St Mary’s Primary School Head doesn’t want to discuss concerns about Stonewall spreading ‘gay propaganda’

Sarah Crouch, the Head of St Mary’s Primary School, continues to give interviews to the press defending her decision to allow Stonewall, the militant homosexual activist group, to hold workshops in her school. In Ms Crouch’s interview with ‘SW Londoner’, journalist Anthony Lewis Binns asked for her response to  concerns  raised by Antonia Tully, national coordinator of SPUC’s Safe at School Campaign, that Stonewall was in the business of spreading gay propaganda among children:

‘When asked what she thought of Ms Tully’s concerns, Ms Crouch said: “We worked with the Stonewall Education branch to give staff at the school appropriate training on how to deal with any incidents of homophobic bullying and how to challenge the use of homophobic language if they should occur. It is a requirement of OFSTED for all schools to tackle any incidents of homophobic language or bullying and to show evidence that staff had training in this area.” She did not want to be drawn into a debate on whether working with Stonewall to combat bullying was evidence of ‘gay propaganda.’

Antonia Tully had made the following points to SW Londoner:

‘“Many parents will be very concerned that a gay rights organisation is considered to be an appropriate source of advice on how to deal with children using inappropriate language in the playground.” She added: “If a primary school takes on Stonewall’s agenda, young children will be exposed to homosexual issues, which they are too young to understand properly. “Parents expect a school to provide an education, not subject their children to gay propaganda.”

Protect the Pope comment: Ms Crouch may not want to respond to the concerns of Catholics that she invited gay propagandists into a Catholic primary school but maybe she’ll answer these two simple questions:

  • Did the Stonewall workshop for teachers at St Mary’s use as a resource the children’s book ‘King and King’?
  • Did the Stonewall workshop use the poster ‘Different Families, Same Love’? Is this poster being used in her school’s classrooms?

And a question for the Archdiocese of Southwark, what is your policy about primary schools working with the virulently anti-Catholic gay militant group, Stonewall?

79 comments to St Mary’s Primary School Head doesn’t want to discuss concerns about Stonewall spreading ‘gay propaganda’

  • ms Catholic state

    I am praying for this school. I am not in this parish….but I am in the diocesese. I hope and pray something can be done to restore the True Faith to this and all other Catholic schools. Maybe God has given us this chance.

    And I wholeheartedly support Lola’s suggestion that donations to the Education collections and weekly collections, are stopped until our schools are sorted out. We do not want to support these sort of activities or Head Teachers in our Catholic schools. It’s very simple really.

  • Paul Smyth

    Most questions in this regard should be addressed to the Archbishop, he after all has overall responsibility, and under his leadership a culture has been created in Southwark where Stonewall is a welcome collaborator in a Catholic school.

  • Dr Mark Thorne

    I shall also pray for this school, as I am likewise in the Archdiocese of Southwark although not a member of this parish. Neither am I a parent, and so have no connections with St Mary’s school, but it so happens that I do know quite well the only governor who did not consent to the invitation made to Stonewall to give their presentation to the staff on the grounds of “homophobic bullying” and the “gay” shoes incident. Also please kindly keep her in your prayers, for she has found this entire episode to be most traumatic.

  • Surely someone who thinks Stonewall a fit organisation to invite into a Catholic School is herself hardly fit to be the head of a Catholic school. She should resign immediately.

  • Lola

    If “King and King” and “Different Families, Same Love” are being used/promoted in Catholic Schools in the Archdiocese of Southwark, then these schools are in direct opposition to +Abp Peter Smith’s campaign to uphold/defend traditional marriage against the current Marriage Same Sex Bill. It isnow evident that there are some who openly challenge his leadership within his Diocese.

    • same old, same old

      So you want the church to have freedom of expression and to be able to block legislation but you don’t want anyone to have the right to put forward views opposed to your own. This is rank (but totally expected) hypocrisy.

      • Rifleman819

        Same old , same old

        OK then -which political party had Gay Marriage in their General Election manifesto?
        Did Catholic activists storm the HQs of Outrage and Stonewall then? Disrupt their solemn ceremonies or ruin their day?

        Your concept of rights is all one way-yep …you gottit…rank hypocrisy.

        Tatchell was all for opening up allegations about Catholicism until confronted with his man-boy love quotes in newspaper articles-he loves dishing it out and constantly reinvents himself when the heat coming the other way gets a bit too much.

      • Lola

        @ Same old, same old.

        There is a big difference between freedom of expression and dissent from Catholic teachings, which is the case with this school. It is also not up to you, nor civil governments, to decide the measure by which we exercise all expressions of our faith’s moral framework. That has been determined and set in stone for us over 2000 years ago.

        • same old, same old

          “There is a big difference between freedom of expression and dissent from Catholic teachings”

          And that difference would be ….?

