respects the authentic and only good vision of human sexuality, life and love. Marriage is about liberty - not licence. The family is about liberty - not licence. Love is about liberty - not licence. Those who distort the meanings of love, family and marriage do so in order to suit their own licentious ends and end up making prisoners of themselves and, in turn, the rest of the society who refuses to be slaves to their own disordered sexual desires.

Real slavery is the slavery of the self

The Divine Founder of the Catholic Church, Our Lord Jesus Christ, said, 'The truth will set you free'. What is the Truth? The Truth is Jesus Christ, the Way and the Truth and the Life. What is 'free'? To be free is to be free from the tyranny of selfishness, the prison of self-love or even self-worship, in order to love God, to love your neighbour, to love Jesus Christ, His Blessed Mother and His Church even unto the shedding of your own blood. To be a slave of Jesus Christ is to be free. To be a slave or a hostage to sin and to the Devil is to be forever in chains.

The primary reason why children should not be taught about same-sex marriage in schools is that it is not primarily the responsibiliy of the State to give children the moral formation and moral education that is the duty and right of parents. It is not to the State to indoctrinate children with a new and wholly untested vision of human sexuality, love and marriage.

It is not to the State to indoctrinate children with its own vision of such matters which run entirely contrary to the natural law. This is the duty and right of parents. It is not just the rights of children to be given an authentic vision of human sexuality and love in school that are under attack. It is the rights of parents and, in particular, any parent who objects to this kind of education.

Indeed, at one point in the discussion, the presenter asks Anthony to descibe the 'lifestyles' and 'practices' of homosexuality. For some reason, Anthony felt unable to do this. Is this, perhaps, because the practices and lifestyles associated with homosexuality are not suitable subject matter for daytime TV? Perhaps Anthony should have mentioned fisting, mutual masturbation, rimming, sodomy and the rest and just let the complaints from those at home fly in. Then he could have said, "....and this is what Stonewall and the Terrence Higgins Trust want to be taught in your child's school. Oh, but don't worry, because all such behaviours are perfectly 'normal' and 'healthy', despite the fact that HIV claims many gay men's lives and rates of HPV are so bad in gay men that there are calls for 'vaccinations'.

My own experience of being a man with same-sex attraction may have been heavily influenced by being exposed to homosexuality at a very tender age. The event with an older boy was deeply distressing and its something I rather not think about because I realise that it was, fundamentally, child abuse. Teaching about homosexuality in schools is a recipe for the exact same events to be promoted and replayed in every school up and down the land.

Do parents want this kind of education for their children?

So, I ask parents of the United Kingdom:
  1. Is this what you want for your child?
  2. Do you want your 8-year-old son to be abused by an older child, having been encouraged to sexually experiment by the teachers you thought were there for your child's education and protection?
  3. Do you want your impressionable cherub experimenting sexually with any other children?
  4. Do you want the State to be the moral educator of your children or would you rather do this yourself?
  5. If much of what consists of gay literature is so offensive that it cannot be discussed on daytime TV, then in what sense is it suitable for your child in a school setting? 

Before you make up your mind, do have a look at the substance, if not the precise material, of what the Terrence Higgins Trust actually wish to promote in schools.

If it is not what you want for your child and you do not want your Government to enshrine into legislation law that will promote child abuse, wake up, get off the fence, stop pandering to the dogma of political correctness and do everything you can to oppose the Government's redefinition of marriage, because time is short and the Devil never sleeps.

25 comments:

Nicolas Bellord said...

Congratulations on a very honest post. I think that we need to remember that however much homosexuality is disordered heterosexuality can be just as disordered - manifesting itself in a variety of sexual sins. It seems to me that one of the results of the extremist LGBT lobbying is the condoning of all sexual sin and this appeals to a much wider audience than those with a homosexual orientation.

A Reluctant Sinner said...

Thank you, Laurence, for an excellent and very honest post!

I'm afraid to say that egoism is probably a primary motivation for my blogging, too.

