In a recent article in the Telegraph, Charles Moore, a former editor of that newspaper and of the Spectator, noted that “all mainstream religions, in most of their major manifestations, define marriage as being between a man and a woman”.
In the light of this he declares that MPs who want to ban so called “conversion therapy” are “arrogant and undemocratic” because of the risk that it would prevent parents and ministers of religion from teaching that marriage is between one man and one woman. Therefore, they logically want to point their followers and congregations towards man-woman marriage over other lifestyles, which a ban on “conversion therapy” risks preventing them from doing.
Most MPs are unaware of this dire consequence for freedom of religion and conscience, Moore thinks. But some are aware – and it is these MPs he calls “arrogant and undemocratic”. Surely, he has a point given that forcible attempts to alter someone’s sexual orientation are already illegal in the UK. A new, poorly drafted ban just risks making criminals out of loving parents, many ministers of religion as well as counsellors, therapists and coaches with deeply held beliefs about the call to holiness and sexual expression. A ban would only make it harder to point people towards the unparalleled benefits of marriage between one man and one woman. So MPs should think again.
Last month the Government announcedthat a “conversion therapy” ban Bill would be published shortly and would include a ban on attempts to change someone’s “gender identity” as well as sexual orientation. The announcement prompted a backlash from Tory MPs, leading Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch, who is responsible for the Bill, to write to them insisting that a ban on conversion therapy must not criminalise parentsand must respect freedom of religion.
Such reassurances from Badenoch may help ameliorate the concerns that many parents and teachers have, especially where aggressive LGBTQ ideology infiltrating many Christian schools pushes the traditional view of lifelong marriage between one man and one woman open to life to the margins of debate except in RE classes.
Indeed Moore sees the Badenoch intervention as an indication that the Bill may be headed for the long grass. The issues involved are so delicate, the Government says, that they require detailed pre-legislative scrutiny. This makes the likelihood of the law making it onto the statute books before the election remote, Moore suggests.
If he’s right, then let’s be thankful for small mercies as far too many teachers and schools are already drowning in a sea of confusion over the much needed guidance from the Department of Education on transgender rights in schools and the sex-based rights of women and girls to safe spaces and privacy.
In any case, that draft guidance, when it eventually appears, will have to be submitted to public consultation according to education minister Nick Gibb MP. The point is, however, that whether it’s the guidance for schools on transgender ideology and rights, or the serious ramifications for preaching, teaching and pastoral care in the wake of possible legislation on “conversion therapy” ban, it feels like we’re heading for a perfect storm of yet another squeeze in the public square on the traditional Christian teaching concerning human sexuality if [as has been hinted] a private members bill may arise to pressure Church of England ministers to officiate at same sex wedding ceremonies in Anglican churches now that the synod has voted to “bless” same sex unions.
In a brilliant essay published by Unherd, Mary Harrington summed up where we appear to be in our hyper-sexualised Western culture spiralling out of moral control:
“In terms of how men and women live together, there may be nothing left to conserve. But that means there is everything to build. What we have is the rubble. Our bodies. Each other. And our willingness to try. It’s time to begin.”
She is absolutely right. Men and women, husbands and wives, are, by virtue of their God-given sexual difference and complementarity, living, embodied icons of God’s presence and love in the world. In an authentically Christian marriage, they cooperate in the work of Christ’s redemption simply by being faithful, loving and self-sacrificing spouses. To state and teach that truth should not risk sanction nor condemnation.
We lost many intellectual giants during the Covid pandemic, not least the late former Chief Rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks. I have yet to find anything that can better describe the situation we find ourselves in than what declared at the Humanum Collquium in Rome in 2014:
“Our compassion for those who choose to live differently should not inhibit us from being advocates for the single most humanising institution in history. The family, man, woman, and child, is not one lifestyle choice among many. It is the best means we have yet discovered for nurturing future generations and enabling children to grow in a matrix of stability and love. It is where we learn the delicate choreography of relationship and how to handle the inevitable conflicts within any human group. It is where we first take the risk of giving and receiving love. It is where one generation passes on its values to the next, ensuring the continuity of a civilisation. For any society, the family is the crucible of its future, and for the sake of our children’s future, we must be its defenders.”
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.