    • Wake up England

      It is impossible to deny this simple logic Lola. Well said

  • Peter Northcott

    McMahon’s the problem. Replacing him as chair of CES with a proper bishop is the solution.

    For some reason Southwark priests faithful to the magisterium seem to love getting hot under the collar when the laity do anything of which they disapprove whilst remaining silent about their archbishop when he encourages or overlooks what these lay folk are doing.
    Funny that. The choice seems to be between dissent or clericalism…

  • ms Catholic state

    What I would like to know is this….is Ms Crouch the Head, and the other staff and govenors, acting on behalf of the children entrusted to them….or acting on behalf of Stonewall, Ofsted and the State.

    I think we all know the answer that question. Unbelieveable betrayal!

    • Wake up England

      Sarah Crouch should resign.

      • ms Catholic state

        I agree. Either that or she make an apology and admit she was wrong and that she will now make sure her school is faithful to Christ and the Catholic Faith. We all make mistakes….and we can all be forgiven.

        And all children are loved by God…..and any Catholic teacher worth her salt will make sure that all children in their care know this. We also have the command from Christ Himself…Do unto others as you would be done by. This is the ultimate deterrent to childhood bullying of all types that our Catholic teachers must promote. We don’t need directives from any outside godless pagan agencies.

  • But is the Headmistress a committed Catholic? Are the other teachers in the school committed Catholics? The odds are that very few are. Now that is the dilemma facing Catholic Schools there is an absence of Catholic Teachrs. We should pray for Catholic Teachers almost as fervently as we pray for priests. Teaching must be seen almost as a Religious Vocation.

    • Dr Mark Thorne

      An excellent post, John: all Catholics who are seeking to live out their faith in their public lives – but especially in the teaching and healthcare professions at the present time – are deserving of our prayers.

    • Tony Flavin

      I am acquainted with a good handful of committed Catholics teachers who won’t touch teaching in a Catholic school with a barge pole. When you have people who identify themselves as Catholic continually harping and complaining that the school is not doing enough, teachers are lacklustre in their faith, teachers send out the wrong message (promulgating their own interpretation of Church teaching as ‘the message’) banging on day and night that ‘we should do more’ but not remotely attempting to get their hands dirty it can effect morale in a way they will not endure in a secular school.

      Lucifer must love the whingers.

  • Wake up England

    The website of St Mary’s Catholic Primary school, Merton, Wimbledon, London publishes a list of school governors.

    One of the governors of the school is the Revd Father Simon Peat who is priest at St Winefride’s Catholic Church, Wimbledon. This church is near to the school.

    I think many readers of this blog who have grave concerns over this issue would like to know how Father Simon Pete reacted to the decision of the Stonewall homosexual charity being invited into the school to advise teachers.

    Stonewall openly supports and promotes gay “marriage” and regularly attacks the Catholic Church. Take a moment to visit their web-site and see for yourself.

    In the interests of transparency I think it would be appropriate if Father Peat could tell us how he voted in the school meeting on this issue. As one governor resigned we have adequate reason to suppose this matter was thoroughly discussed before being enacted.

    Are the minutes of these meetings available to the parents of present (and future) pupils of this school. Are the minutes available to and public taxpayer? Or the Catholic layman who has concerns?

    Those sharing my interest in Father Peat’s views as a Preist-governor may care to email him and ask him, at

  • Kinga Grzeczynska LLB

    I accept that teachers do need training on how to deal effectively with homophobic issues. However, the primary concern for a headteacher who works in a Catholic school must be to implement, maintain and encourage real Catholic principles and values amoung the pupils and staff.

    Anything else is not worthy of a Catholic school. The Governors of this school are fully responsible for this very concerning incident. They should have never allowed this to happen. It could be a matter for the parents to insist that there is a vote of no confidence in the headteacher and the Governors who allowed this.
    Kinga Grzeczynska

  • Peter

    If there has been some homophobic bullying in the school, action should be taken to prevent it happening again. If Stonewall is able to give good advice on preventing homophobic bullying – why not. If homophobic bullying is not rooted out in schools, our church is not living up to its own teaching. Stonewall may not be the correct organisation to bring on board but are there other organisations who could do the work better? I don’t know.

    • Wake up England

      Stonewall openly supports ideologies which are completely opposed to Catholic moral teaching. Of course it’s absolutely the wrong organisation to “bring on board”.

      If the headteacher and her staff can’t deal with bullying it begs the question of how effective they are in their roles as teachers. There is the Catholic Education Service which should be up to the job of giving advice; if advice is needed.

      Will the Marie Stopes family planning Clinics be asked next time to advise if there is a case of a single child-mother being bullied?

      Organisations which hold views which are contrary to Church teaching have no place in our Catholic Schools; let alone primary schools.

      Shame on those who allowed this to happen by either silence or agreement.