You were missed at the meeting on Tuesday evening -- the Catholic Union one.

Lazarus said...

I saw some of the Twitter feed I think you're talking about and I agree with you it was unfair. Quite apart from Anthony's being savaged by three people and remaining cool throughout, not enough credit is being given to him for having to deal with the precise question asked. It wasn't a debate about the rights and wrongs of same sex 'marriage'; it was a debate about teaching such 'marriage' in schools. It's extremely hard to see how you can deal with that question without talking about the immorality of homosexual activity (and that means talking about how human nature is harmed/benefited by sex).

The gasps of horror at Anthony's daring to criticize homosexuality pretty much sum up standard popular reactions at the moment. I don't have much of an idea how to get past that except may be to start talking positively about what the Catholic vision of a good use of sexuality is, and letting homosexual activity settle into its place as just one of a myriad of ways of going wrong, rather than the primary focus of attention. (But, frankly, fat chance of that given the way the world -particularly the media- is at the moment.)

Dorothy B said...

Bravo, Laurence! Thank you for this excellent post.

John Kearney said...

This was a very brave post. Thank you for sharing your life and experience and I can say I learned more from your post than I learned reading over a hundred defences of the Church position. If your other posts were egotistical this one could only be described as truly humble.

P said...

Laurence, you should probably edit your article when it says, "The Catholic Church states quite clearly that homosexuality a disorder of the natural homosexual state". You may think homosexuality is the natural state for men, but I assure you, the Church does not, nor do most men who are not of your inclinations

JL said...

The link to THT isn't working, not sure if this is what you meant it to point to http://www.tht.org.uk/~/media/132C90B69AAF43C7AFE01E0F71E96D51.ashx though I don't think this IS actually meant for schools.

The Bones said...

Perhaps it is not meant for schools, but do you really think that, having obtained permission to teach gay marriage in schools gay sex will not also be taught? Once gay sex is taught as 'sex education', do you think the stuff within 'The Bottom Line' would be left unsaid. That would be naive I think. That is the direction in which sex education would go.

Current sex education is geared towards children's basest instincts. It is not about sexual love in marriage and constancy. Education is explicitly about 'when you're ready' which leads to promiscuity and experimentation.

It stands to reason that the same would happen with teaching about homosexuality and 'love' within 'gay marriage'.

The Bones said...

Also, you shouldn't cast aspersions on Anthony's sexuality, that is calumny.

JL said...

Laurence, if you're asking me personally re the "Bottom Line" I quite agree with you that probably this or something slightly toned down would be exactly what might be taught in schools. I just making the observation that I didn't this "this" was actually conceived for schools... yet!

The Bones said...

It is calumny. You have no evidence for what you claim. Thus, I am deleting your comments.

William Weber said...

Well done Bones

BJC said...

Holly Willoughby's face was a picture. She looked like some kind of liberal maiden aunt who'd had one too many sherries. As for Phillip Schofield, his anger at the truth was all over his face. The first thing that came into my head while watching it was "If they hated Me they will hate you" (Jn 15:18).

I think we've lost a sense of how much opposition there is to the gospel. It divides as well as unites and some people will not hear it. Gently or otherwise it upbraids people making them aware of their own sinfulness and there's only two reactions. Repentence and turning to God or anger and throwing rocks. I think that's what's happening in this interview. Anthony Ozimiric has unwittingly hit a raw nerve with the other three and they all indirectly feel accused by him. The point about gay sex is only part of it. After all if he's right about that he'll be right about all sorts of hetrosexual sexual sins and the other three don't want to be reminded of it.

blondpidge said...

I am a critic of spuc, and therefore had low expectations and was pleasantly surprised. Anthony did do well, certainly Philip Schofield seemed open to further debate and though we don't know who the poll participants were, he did manage to significantly shift opinion.

I've been in a similar situation myself, on BBC1 Sunday Morning Live, where the presenter lost her impartiality and it was three against one. It is very difficult to stay calm, focused, reasonable and on topic in that situation, and it is much easier to be an armchair critic than it is when you are in the hotseat.

