Gay Marriage

[shane]

The NUI Galway Legion of Mary Society has been suspended by the student union for this 'homophobic' poster:



Disturbing statement from NUIG:

"NUI Galway has a pluralist ethos and will not condone the production and dissemination of any material by students which discriminates against other students. Discrimination or implied or direct harassment, on the basis of sexual orientation and/or religion, is contrary to Irish and European law.

The Vice-President for the Student Experience initiated a process of enquiry to review the actions of the Society in question in the context of the University code of conduct, the University policy on harassment and Irish and European equality law.

The University Societies Coordination Group met yesterday, Tuesday 3rd December, and suspended the Society named the NUIG Legion of Mary with immediate effect.

NUI Galway is committed to protecting the liberty and equality of all students and does not condone such behaviour”.

The society is no longer even on the university website:



Interesting post on this by Padraig Reidy, an Irish atheist, news editor of Index on Censorship and former deputy editor of New Humanist: blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/padraigreidy/100249288/catholic-counselling-for-gay-students-banned/

[maolsheachlann]

This is profoundly disturbing and downright scary.

[hibernicus]

Shane's post should probably be on the "Is Church teaching no longer acceptable?" thread because gay marriage is a separate issue. This thread is specifically for discussion of the nature of marriage, not for all things homosexual. I will think matters over and may decide to move Shane's post (and this one) to that thread at a future date.

HEre is RTE NEws's report:
www.rte.ie/news/2013/1205/491018-nuig-legion-mary/

HEre is a Politics.ie discussion with the usual mixture of heat and light. Note that some posters who are generally opposed to the Catholic view think that the poster could not offend any reasonable person since it does not use violent or abusive language but simply states Catholic teaching and offers help to those who wish to live it out, while others argue that it should be banned as "hate speech".
www.politics.ie/forum/education-science/219167-nuig-suspends-legion-mary-society-threatening-posters.html

Here is the Wikipedia entry on Courage which gives a basic summary of its work and history and offers some links:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage_International

Here is a recent post and discussion from Rod Dreher's blog which debates the decision of a (nominally) Catholic school in New York to ban a priest from speaking on behalf of Courage at the school. You will see a similar range of opinions and some arguments about what Courage actually does in the combox.

Note that one Politics.ie commenter claims Courage offers "reparative therapy" (i.e. sends members to psychologists/psychiatrists who claim to be able to turn them into heterosexuals). In fact, Courage does not do this itself (some Evangelical Protestant "ex-gay" groups do) but will support members who decide to try it. (This difference in approach is partly explained by the fact that evangelicals do not attach any particular value to celibacy, so that they take the view that everyone should marry; it partly also relates to a view popular among evangelicals and pentecostals that if you really try to do the right thing God will give you strength and if you fail you must not have been really trying.) Gay Rights supporters maintain that it is always and everywhere impossible to turn a homosexual person heterosexual (and there do seem to be a lot of homosexuals of whom this is true, though there is also a "grey zone" so to speak; I should add that a lot of "reparative therapies" have an extremely dubious record, to put it mildly) and that any attempt to do so, even with the consent of the patient and at their request, should be considered unethical. Gay groups in America have been campaigning for such therapy to be made illegal, and there have been instances in Britain of gay activists acting as agents provocateur, approaching evangelical psychologists to request such therapy and then complaining to their professional bodies and getting them struck off for unethical behaviour.

www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/catholic-high-school-forbids-catholic-priest-from-speaking-about-catholicism/comment-page-2/

The rationale of the authorities who banned the poster (or leaflet - it is not clear which is meant) goes like this, and it will be seen that its implications are profoundly worrying:
(1) In order for those who experience same-sex attraction to be happy and healthy, they must accept their orientation and act upon it.
(2)The belief that same-sex orientation constitutes an objective moral disorder, if accepted by those with such an orientation, causes them shame and guilt and leads to loneliness, distress, and harmful behaviour, often extending to suicide.
(3) Therefore the mere expression of such a belief, however modestly or rationally stated, constitutes aggression against gays. As such, gays are or should be rightly offended by such expression. It is a form of hate speech - i.e. it constitutes an act of violence in itself and as such it is not entitled to free-speech protection and ought to be prohibited.