  • Matthew Booth

    You keep coming back to this. You seem to feel threatened by Stonewall. Ask yourself why, though.

    Do Stonewall attempt to make Catholics gay?
    Do Stonewall attempt to coerce Catholics to marry gay people?
    Do Stonewall attempt to deny Catholics the ability to practise their faith?

    The answer to all of the above is no. Lets flip it around a bit:

    Do Catholics attempt to make gay people Catholic?
    Do Catholics attempt to prevent gay people from being gay?
    Do Catholics attempt to coerce gay people to marry straight people?
    Do Catholics attempt to prevent gay people from marrying gay people?
    Do Catholics attempt to deny gay people the ability to practise their sexuality?

    The answer to all of the above is yes.

    Gay people do nothing to interfere in the lives of Catholics. However, their existence offends some Catholics, apparently including Deacon Nick. These people go out of their way to interfere in the lives of gay people, and wonder why they are met with hostility.

    Stonewall is NOT an anti-Catholic organisation. Stonewall is a PRO gay rights organisation. The Catholic Church is ANTI gay rights, and is consequently ANTI Stonewall. Stonewall would like nothing more than for the Catholic Church to stop interfering in matters which don’t affect it.

    • Michael Petek

      Stonewall is a seditious organisation because it propagandises against a definitive truth of reason concerning public morality: that homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity, and that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Every good citizen, let alone every Catholic, would like nothing more than for Stonewall to stop interfering in anything outside its own office and to keep its hankering for man-boy love firmly in the closet.

    • Matthew, you are assuming that ‘gay people’ and Catholics are entirely separate. Some Catholics (believe it or not!) are attracted to the same sex. Catholic teaching is that they should not indulge in homosexual sex; Stonewall undermine that message. Stonewall also attacks Catholic understandings of the natural law which affects the way that non-homosexual Catholics relate to the state and each other (eg: the advocacy of same sex ‘marriage’).

      Stonewall is interfering in the lives of Catholics. While that remains at the level of the free exchange of ideas in adult public debate, that’s fine. When it’s imposed as an ideology in a Catholic teaching institution, it’s not.

  • Joseph Matthew

    Here is an idea: what about a group of orthodox Catholics asking Stonewall if they could help the organization overcome some of its Romophobic bullying ?

    • Matthew Booth

      But that’s my point: there is no Romophobic bullying. Prove me wrong: tell me how Stonewall has bullied Catholics. But remember that refusal to accept Catholic doctrine is not bullying.

      • JamesM

        Why are you trolling this blog?

        • Matthew Booth

          Dissent isn’t trolling. My opinions are honest, and I believe it’s important to air them here. I would like you to engage them directly, honestly, and respectfully.

          As has been noted elsewhere in the comments on this post, this blog presents a very narrow and unusual view of Catholicism in the UK. I don’t want to wade in to every post, but when it touches on issues which matter to me personally I am keen to present the view which readers otherwise wouldn’t be exposed to.

          • Denis

            Mathew your opinions are very welcome and though I might disagree with them you always express your thoughts cogently and with respect for others.
            Forgive me for repeating what has been said earlier but Catholicism cannot accept sexual acts outside of marriage, Having said that we absolutely love our fellow human beings regardless of their sexuality.
            it really is regrettable that sometimes sex as a whole seems to be societies overriding obsession driven by a putrid media which fixates on this issue like no other.

    • ms Catholic state

      Good suggestion Joseph. Keep them coming!

  • Haslam

    I am going to take a break from looking at this site. It is causing me to have serious doubts as to my faith. I’ll not give you a full explanation, but the simplified version is that it is opening my eyes to a permanently outraged Daily Mail aspect of Catholicism which is gaioning ground and seems at odds with the teachings of Christ, my own moral sense and, at times, reality. The problem is essentially – if Catholism is true then why is it so disconnected from reality and why does it stoke up so much nastiness in the majority of the posters here. People who should be confident that they have the truth and that that should be obvious for all to see come across as insecure when they are outraged over the posibility that a single poster may have been put up on a classroom wall.

    Thanks for your contributions. I may return when I am more sure of my position but for now I am going to do some thinking, praying, reading and off-line conversations.

    • Haslam, sorry to hear you’re having doubts as to your faith. In that case, I agree that keeping away from the internet in general and particularly controversial sites is a good idea. We all hit different moods in our lives, and sometimes prayer and meditation is better than controversy.

      That said, I’m not sure why (even if it’s true about this site) that insecurity and outrage are so problematic. Whilst the Church may be secure in possession of the truth, all of us have our ups and downs (as you witness yourself). Why is an individual who becomes angry at an attack on the Church a reason to doubt the Church? At best, it might be a reason to doubt an individual (but I doubt that, even with all its success, Deacon Nick is getting anything like a reasonable slice of the world’s 1 billion + Catholics, so a few angry individuals tells us nothing). Moreover, is anger or fear always wrong? If you see something holy being destroyed (eg here, the Catholic ethos of a school) why are anger or fear clearly misplaced? (And even if they were misplaced, they’re certainly not surprising.)

