Catholic Church urges Government to drop Gender Recognition Reform Bill

17 March 2020

 

In a strongly worded response to the Scottish Government’s consultation on its Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, Scotland’s eight Catholic Bishops have unanimously opposed the proposed legislation. Following a meeting of the Bishops’ Conference, they released the following statement:

 

“Together with a growing number of voices in society, the Church believes that sex or gender cannot be reduced to a mere construct of society that is fluid and changeable. Denying the biological reality of sexual difference and redefining something as fundamental as male and female is not within the purview of government or parliamentarians. Like marriage, it is part of the natural law: an unchanging principle of human existence.”

 

“Sex is constituted by biological organisation and reproductive functioning, and is recognised at birth, not assigned, government should not proceed with radical legal reforms or expose children to radical treatments. Caution and sensitivity is required.”

 

The bishops also point out that;

  

“Gender dysphoria is a condition that can cause significant distress and anxiety. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, of the American Psychiatric Association continues to recognise gender dysphoria as a genuine, troubling medical condition. By de-medicalising legal transition and moving to a self-declaratory model, as proposed in the consultation, society may fail to provide the necessary support for those affected by gender dysphoria in the form of contact with health professionals. De-medicalisation removes a vital protection and safeguard for vulnerable individuals, exacerbated by the proposal to reduce the time a person is required to live in their acquired gender from two years to just three months. By supporting these changes, the Scottish Government risks failing vulnerable people. “

 

The church’s consultation response points out that since the Scottish Prison Service issued guidance effectively allowing self-identification, the number of prisoners identifying as transgender has risen significantly, to the point where the incidence rate of men identifying as women is 350 times higher amongst the prison population than it is in the general population.

 

The bishops conclude by saying;

 

“The proposed changes risk creating medical, social and legal complications which will be difficult to resolve and damaging to those involved, particularly children and women. Accordingly, we have written to the First Minister, highlighting our concerns and urging her to not to proceed with the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill.”

 

ENDS

 

Peter Kearney

Director

Catholic Media Office

5 St. Vincent Place

Glasgow

G1 2DH

Tel:    0141 221 1168

Mob:  07968 122291

ISDN: 0141 204 4956

pk@scmo.org

www.scmo.org

 

Note to Editors:

 

1. The full text of the Church’s consultation response can be viewed below it will be submitted today (17 March 2020) by the Catholic Parliamentary Office

 

2. The text of the letter to the First Minister, from Bishop Hugh Gilbert the President of the Bishops’ Conference is also shown below.

 

1. Response from the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland to the Consultation on Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill - March 2020

 

Footnotes are available at the end of the document and are indicated by the number in brackets.

 

Consultation Questions

 

1. Do you have any comments on the proposal that applicants must live in their acquired gender for at least three months before applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate?

 

Please refer to answer to question 4.

 

2. Do you have any comments on the proposal that applicants must go through a period of reflection for at least three months before obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate?

 

Please refer to answer to question 4.

 

3. Should the minimum age at which a person can apply for legal gender recognition be reduced from age 18 to 16?

 

This is a very troubling aspect of the proposed changes. Allowing those under 18 years of age to legally change gender puts children and young people on a dangerous path towards irreversible medical experimentation.

 

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child defines children as those under the age of 18 years.

 

There are good reasons for not allowing those under 18 years to have sex reassignment surgery or other irreversible elective interventions; given their level of maturity they need special protection, especially in a very important formative phase in their life. And for the same reason those under 18 should not be encouraged to make ostensibly permanent legal declarations on their gender. The Church is deeply concerned for the health and wellbeing of young people and is particularly troubled about the potential negative impact of permanent legal declarations which could lead to irreversible surgery in future or, at the very least, non-surgical interventions the long-term effects of which remain unclear.

 

Individuals under 18 years of age cannot buy cigarettes, buy alcohol in licensed premises or get a tattoo. Yet the Scottish Government is open to the possibility that these same young people have the maturity to make a permanent legal declaration on their gender which, as set out above, could lead to a decision to undergo irreversible surgery or non-surgical interventions, with scant knowledge of what this means for their long-term health and wellbeing.

