Friday March 23rd
DATELINE LONDON
Hectic week, little time for blogging.... due to a major speaking engagement on the South Coast, I had to miss the torchlit vigil on Wednesday night at which a great crowd, led by Evangelical Christians, stood in opposition to the loathsome Sexual Orientation Regulations which were whisked through Parliament. This week's Catholic Herald has a front-page headline in which Cardinal Cormac rightly denounces the lack of any real opportunity for full Parliamentary debate on this issue.
One of the most horrible aspects of this tragic piece of legislation is that Ruth Kelly, who has always publicly affirmed her Catholicism, spearheaded the drive to get these unjust regulations passed into law. Under her driving-power, Catholic schools could now be legally forced to teach the acceptability of lesbian and homosexual activity, Catholic organisations banned from publicly proclaiming the Catholic treachings in this area.
I invite readers of this blog to join me in writing to:
Mrs Ruth Kelly MP
House of Commons
London SW1
to ask her specifically why she believes Catholics and other Christians should be restricted in this way.
8 comments:
Good idea, I certainly will be writing a letter of protest to her. But I believe her political career is based on the fact that her Catholic Faith is not important to her but can be utilised by the Labour Party to show that they have a catholic in their midst who is happy to tow the party line. She has sold herself cheaply!!! I hope for her sake that she has an agenda behind all of this
I would be interested to know the views of John Gummer and Anne Widdecombe on the passing of this legislation. They have been keeping very quiet at the moment. All Faiths and men of Goodwill must unite against these heinous crimes that constantly cry out for vengence before God. This is very damaging to our Nation.
Anne
From Hampton Court
Dear Joanna,
Thank you very much for your blog, which is always a wonderful source of information and entertainment. I am writing in response to your comments about Ruth Kelly and the abominable “Equality Bill”.
I don’t know Ruth Kelly, in fact I have never met her. But I think, from interviews and things I’ve read, that she is a sincere person and a good Catholic.
I know that she is quoted as saying that she is proud to be promoting the Equality Act. But there have also been reports of a member of her staff leaving because Ruth Kelly wasn’t doing enough for “gay rights”. The message is, to say the least, mixed.
There are two reasons why I think that it is wrong to judge her personally, even if what she is doing seems wrong to us. In the first place, we don’t know the real facts about the position in which she finds herself. I don’t imagine that every Government minister has autocratic powers over the work of his or her department. The agenda for “gay rights” has been embedded in political circles for a long time. It may be that this was all set up before she was appointed to that particular post in the Government, since she hasn’t after all been there for very long. It’s even possible (this is pure speculation on my part) that she has been deliberately forced into that position.
Secondly, many of us might feel that, in her place, we would rather resign from government than even appear to be at the forefront of such legislation. But perhaps she feels that it would be wrong to abandon government into the hands of people with such false ideas, and that it is better to stay on there in order to do what good she can, however limited.
Keep blogging!
Tell me what you think.
Dear Mrs Kelly,
I am a PhD student at Leeds University. I am somewhat concerned that your policy on homosexuals is based on a flawed scientific understanding of the phenomenon. It is very difficult for scientists to remain impartial when investigating very sensitive or controversial matters, and that applies to my comments as well.
A significant number of male homosexuals have no sexual experience with women. On the other hand it is very rare for lesbians not to have had a relationship with a man. Homosexual men comonly have large numbers of contacts, lesbian women establish long-term, though ultimately unstbale, exclusive relationships. This is a clue which tells us what we are really seeing. Men seek a large number of partners, women seek relationships. Some of those who fail turn to the same sex to satisfy their desires.
Extreme forms of sexual behaviour, whether that be using pornography, prostitution, or other deviations, tend to be addictive. That is, there is a compulsion to engage in increasingly extreme behaviours to obtain the same effect. It seems clear to me that a "homosexual orientation" is another term for an addiction.
That is not to say that there might not be other genetic or biochemical factors that dispose some individuals to become homosexual in circumstances in which others would not have engaged in such behaviours. However the widely varing rates of homosexuality across cultures tell us that it is not genetically determined, or to more technical, that most of the variance betwen cultures is likely to be environmental.
It seems to clear to me that the government must treat homosexuality as a behavioural problem, and not as a positive expression of human diversity. Whether it should be regarded as a mental health problem or not leads us into deep waters not appropriate to go into here, as does the question of whether sexual activity can constitute a sin.
However the tone of your government's policy must change. You don't treat problem gamblers compassionately by talking about free market theory, nor is the current policy on homosexuality, driven largely by heterosexuals' desire to delegitimise Christian sexual ethics, in the real interests of homosexuals.
Yours sincerely,
Malcolm McLean
I haven't sent it yet until I read other people's comments.
Malcolm, I've read your letter and whilst I do not disagree with much of the contents I cannot say that I think it a good idea to send it. I think you, along with all Christians, would be better off fighting the battles we can win rather than expending energy fighting the battles we can't win. We will never persuade the government (or indeed the opposition) of the ills of homosexuality what we may be able to achieve is winning an exemption for Christian churches and organisations. It would be far better for you to tackle Mrs Kelly from that angle than to waste your time and effort telling her about how homosexuality is disordered - which, whilst it might salve your conscience, will not make a blind bit of difference.
Malcolm - send the letter. It is well reasoned and on a solid scientific footing. That homosexuality is an addictive behavioural problem is as close to hitting the 'nail on the head' as it gets. And you are right, the more addictive the behaviour becomes in an individual, usually the more extreme and excessive the addict becomes in trying to satisfy a desire which ultimately CAN NEVER be quenched.
Send your letter to as many Catholic/Christian/Political blogs as possible.
I do not agree with Roydosan, time to take the gloves off and start playing an even field. Catholics have sat in their armchairs for far too long tut-tutting this and that and doing nothing.
Well done and God Bless.
I actually knew Ruth Kelly a bit at Oxford and am shocked by this. Helen's comments are quite wrong. It is never permissible to directly choose to do evil on the grounds that it will prevent some worse evil; this is a basic christian principle. Kelly is voting for and arguing for a legal measure that will make teaching the Catholic faith on homosexual acts illegal. This is gravely sinful and can never be excused - of course it is sinful as being destructive of society as well as being a crime against the faith. She should be excommunicated for this, although of course the useless English bishops will not do so. I can't understand how she could (I believe) be active in Opus Dei.
John 1 you are absolutely right, God allows evil so good can come from it, but we certainly can't do evil so that supposedly lesser evil results.
Malcolm, while I was at University in the 70s we looked into work being done with homosexuals, transvestites etc and there was a lot of medical help available. There was treatment and there was a good success rate.
But if something is considered normal how can anything be done!!!
I am sure there are many homosexuals around who would like to change their lifestyles but are in a double bind situation as all around are saying that it's good, normal and healthy to be 'gay' and yet deep inside they are unhappy.
They need our prayers.
Post a Comment