      You’ll be in my prayers tonight.

    • Peter

      I don’t think this blog is anything like a normal parish nor are the posters representative of ordinary catholics.
      In my experience, I’ve lived in religious community in the uk and overseas, the majority of Catholics are just trying to live a daily life of Christ, discerning how to live a good life. We often get it wrong but in the knowledge that god forgives us through the church. I understand that people can get a little rattled when change is in the air. But I think you are right, keep our eyes on God, and do the best we can. God loves as how we are and not as we ought to be.
      Keep the faith

      • Denis

        Peter, Haslam and Lazarus, very sorry to hear you will be ” off air” for a while. There are very important issues being discussed here, but perhaps we are generating more heat than light at times. Remember me in your prayers and I hope you will return to “the fray” (joke!!) before too long.

        • Hi Denis

          Sorry! I didn’t mean to give the impression that I was going to be ‘off air’. While I sympathize with Haslam in that I recognize there may be times when one finds controversy wearisome and do think that the best advice in those times is to turn to prayer (particularly simple prayers like the rosary), I’m not in that state myself nor do I agree that Haslam’s criticisms of this site are fair. For what it’s worth, I value Deacon Nick’s efforts to provide a critical record of Catholic life and simply don’t recognize the claim that (eg) it’s disconnected from reality. But if Haslam finds it getting in the way of her/his (?) Catholicism, then perhaps quiet piety is what s/he needs just now. I can certainly understand the need at times to take a break from the internet.

          • Denis

            Sorry Lazarus and Peter about my mistake and welcome back!
            Of course you’re absolutely right that there are issues that we have to explain clearly and consistently. This site gives us a great opportunity to engage with others, perhaps particularly those outside of religious faith altogether. With reference to no-one other than myself I hope I do so in a spirit of Christian charity which conveys how committed I am to the faith without hopefully being in any way intolerant of others.

      • ms Catholic state

        Peter….the days of cosy Catholicism are coming to an end….thanks to your secular buddies. Secular Catholicism just won’t cut in from now. Secular Catholicism has nothing to offer the young Catholics of today. It’s all or nothing now. How will you feel when your priest is being dragged before the courts….because he refused to conduct a gay so-called marriage?! Time to remove the rose coloured spectacles.

        What use is salt that has lost its saltiness….it is only to be thrown out and trampled underfoot! Not my words….but the stinging words of Jesus Christ.

        • peter

          Hi Ms catholic state
          I’ve never wrote that i believe in cosy or secular catholicism. I’m not sure what you mean by my ‘secular buddies’. I only believe in incarnation catholics. The chance of a priest being sent to gaol for marrying gay couples is nil. How many priests are dragged before the courts for not re-marrying divorced catholics – the answer is none. it is not about rose coloured spectacles but being real.

    • Wake up England

      Haslam: The church teaches gay “marriage” is impossible; and that for the state to try to alter the public (and legal) understanding of one of God’s sacraments is wrong.

      Stonewall, on the other hand, promotes same sex “marriage” and supports a change in our laws.

      It is quite right and proper for all Catholics to be angry that those in authority over the innocent children in their care at a catholic School have seen fit to invite Stonewall advisors to “train” teachers.

      If this simple stance of supporting what is right over what is obviously wrong is causing you to lose your faith then I feel very sorry for you. I suggest you make a novena to St Thomas More and St John Fisher who knew right from wrong. They both stuck to the teachings of God’s church and bravely paid the price with their heads.

      I ask you again, if you were the headteacher of St Mary’s School Merton, would you have asked Stonewall in to train your teaching staff when you knew this organisation openly supports an immoral code which is gravely contrary to The Church’s teachings?

      Sometimes one has to fight for what is right by standing up for Jesus Christ and his Holy Church even if it makes us unhappy and unpopular.

    • Tony Flavin

      Dear Haslam

      Sadly your words will fall on deaf ears, or perhaps for a blog I should be saying, there’s none so blind as those who cannot see. I doubt one single solitary person who read your post will remotely see themselves as contributing to your plight. I shall pray for you, just remember these words “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another” Jn 13:34

  • Rifleman819

    Matthew Booth ,

    Not threatened -ever.

    But a couple of points on facts and “rights”.

    Who led all the virulently Catholophobic “Protest the Pope” campaigns 2 years ago? Who some time ago disrupted Mass at Westminster Cathedral?

    Answer:Homo-agitprop organisations like Stonewall and Outrage led by a professional activist like Tatchell(never ,ever elected to any democratic office by anyone , btw).
    And by your own logic Stonewall is Anti-Catholic because the Catholic church is pro-marriage.Real marriage that is.
    In an Orwellian attempt to twist and bludgeon the English language into calling the living arrangements between homos “marriage” they have claimed all the “rights” that their less than 5% gives them.
    But the 95% of the rest of the population who don’t share this Festival of Erotica have to listen to their ranting-but we have rights too.
    When do Stonewall activists’ rights in a democracy trump my rights or the rights of church , mosque and synagogue attenders?
    And what right did the Coalition government have to use Parliamentary time for this issue? Hint-in no main Party’s manifesto.

    • Matthew Booth

      Stonewall would have protested the Pope, as they find themselves deeply opposed to his teachings. Going back to my point, though, they did not attempt to deny the Pope the right to be a Catholic. However, the Church would deny gay people the right to be gay.

      Stonewall’s stance on marriage does not in any way impact Catholics who are not gay: nobody will force you to marry a gay person. However, the Church would deny gay people the ability of gay people to enjoy their lives. Going back to my post, Stonewall does not want to deny Catholics any rights. However, the Church does want to deny gay people their rights.

      Your rights are not impacted in any way by Stonewall’s agenda. It is not an attack on your rights when you are not allowed to impose your faith on others who don’t share it.

      Please explain to me how you, Rifleman819, will be worse off if people who you don’t know are allowed to declare their love for one another publicly and call it marriage like the rest of us.

      Incidentally, your use of the word ‘homos’ is revealing. Perhaps you need some sensitivity counselling.

      • Karla

        It is not only Stonewall’s views on marriage that are out of kilter with Catholic teaching, it is also on homosexual relationships, and family structures.

        • Karla

          As in Stonewall fully accepts children being raised by homosexual couples through adoption, IVF or artificial insemination and Catholic teaching does not support that.

  • Rifleman819

    For Haslam ,

    Sorry to see you go -but it was the “Daily Mail” aspect (as you call it)of stubborn Catholic resistance that kept the Faith alive for the 271 years of repression and termination of ” our” rights.

    The fact that we resist and fight our corner is sad of course. …but not as sad as the fact that we have to.

    We owe the 40 Martyrs of England and Wales no less.

  • Peter

    I don’t think this blog is anything like a normal parish nor are the posters representative of ordinary catholics.
    In my experience, I’ve lived in religious community in the uk and overseas, the majority of Catholics are just trying to live a daily life of Christ, discerning how to live a good life. We often get it wrong but in the knowledge that god forgives us through the church. I understand that people can get a little rattled when change is in the air. But I think you are right, keep our eyes on God, and do the best we can. God loves as how we are and not as we ought to be.
    Keep the faith

  • There seems to be a lot of betrayal at the school to the holy Catholic church and all its teachings. Innocent children are the victims in this case. The headmistress should do the decent thing and resign! She has taken on the role of defender of the faith, working at a catholic church and she has let the children their parents, other teachers, Almighty God and the school down.
    In Luke 18:8 “However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?” sums it all up.
    England has well and truely lost the faith, with the clergy doing nothing (in this year of faith) to preach sound catholic doctrines. Where are they on the pro-life events? They are nowhere to be seen they would sooner promote social justice causes, instead of the basis human right which is a right to life.
    “Amnesty” was allowed in Clifton Cathedral last year. They are a pro-abortion group. Another example of people collaborating with evil.
    Say the Rosary every day, defend the church at all costs!

  • LiberalLarry

    Gay boys are winning…delusions are losing…Whatcha gonna do?

    • Michael Petek

      Let me state for the record that I am not prejudiced against persons who live a homosexual lifestyle.

      On the contrary, I look first at all the facts and the evidence. Then, after mature and impartial deliberation as though having received jury direction from an English judge, I find that the facts and evidence come up to proof beyond reasonable doubt that they’re all a load of sodomites.

      • Sam Mace

        sorry but not all gay people practice sodomy michael and many straight people do does that make them sodomites? Also you say you’re not prejudiced but you describe homosexual acts as grave depravity, describe people who love the same gender as sodomites despite the Sodom and Gomorrah story not being about gay people and various other disparaging remarks. Generally these comments aren’t the comments of someone who isn’t prejudiced. Stonewall are experts in dealing with bullying around this issue and unfortunately despite the work being done there is still a lot of bullying going on. There were over 4,500 hate crime incidents alone last year, lgbt teenagers are 2-3 times more likely to commit suicide and there are countless bullying incidents in schools. Like i said before you may not like the group, but what the mature response to be would be to analyse the fact that your church condemns homophobic bullying and that if homophobic bullying is going on you need to allow the school to address it with the most effective way. Which may mean they invite an expert group into a school on the bullying issue.

        • Michael Petek

          I describe homosexual acts as grave depravity because the Church says they are, and says so by a judgement which is definitive and thus assisted by the Holy Spirit. Anyonw who speaks against that judgement speaks against God.