 

There are also concerns about the safety of puberty blockers: drugs given to young people in order to suppress their natural hormones. According to Michael Biggs, of the Department of Sociology at the University of Oxford (1), the use of puberty blockers remains an “experimental treatment.” Biggs also cites a NHS Health Research Authority research protocol  (2) where it states: “it is not clear what the long term effects of early suppression may be on bone development, height, sex organ development, and body shape and their reversibility if treatment is stopped during pubertal development.” Biggs goes on to quote Russell Viner, a paediatrician on the study team, who admitted: “if you suppress puberty for three years the bones do not get any stronger at a time when they should be, and we don’t really know what suppressing puberty does to your brain development. We are dealing with unknowns.” (3)

 

There are also concerns about the safety of puberty blockers: drugs given to young people in order to suppress their natural hormones. According to Michael Biggs, of the Department of Sociology at the University of Oxford (1), the use of puberty blockers remains an “experimental treatment.” Biggs also cites a NHS Health Research Authority research protocol  (2) where it states: “it is not clear what the long term effects of early suppression may be on bone development, height, sex organ development, and body shape and their reversibility if treatment is stopped during pubertal development.” Biggs goes on to quote Russell Viner, a paediatrician on the study team, who admitted: “if you suppress puberty for three years the bones do not get any stronger at a time when they should be, and we don’t really know what suppressing puberty does to your brain development. We are dealing with unknowns.” (3)

 

It is important to note that the term ‘puberty blockers’ though used here for ease of reference is actually an inaccurate term. The drugs used are ‘off label’ which means that they have not been officially approved for use as puberty blockers.

 

Evidence supports that most young people will not persist in gender dysphoria and will reconcile with their biological sex beyond adolescence. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders states that “in natal males, persistence has ranged from 2.2% to 30%. In natal females, persistence has ranged from 12% to 50%.” It is fair to say that rates of persistence are relatively low.

 

A paper in the British Journal of General Practice  (4) admitted that the majority of people presenting with gender dysphoria before puberty will “desist”, and that some will “seek interventions with uncertain long-term outcomes.” The authors also suggest that the rise in those presenting with Gender Dysphoria is multi-factorial but admit that “35% of those seen in the Tavistock service have autism traits.” The paper concludes with a call for “well-funded, independent, long-term research” to “ensure doctors meet their ethical duties to ‘first do no harm’ and fulfil good medical practice.”

 

In response to the growing demand for GPs to prescribe cross-sex hormones before specialist assessments the authors of the paper say that “more definitive knowledge is needed about: the causes of rapid increased referrals, especially girls and young females; the outcomes of interventions and ‘wait and see’ policies in this new demographic; and how to practice and organise services, especially anticipating long-term health implications.”

 

Sinead Watson, a 29 year old who transitioned to male in her early 20’s, and who is now attempting to de-transition, declared: “the idea that a 16-year-old can sign statutory declarations saying that they intend to permanently live in their acquired gender….they’re not old enough to smoke, they’re not old enough to drink…I find it really concerning that they would deem a 16-year-old emotionally mature and developed enough to have the foresight to say they are going to identify this way for the rest of their lives.”

Sinead adds: “I can’t undo what the testosterone has done to me, I can’t undo the double mastectomy.”

 

4. Do you have any other comments on the provisions of the draft bill?

  

The Catholic Church teaches respect for the male and female person made in the image and likeness of God and believes that sex or gender cannot be reduced to a mere construct of society that is fluid and changeable. At the same time, the Church is concerned for those who suffer discrimination and prejudice and those who experience gender dysphoria and expects those in authority to ensure an appropriate framework of support is available.

 

Pope Francis said: “Valuing one’s own body in its femininity or masculinity is necessary if I am going to be able to recognise myself in an encounter with someone who is different. In this way we can joyfully accept the specific gifts of another man or woman, the work of God the Creator, and find mutual enrichment.”

The pope added: “It is not a healthy attitude which would seek to ‘cancel out sexual difference’ because it no longer knows how to confront it.”

 

Denying the biological reality of sexual difference and redefining something as fundamental as male and female is not within the purview of government or parliamentarians. Like marriage, it is part of the natural law: an unchanging principle of human existence. Redefining what it means to be male or female will create confusion, upsetting the equilibrium of society and our natural instinct toward the marriage of man and woman and the flourishing of family life. If it is possible to legally change from being a man to a woman and vice versa it presupposes that there is nothing naturally distinctive about womanhood or manhood.

 

Government, in the pursuit of ideologies, must be conscious of the potential for the destruction of natural principles and traditional social habits of people. The bedrock of society that is marriage between one man and one woman and their openness to new life, the family they create, the right to life of unborn children, and the right to free speech and freedom of thought, conscience and religion have all been undermined by this pursuit.