With that in mind, I think it was a shame that Anthony allowed himself to be derailed as to the largely irrelevant question regarding SSA.

Had he stuck to the point that anal sex is a harmful sexual practice, used some stats on STDs and other consequences, then he could have used that as a platform to talk about all sex ed in schools. In his shoes, and I don't know that I could have done much better, I would have talked about the fact that this is a niche sexual practice, one with devastating health consequences and one which we don't want taught to our children, or normalised, regardless of their gender or sexuality. For an audience such as This Morning, this would have been the ideal approach, but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I would have stuck to the point about how a mother and father are the best environment in which to bring up children and brought in that same-sex 'marriages' deny the right of a child to a biological mother and father, emphasising how important it is for babies to have the care of their biological mother.

I was cabin crew for a number of years, which as most will know, is a profession that is disproportionately full of those with SSA. I've seen things that would stretch the credibility of the plot of a porn-film maker, having been on several trips, some as long as 21 days, to places such as Bangkok with an all-male gay crew and been taken on various trawls around seedy backstreet joints and clubs.

The lifestyle of a gay cabin crew member is necessarily representative, but I've seen the scene close up and can state with some authority, that it is not an ideal environment in which to bring up children and that even those allegedly in long term relationships have several infidelities and indiscretions, attachments seem to be transitory. I guess I saw the heart of the scene, not the sanitised version all about love and commitment that the media and chattering classes wish to push, most of whom know a benign old couple who they think are representative and have no actual idea of what goes on. It isn't all the love and commitment baloney, it's a highly promiscuous lifestyle and from what I have observed, one which depends on a lot sexually predatory behaviour. But it's difficult to communicate this without succumbing to people's negative prejudices of being a 'hater'.

That a close friend of mine says that he just 'knew' he was SSA from the moment his babysitter touched him at the age of 7, says much in terms of how, i think, it has to do with arrested sexual development. Recent studies involving identical twins where only one has SSA, seems to indicate that it has something to do with whether or not gene receptors are switched on and off in response to environmental factors, twins being the best study as they have identical DNA and a pretty similar upbringing in terms of psychology. I think we're best leaving this to the scientists who tend to have the most authority in terms of speaking to the public.

Apologies, I've ranted on, but I think really just sticking to the points about why we don't want sex education in schools, particularly not normalising anal sex which is a niche and harmful adult practice, just as BDSM for example, and why SSM will do much damage to the family and children, would perhaps have been the better tactic, instead of falling into the obvious traps.

Lolalola said...

Laurence thank you very much for this article. You have been very honest and brave in detailing your past. I would very much agree with Blondepidge with how the terms of Anthony's argument could have been strengthened but I would also like to suggest that we bring the term 'step parents' back into the debate as this is what the new ordered families would be made up of. The government will need to change the term mother and father if marriage is redefined in an attempt at doublespeak, and there is plenty if unbiased research on the difference between these types of families which can be compared and analysed rationally.

Queeninthehive /lola said...

Laurence,
I have given this some more thought, and you got me thinking about my own childhood. I remembered that when I was younger, a local girl who I made friends with introduced me to the 'finer things in life' in our garden shed. In my innocence,or not so much innocence, but in teaching mode I then played 'mummies and daddies' with a friend who is now in a same sex relationship and they have two children.I am happily married to my husband and soulmate.
I think that this is a relatively frequent occurrance. I think that the actual desire that occurs during those moments is very intense, but for me, these moments did not overtake the vision that I knew Christ had for me, I suppose because my own mother and father were so in love, so I naturally inclined towards finding my self first before I succumed to sexual desire throughout my teenage years. And so, I reserved my desires throughout my own adolescence and contained them or in other perspectives repressed my sexuality. I did not feel attracted to anyone; and during my youth I was also sexually abused (aged 8- 9) by a male step-cousin. I think because I was surrounded by love at home, that I never felt the need to fill myself with anything else.