          • Sam Mace

            well i myself am an atheist so i don’t mind speaking against your idea of god and how do you know what god wants? it is a shame you addressed so little of my post

    • Rifleman819

      For Liberal Larry ,

      With respect….”gay boys are winning….”

      I bet to differ.

      Have a look at the current and rampantly increasing HIV/AIDS infection rates. The Dept of Health statistics aren’t “delusion”-that’s for sure.

  • anon

    It is wrong to expose young children to such a campaigning group-although I dare say that neither the Headteacher nor those members of Stonewall really knew what they were doing.

    Any of those children who grow up to be influential, will now be the more easily targeted and picked-off.

    A special visit to the school by Catholics promoting Orthodox marriage, should be arranged, and also a lesson on discerning Grace and the work of the Holy Spirit.

  • Mike2

    Matthew asks:
    Do Stonewall attempt to deny Catholics the ability to practise their faith?

    Unfortunately the answer to this question is most definitely Yes. Try to be a Catholic owner of a bed and breakfast establishment and practise your faith by offering double rooms only to people who are married. Try to be a Catholic practising their faith by owning a hotel and refusing to offer Receptions for people who have entered a Civil Partnership. Try to be in charge of a religious organisation and refuse to provide facilities to homosexuals who wish to express hostility to Church teaching both in word and deed.

    He also said:
    Gay people do nothing to interfere in the lives of Catholics.

    Unfortunately this is not entirely true. Some gay people are very tolerant and understanding of the viewpoints of other people. They appreciate that not everybody shares the same views as Stonewall and do not see why they should have to kow-tow to everything that Stonewall demands. Some gay people are very critical of some of the behaviour of the more extreme, intolerant gays. Some gay people, however, are extremely intolerant. Ask Brendan O’Neill. He’s an ex-Catholic atheist who writes articles criticising the campaign for so-called gay marriage. As a result, he’s “been booed during an after-dinner speech and received death threats.” Just ask a Catholic who has spoken out publicly against so-called gay ‘marriage’ whether the response they received was all civil. Ask the parishioners of a church in Spain which was desecrated by a group of lesbians. Ask the leader of the Catholic Church in Belgium, Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard. He was recently attacked by four topless lesbians with shouts and curses and doused with water.

    Now, Matthew, perhaps you can answer a few questions:
    Do Catholics attack homosexuals in the way that the lesbians attacked Archbishop Leonard?
    Do Catholics invade places where homosexuals are meeting and desecrate their property?

  • Rifleman819

    Having read Dr Mark Thorne’s post carefully …it has prompted me to wonder whether Sarah Crouch will not want to discuss taking her salary increases and perks in the like manner she does not want to discuss concerns about “gay propaganda” and Stonewall people in a Catholic school?

  • Wake up England

    I sincerely hope parents with children at St Mary’s school Merton are asking for a full explanation of why Miss Sarah Crouch allowed a homosexual rights institution (which supports anti-Catholic teachings) to be invited into their children’s school.

    Perhaps parents and grandparents might be wondering why only one of the governors resigned over this decision.

    And perhaps they also should be asking the priest-governor Father Simon Peat of St Winefride’s Church Wimbledon whether he supported the action, or not.

  • Andrzej


    Should schools invite speakers to secondary schools to talk about respect for people who indulge in sexual orgies ?

    There are many people who find this type of sexual activity rewarding, and some might find it the only way to realize their sexuality. Moreover, there are probably some students in the school that feel that this is what they really want and might feel oppressed by outdated public morality that frowns upon such behavior.

    So, would you invite such a speaker to school to help support this oppressed sexual minority?


    • peter

      you are confusing sexual orientation and sexual practice. The catholic church accepts that some people people are orientated towards homosexuality, it is not a choice. I don’t believe that people who partake in sexual orgies are orientated towards that practice, rather it is a hedonistic choice.

      ‘They [homosexuals] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided’. from the CCC.

      • Andrzej


        I fully agree about respect for the sinner, not the sin.

        However, you write “I don’t believe that people who partake in sexual orgies are orientated towards that practice”

        Based on what? I am certain that there are people who have very strong inclinations towards this behavior. Why call it a question merely of “hedonistic” choice? Why is a homosexual desire called an “orientation” but a strong consuming desire for group sex a mere whim?

        There is no scientific way to establish that someone is a homosexual – it can only be established by testimony of the individual. I can’t see why “I desire to have sex with people of the same sex” is in any way more respectable than “I want to have sex with many people at once”. In both cases the individual is expressing their inner desire for sexual expression that they find fulfilling.

        Just as I do not want people who have preferences for orgies talk to my children about their perspective of love, so too I don’t want gay activists talking about their preferences to my kids.