This view can be extended beyond the specific case of homosexuality to ban other aspects of Christian teaching. For example, quite a lot of recent discussions of Magdalen asyla and related scandals have claimed implicitly or explicitly that the view that (heterosexual) sex outside marriage is wrong is false in itself and impossible to live up to; that people who try to live up to it will end up as sexually repressed self-righteous torturers expressing their sense of moral superiority by bullying and practicising emotional blackmail on those who have failed to live up to it, and exploiting the resulting sense of guilt for their own advantage. Already there have been cases in Britain (and I think here as well) of Christians being banned from fostering or adopting on the grounds that their belief that sex outside marriage is sinful might cause them to torment the child to punish it for the sin of its parents (the fact that many self-professed Christians have in fact engaged in such cruel behaviour doesn't help). I don't think we are too far off the view that the Sixth Commandment constitutes hate speech.

BTW I notice one of the Politics.ie posters is stating that the number of complaints was what prompted the college authorities to take action - which of course means that favoured groups are rewarded for mounting organised campaigns of complaint about their sensibilities being offended, while others less favoured (such as pro-lifers) are dismissed and jeered at for making such complaints since their sensibilities are assumed to be beneath contempt.

Another of the Politics.ie posters declares that the posters must indeed be regarded as offensive since the Legion of Mary themselves made no attempt to defend them but immediately apologised. This is perfectly understandable, because these students now find themselves in a highly invidious position - they are being branded as the moral equivalent of racists by the college administration and may face a black mark on their records that will damage their future lives and careers.

[chercheur]

Dec 5, 2013 22:57:22 GMT maolsheachlann said:

This is profoundly disturbing and downright scary.

To be honest I disagree somewhat though of course I see your point.

It is bracing and enlightening for the Christian to be faced with evidence of just how counter cultural and unaccepted Christianity now is in "official Ireland".

The fact that the secular humanist majority are willing to tolerate the presence of Christianity where its precepts happens to coincide with their own beliefs ( many welcome Pope Francis "marxism" for instance ) should not blind us to the fact that the Church is widely and deeply loathed by those under 50. The Bien Pensant vilify us and they are not the first scribes to do so. Its no harm to be faced witht eh direct evidence of this.

[maolsheachlann]

The idea that a poster or a leaflet should be suppressed because some people find beliefs that it expresses upsetting is very sinister. All controversial debate and disagreement would essentially be outlawed if that principle was followed. And the fact that it happened at a university, where debate and ideas and intellectual freedom should thrive, is especially troubling.

I find this upsetting and scary because it looks like the headlights of an oncoming train. It logically follows that all expressions of Catholicism could be suppressed because they are offensive or threatening to homosexuals, in the same way a swastika would be considered offensive to Jews, even though it makes no direct reference to Jewishness.

[maolsheachlann]

This from the Irish Times:

Fr Sean McHugh, communications officer with the Galway diocese, said that the matter was one for the Legion of Mary and the university.“It appears that the poster is about the call to live a chaste live, which is part of Christian teaching,” he said, but the poster’s statement,”I’m a child of God. Don’t call me gay!” was offensive, he said.

I think he is missing the point. The point of the sentence, which may have been unfortunately chosen, was obviously to make the point that labelling people as "gay" is limiting. The text of the poster makes this clear. I can understand why the Church doesn't want to be unnecessarily combative, but surely this is a case where they should support the free expression of Church teaching.

[hibernicus]

I hadn't realised the controversy centred on the slogan. To be fair, I can see how it could be genuinely misunderstood. What Courage means by the slogan is "the most important thing about you is not that you experience same-sex attraction but that you are a child of God, so you should not see yourself as defined by your sexual orientation". What the people who were offended by the slogan thought it meant was "If you are same-sex attracted you are not a child of God". The Courage statement implies a distinction between being same-sex attracted and being gay (i.e. accepting that attraction as something positively good and to be acted upon); the opponents would say there is no distinction at all (this for example is why the GUARDIAN house style manual bans the term "active gay" - they take the view that if you have the attraction/orientation you are gay whether or not you are sexually active.)
What is really striking, though, is that the university shut down the group at once without any scope for explanation or apology. I wonder do they have a Socialist Worker Student Society, and would they shut it down if students started complaining that it glorified mass murder and dictatorship?

BTW the IRISH CATHOLIC'S cover story, about UCC downgrading its chaplaincy provision and a sense that the campus is becoming more hostile to expression of faith, is probably relevant to this as well.