I did not want to become sexually active until I was married - I wanted the vision Christ had for me. The desires of those moments never overtook me, because I was waiting to fall in love with my prince, which I did after many years of desperation! I can honestly say that I never felt attracted to any man (or woman) until I met my now husband, who I immediately felt desire for because I fell in love with his heart, and I allowed myself the luxury of letting myself feel desire because I knew it was good. I think what I am trying to say, is that these experiences affect us in different ways, and ultimately, it is CHrist's vision for us as bringing us the fulness of life, which with trust in Him, we attain fulfilment. Thank you so much for your honesty, and God bless you. In hope.

Tony Flavin said...

One of the bravest posts I have ever read.

I have had dealings with THT and was told in no uncertain terms what they thought when I asked how relevant straight people might find their publications.

When I asked if they had any publications for straight people I was told there was some. Told, not shown.

I asked if they ever make people aware how expensive antiretroviral
treatment is, I was treated to some naughty words instead.

This chastity lark is quite radical isn't it?

Tony Flavin said...

One of the bravest posts I have ever read, may I add my thanks.

I have had dealings with THT, when I asked how some of their publications might relate to straight people I was treated to naughty words.

Says it all!

Lazarus said...

@ blondpidge

Caroline, you might be right about how the content of the argument could have been tweaked: frankly, I've lost much sense of what might and mightn't work in the bearpit of popular TV. But I strongly suspect that if you'd brought up anal sex, you'd have been shouted down for displaying an unhealthy interest in the details of gay people's sex lives which you don't display in those of the straight. I simply don't think there is a magic bullet in tweaking details: they get lost in the general furore about 'homophobia'.

If there is a way round this, I suspect it's about style over substance. Who looks good on TV. Who's got an interesting angle. Frankly, I'd fill the TV slots with good looking young women and those like Lawrence who are both committed to orthodox teaching and have wrestled with SSA. One of the main things the French campaign has going for it is Frigide Barjot: she doesn't look like the usual Catholic suspect.

Andrew Rex said...

Lolalola said... 'and there is plenty if unbiased research on the difference between these types of families which can be compared and analysed rationally.'

Yes, and the research indicates that children of same-sex parents fair as well across all the indicators (ie emotionally, physically, developmentally, socially and intelectually) as those growing up with other combinations of parents.

Lynda said...

Great analysis and insight as always. I understand that many people who claim to be sexually attracted to members of their own sex have been sexually abused in some manner as children.

JL said...

@Andrew Rex actually the most recent and most comparative and indepth research shows the opposite... http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

Andrew Rex said...

JL - it's one study whose results go against the grain of all previous studies. It also doesn't count as research because it didn't attempt to recieve ethical approval and was not peer-reviewed before publication. There are a number of serious methodological flaws and the author did not declare that it was funded by a highly conservative speacial interest group (ie it is blatantly biased). All professional associations, national university research institutes and the US department of health have investigated (including examination of 42,000 emails) and found there were serious malpractice and statistical manipulation issues during the project. Having said all that, the study concludes that any differences found may be an indirect result of stigma and discrimination against same sex couples rather than anything inherent in the ability of same sex couples to parent. I believe the journl has distanced itself from the study and a subsequent issue is to address the instability of the research process and conclusions.

Andrew Rex said...

Lynda, the rate of sexual abuse among all children (whether they grow up to have a hetero-, homo-, or bisexual orientation) is very common. There is no particular correlation between underage sexual activity and a homosexual orientation in adult life. The suggestion that homosexuals are more likely to commit child sexual abuse has been debunked even though Lawrence attempts to mislead and draw such conclusions.

Patricius said...

May God bless and reward you for this splendid post. You have spoken the truth that hardly dare speak its name! As soon as this same-sex "marriage" is enacted the devil's footsoldiers will be on the march to lower the age of consent. The whole "gay project" depends for its survival upon a ready supply of recruits.

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails