Homophobic bullying plainly exists and is contrary to the teaching of the Church – so what could be wrong with a document on combatting it? As the Catholic Education Service (CES) discovered last week, things aren’t quite as simple as that.
Challenging homophobic and biphobic bullying in our Catholic schools, a 40-page document for dioceses, has been posted online by the blogger Mark Lambert, who called it “Stonewall propaganda with a Catholic label on it”. The anonymous blogger Countercultural Father – who, like Lambert, has a parent’s experience of the school system – called it “lamentable”. The hastag #CESScandal began doing the rounds.
The CES told the Catholic Herald: “How schools tackle homophobic bullying is something to which Ofsted [the school inspection authority] is now paying specific attention”, and that the document was a response to requests for guidance from dioceses and schools.
The text explains that Catholic teaching is against homophobia, then gives some examples of homophobic bullying and suggests ways – including lesson plans – in which schools might respond.
One teacher, who asked to remain anonymous, says: “The CES probably see the legislative storm on the horizon.” It’s true that Catholic teaching makes the necessary distinctions, the teacher goes on, but school inspectors “have their own perceptions and agendas, and an explicit document and evidence of actively addressing the issue would give a greater feeling of security when that occurs.”
The occasional alarming incident suggests that schools may have to prepare for a concerted attack. In 2014 an Ofsted inspector tut-tutted that one school’s “Christian ethos” had “restricted the development of a broad and balanced approach to the curriculum”. Last year, the “integration czar” Louise Casey told a parliamentary committee: “It is not OK for Catholic schools to be homophobic and anti-gay marriage.”
Casey later backtracked, writing to the Herald to say that she did not want to take away anyone’s rights. But her remarks underlined that “homophobia” is a contested term. Everyone agrees that it means unjust prejudice against gay people – which is condemned in various magisterial statements. But does it mean, for instance, opposing gay marriage?
The CES document says not: it reassures teachers that “having a view about something does not amount to discrimination”.
But the document’s more questionable passages have provoked some critics to describe it as a “Trojan Horse” for the imposition of secular liberal morality on Catholic schools.
For instance, it includes chunks of text – without attribution – which have also appeared in publications by LGBT rights groups, and which make no clear distinctions between Catholic teaching and outright prejudice. In one, homophobia is defined as “negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality” which are “sometimes related to religious beliefs”.
Critics say that those phrases need a lot of qualification, but – except for a brief note 10 pages earlier directing readers to the Catechism – none is offered. Again and again, the document rests happily in these ambiguities, as though there was no risk that the concept of “homophobia” will be weaponised against Catholic schools.
Social liberalism is increasingly driven by the nagging fear that somebody, somewhere, believes in the natural law. Last year, for instance, a school in Buckinghamshire gave pupils a maths test which included, as an aside, that “marriage is between one man and one woman”. The headmaster had to apologise and clarify that “we do not tolerate bullying and harassment of any kind.” (The teacher who drew up the quiz had already retired, so he was saved from the repercussions.)
If headteachers can be forced to apologise for “bullying” when a teacher advocates the traditional definition of marriage, then the Catholic response may need to say more than simply “We deplore bullying.”
But some teachers are sympathetic to the CES. One says there is “a need from schools for clear guidance on this specific issue.” Another points out: “Teachers are also autonomous in their own classroom. As for the sample lesson plans, teachers “will no doubt use their own discretion.”
And even before the document is given to schools, it will pass through individual dioceses – which may decide their existing guidance is enough. So the CES’s document is not important enough to be considered a wholesale surrender to the sexual revolution.
But the cultural and legal challenges ahead could be formidable. If this document is a mock exam for the CES, it may need to improve its game by the time the real tests begin.
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.