        • peter

          what you write is your personal point of view but i don’t believe it can be backed up by any serious psychological study or by the catholic church.

          Please remember that the CCC states ‘They [homosexuals] do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial’

          The American bishops wrote
          ‘While the Church teaches that homosexual acts are immoral, she does distinguish between engaging in homosexual acts and having a homosexual inclination. While the former is always objectively sinful, the latter is not. To the extent that a homosexual tendency or inclination is not subject to one’s free will, one is not morally culpable for that tendency. Although one would be morally culpable if one were voluntarily to entertain homosexual temptations or to choose to act on them, simply having the tendency is not a sin. Consequently, the Church does not teach that the experience of homosexual attraction is in itself sinful.’

          The church’s teaching is very clear on sexual orientation, it acknowledges that homosexual orientation, whilst not fully understood scientifically, is not a lifestyle choice.

          I’m sorry but your attempt to connect homosexual orientation and group sex is a fallacious argument. I may be wrong, but i don’t know of any study showing people who partake in group sex are, are by their nature, orientated to that practice. You may believe it but I’m afraid it cannot be proven.

          Finally, remember that Stonewall spoke to teachers and not to children. The purpose of the workshop was to give teachers the tools to prevent homophobic bullying and not for Stonewall educationalists to talk to children.

          • Andrzej


            But what the Church writes about homosexual “temptations” applies to all other sexual temptations as well. For instance, the temptation men at a certain age have to have sex with younger women it just as real and strong – who could prove otherwise than the person experiencing it? I could only guess that if our culture starts celebrating the indulgence of such a temptation it might as well become upgraded to an “orientation”. (I would also think that heterosexual adultery is a much greater sin than a homosexual act by two unmarried men.)

            You write: “I don’t know of any study showing people who partake in group sex are, are by their nature, orientated to that practice”. What do you mean by “by their nature”? I am asking, because I myself know of no studies that show that “people who partake in [gay ]sex are, are by their nature, orientated to that practice”. Is a deeply felt urge that shapes someone’s identity through most of their life enough to qualify as “by their nature”? If so, most pedophiles would qualify under such a description [And, no, I am not making any connection between gays and pedophiles]. The only way to tell whether someone is gay is if they tell you so – and even here someone might lie. So, again, what do you mean by it being is someone’s “nature”?

            One more thing: “the extent that a homosexual tendency or inclination is not subject to one’s free will, one is not morally culpable for that tendency.” This is true, BUT we are morally responsible for not feeding and stimulating that tendency. In other words, the prudent thing for people with deviated sexual desires (gay, group, adulterous, etc)is to avoid situations which would make avoiding the indulgence even harder. It would be also the grave responsibility of parents and citizens in general, to clear the public square (schools in particular) of any attempts to portray deviant sex as acceptable for the sake of the moral wellbeing of our children.

  • Wake up England


    According to the school’s web-site St Mary’s will be “closed” on Friday 24th May for a Staff Training day.

    One cannot but help feeling apprehensive! Let us pray that another unsuitable group peddling Anti-Catholic propaganda has not been invited to advise the staff how to do their jobs.

  • Rifleman819

    For Matthew Booth.

    Firstly-there is no “Matthew Booth “Catholicism.There is simply Catholic Catholicism .

    You can air your views on homosexuality….-but they are yours-if you are a Catholic … but if these views are not in accordance with the Catholic Faith then they are then heresy-plain and simple.

    “impact Catholicism”-please write in grammatical English-what does this mean?
    As I told you -Tatchell broke the civil law when he disrupted Mass at Westminster Cathedral-does he need sensitivity training then?

    Please explain to me that this is not damaging my rights and the rights of thousands of Catholics who visit the cathedral each week.

    You have a truly eccentric view of rights, don’t you?
    I presume you are a Catholic ?

  • peter

    Homosexuality is not, i repeat not pathological. The catholic church accepts that people are homosexual not through choice, rather it is ‘what they are’. In other words it is part of a persons nature to be either homosexual or hetrosexual. If we were to follow St Thomas Aquinas we could go on to state that grace builds on nature.

    I have said enough on this topic for now.

    • Andrzej


      I beg you, please explain how is having homosexual desires different from having other desires for unnatural acts? The Church’s teaching is uniform in this case – having just temptations for any unnatural sexual act is not yet a sin. Homosexual inclinations have no special status as “natural” as you seem to think!

  • BJC


    Don’t like to butt into your conversation with Andrzej but you’ve got this quotation wrong from an earlier post:

    “Please remember that the CCC states ‘They [homosexuals] do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial’”

    This is an error from the original Latin text corrected in the Second Edition in 1997 by John Paul II in his Apostolic letter Laetamur Magnopere. It now reads:

    2358 “This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them (homosexuals) a trial”

    Which puts a whole different spin on what you are saying. In all there were 103 revisions to the English language edition. See links below for the background. If you think about it the original translation cannot possibly be correct as it doesn’t accord with either scripture or tradition the two sources of revelation for a Catholic. Further it doesn’t accord with reason as it seems to be saying God is the author of intrinsically evil acts and that homosexuals in so far as they commit homosexual acts have no choice in the matter. Both statements are impossible. God permits evil but isn’t the author of it and man has free will otherwise sin wouldn’t be sin.