[hibernicus]

Another point that occurs to me is that the Legion of Mary may have "folded" on this so rapidly, not just because the university administration came down on them like a ton of bricks, but also because they may possibly have downloaded the piece from the internet and reproduced it without thinking through its real meaning (and conversely, being aware of how it could be misinterpreted) so that they were caught flatfooted by the outcry.

[hibernicus]

An US state court strikes down an anti-polygamy law (which makes polygamous cohabitation illegal) and cites the Supreme Court case invalidating anti-sodomy law as one of its precedents. Debate in the combox is between those who think this proves that those who argue that gay marriage leads to polygamy are right, and those who say it doesn't make any difference since marriage has already been destroyed by no-fault divorce:

www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/utah-polygamy-we-told-you-so/#post-comments

Lazarus notes a statement by the British homosexual activist Peter Tatchell to the effect that it is perfectly correct to say that same-sex desire can be encouraged or repressed by social approval/disapproval, and that he personally looks forward to a time when everyone will be promiscuously omnisexual. Lazarus discusses the difference between this "everything goes" view and the classical Christian view that self-mastery is desirable and must be learnt. (Note incidentally that Tatchell's imagined utopia assumes a complete divorce between sexuality and procreation, indeed does not mention children at all):
cumlazaro.blogspot.ie/2013/08/promoting-homosexuality-and-peter.html

[hibernicus]

This article about Catholics of homosexual orientation who faithfully observe the Church's teaching but who believe God made them as they are for a purpose may be of relevance to this discussion.
www.crisismagazine.com/2013/the-new-homophiles

Whether or not one accepts this view, it should be borne in mind that the orientation is not a sin in itself, any more than physical handicap is sinful, and that it is all too easy for defenders of Church teaching on homosexuality to slide into a sort of visceral hatred and revulsion on this subject, forgetting that we are all sinners.

[shane]

I agree on the need for moderation when it comes to our rhetoric on homosexuality, even if the vitriolic anti-Catholicism of gay rights campaigners often necessitates formidable self-restraint. I used to think that almost all homosexuals were liberal lefties - the sort who eat muesli every morning and vote for the Green Party. Yet on Twitter, I follow five Irish people of self-declared homosexual orientation who identify as Catholic and are all strongly pro-life. Three of them are also opposed to gay marriage. We must always openly affirm the Church's teaching on sexuality but I see no point in needlessly alienating decent people by indulging in oratorical extravagance.

[maolsheachlann]

Also Richard Waghorne, the journalist. He is openly gay and also opposed to same-sex marriage. I'm not sure about his religious views. At first I thought he was a Barry Goldwater type libertarian but latterly he seems to be more of a social conservative. Does anyone know?

To be fair, I don't really hear Catholics or Christians (at least in Ireland) ever using anti-homosexual rhetoric or even expressing hostility to gays-- but it's a good thing to bear in mind anyway.

This may be straying, but I even think this principle should be extended to atheists and liberals. Most of the atheists I know are not anti-religious and are nothing like the Richard Dawkins fan-club. Most of my friends are liberals (after all, most people ARE liberal in Ireland now) but not of the virulent strain-- most of them are respectful towards my different beliefs, and even seem to admire them in a strange kind of way. I wonder do other forum members share this experience?

Oh, and I eat muesli every morning...

[shane]

Richard Waghorne was included in my list. He's a traditionalist Catholic, sympathetic to the SSPX. He lived until recently in Paris and attended their church of St Nicolas du Chardonnet. He lives in London now and attends High Mass at the Brompton Oratory. When in Dublin, he goes to St Kevin's but has been to the SSPX church of St John in Monkstown. He is critical of Pope Francis seeing him as overly liberal and anti-traditionalist. He used to lecture in politics in UCD (my friend Luke Scully, who is a member of this forum, was taught by him). A very interesting man.

He used to be libertarian in the past. He was involved in the old Freedom Institute think-tank. He's long since abandoned libertarianism. He's now an ardent fan and reader of the French conservative philosopher Joseph de Maistre.

[maolsheachlann]

That's very interesting. Thanks! I remember him from his time UCD (just from seeing him in the library a few times, and seeing him about, and reading nasty things written about him on the bathroom walls).

[shane]

He receives a lot of nasty vitriol on Twitter too. To his great credit, he always keeps a cool head and doesn't reciprocate .