    • Peter

      I suggest that it wasn’t a mistranslation but a rewrite, which in my opinion is not helpful. But I will look at the original Latin of the first edition (if i can dind it) and get back to you. Thankyou for pointing it out.

  • peter

    This really is my last word.
    Homosexuality is not deviant, it is not an illness, it is not pathological, it is not a mental disorder, it is in itself not a sin. In other words one may be a homosexual and be catholic – this is standard church reaching. If a homosexual person is sexually active, that act is said to be sinful.

    When i write ‘it is part of ones nature’, i mean very simply that people do not choose to be homosexual, some people are born that way just as some people are born left handed. Please note i use the term ‘nature’ in the philosophical sense.

    However and most importantly, homosexuality is about love of another person and cannot be limited to the sexual act itself.
    I am really not going to continue further. You profess to be catholic, if so please read more about catholic teaching on homosexuality, all of the teaching.

    I recognise that i do agree with church reaching on homosexuality, however for this discussion i have only used catholic teaching.

  • Rifleman819


    But it is disordered. Just as the Church says it is.What is so yawn-makingly sad about the whole area of this proclivity is its instance in being “in your face”-if only Catholics were the same!

    It is like weaving “I’m a trains-potting Methodist” into every conversation with everyone.
    And the depth , the venom and the devious manipulations that front the gay lobby in th UK is their deep-down knowledge that whilst most people acquiese in their activities …they don’t approve of it at all deep down. And the vehemence of gay aggression these days is probably due to the likewise deep knowledge that it will not be accepted-so it has to masquerade as “equality or diversity”.
    I have met a number of homosexual men in my time in the Army-most blokes stayed well clear…so they sought out their own.
    The gay lobby makes much of victimhood but it has become a shrill, persecuting movement to those who raise a number of legitimate and democratic objections to its spreading into young minds.
    Vilifying folk who disagree with you is a children’s playground tactic-nothing more.
    Pro-Stonewall=enlightened…..anti-Stonewall=bigot.But others have rights too.

  • Peter

    Sorry BJC
    I meant to write Latin and French

  • BJC


    I have read all of the Catholic teaching on homosexuality. As far as I know it consists of the two documents in the links below, what’s in the Catechism of the Catholic Church plus what we know from scripture and tradition. Most of it is confined to homosexual acts and I think we can agree here the teaching is that such acts are sinful and homosexual genital acts are mortally sinful. Yes?

    As regards homosexuality itself the CDF document Persona Humana (1975) Para 8 makes a distinction between those people who we might say have a weak tendancy towards homosexuality through false education, bad example, habit and lack of sexual development and those who have a strong tendancy through “some kind of innate instinct”. If you read Para 8 I think you would be wrong in concluding the Church is teaching its “natural” though. Firstly it avoids saying that, and secondly this paragraph is couched in carefully worded terms such as “A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason…”. It seems to be clearly making a reference to science and psychology but doesn’t conclude anything because the data is inconclusive.

    As for “Letter to the Bishops concerning the pastoral care of homosexual persons” (1985) the language is about “homosexual orientation” and nowhere does it use the language “natural”. Again its carefully worded and in I think what is a pointed reminder about people with a strong tendancy towards homosexual behaviour in Para 11 it says this:

    “What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable.”

    By “innate”, “homosexual orientation” and “homosexual tendancy” it seems to me what the Church is saying is that although some people may have a strong or weak tendancy to this sort of behaviour and it may represent a trial for them it can still be overcome and it would be demeaning of the liberty of the person to say otherwise. It would also be demeaning of God and the power of grace to overcome sinful behaviour and purify and sanctify the soul.

    Finally if we look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church, scripture and tradition I can’t any references to homosexuality being “natural” in the sense you seem to mean it. The CCC talks about “homosexual inclinations” and never uses the word natural and I can’t think of anything in scripture or tradition which says this.

    The best way to maybe look at this is to see what the CDF says in “Letter to Bishops concerning the pastoral care of homosexual persons” (1986) Para 16

    “Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.”

    • Peter

      Thankyou for your thoughtful response. I agree with most of what you say. But I am so very tired this evening, I will try and get back to you tomorrow.

  • Andrzej

    “…she refuses to consider the person as a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.”


    As fallen creatures we have a lot of warped desires – be they homosexual, pedophilic, or adulterous, amongst many others – and how we deal with these is what counts when it comes to sin.

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>