 

Sex is constituted by biological organisation and reproductive functioning, and is recognised at birth, not assigned. Nor can surgery change sex. As Dr David Bell, Consultant Psychiatrist in the Adult Department of the Tavistock and Portman Centre in London, points out: “Surgery does not change biological sex. It is a given, it is not socially constructed.” (5)

 

Sherif Girgis, author and philosophy student, said “Male and female are not just any two sexes, as black and white are just two races. Maleness and femaleness, and a certain social purpose, are necessarily inter-defined: one cannot fully explain either maleness or femaleness without reference to the other and to a certain social good. The reason is that what differentiates them are not just different anatomical or genetic features, but – at a deeper level of explanation – their joint (basic) physical potential for a biological task: reproduction. And this task, its social value, and its link to sexual composition are certainly not mere social inventions.” (6)

 

Lawrence Mayer and Paul McHugh also refer to the distinction on the grounds of reproductive organisation: “The underlying basis of maleness and femaleness is the distinction between the reproductive roles of the sexes; in mammals such as humans, the female gestates offspring and the male impregnates the female. More universally, the male of the species fertilises the egg cells provided by the female of the species. This conceptual basis for sex roles is binary and stable and allows us to distinguish males from females on the grounds of their reproductive systems, even when these individuals exhibit behaviours that are not typical of males and females.” (7)

 

There are biological differences between men and women. Scientists have found that male and female bodies react differently to diseases and to treatment. Therefore, the difference between male and female is “an important basic human variable that should be considered when designing and analysing studies in all areas and at all levels of biomedical and health-related research.” (8)

 

Gender dysphoria, the feeling that one’s biological sex does not correspond with one’s lived or experienced gender, is a condition that can cause significant distress and anxiety. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition: DSM-5, of the American Psychiatric Association continues to recognise gender dysphoria as a genuine, troubling medical condition.

 

By moving to a self-declaratory model, as proposed in the consultation, and de-medicalising legal transition, society may fail to provide the necessary support for those affected by gender dysphoria in the form of contact with health professionals. De-medicalisation removes a vital protection and safeguard for vulnerable individuals. Sinead Watson, a 29 year old who transitioned to male in her early 20’s, and who is now attempting to de-transition, described the removal of the need for a medical diagnosis as “mind blowing” and that doing so would be “monumentally harmful”.  (9) This is further exacerbated by the proposal to reduce the time a person is required to live in their acquired gender from two years to just three months. The Scottish Government - by supporting these changes – risks failing vulnerable people. 

 

Gender dysphoria in individuals is associated with an increased rate of comorbid mental illness, especially mood disorders, anxiety disorders, and suicidality. (10)

 

There is also a danger that speeding up the process of changing gender legally will increase the possibility of people making choices and commitments they will later regret.

 

Without a clearer understanding of causes, government should not proceed with radical legal reforms or expose children to radical treatments. Caution and sensitivity is required.

 

It is worth noting that the European Court of Human Rights (Garcon and Nicot v France [2017] ECHR 338 (06 April 2017)), in a judgement which is legally binding, held that an ‘assessment model’, which is the existing model in Scotland, is compatible with human rights.

 

There is also considerable confusion as to the definition of ‘sex’ and ‘gender’. For example, some argue that gender is simply the subjective choice of the individual. This position is often complicated by interchangeable use of the terms sex and gender, suggesting that sex might also be a subjective choice. This leads to a situation where any person could at any time change their sex. Others argue that gender is innate i.e. has a biological component and is thus unchangeable. Both propositions cannot be true.

 

Gender dysphoria should not be politicised to the point where science is side-lined. Science is key to understanding gender dysphoria.

 

There are other consequences of the proposed reform such as an increased risk to the safety of women. Could a man who self-declares as female be given access to a women’s refuge or safe house? Could a male prisoner self-identify as female and gain access to a women-only prison?

 

The Scottish Prison Service policy on transgender prisoners has, to some degree, anticipated the government’s proposals. The guidance declares that, with regard to transgender inmates, “the person in custody’s gender identity and corresponding name and pronouns must be respected” so that the accommodation chosen “should reflect the gender in which the person in custody is currently living.”

 

Rhona Hotchkiss, a former prison governor, recently stated that, prior to this policy coming into force, there were only two prisoners who identified as transgender—this rose to 22 male to female transgender prisoners in custody in 2018.

 

Ms Hotchkiss stated that none had self-identified as female prior to their conviction. This represents around 7 per cent of the numbers of women in Scottish prisons; significantly higher than the percentage of transgender people found in the wider population, which is estimated at around 0.02per cent. This means that the incidence rate of men identifying as women is 350 times higher amongst the prison population than it is in the general population.

 

The dangers posed to women are highlighted by the case of Karen White, a biological male and convicted rapist who, following his incarceration, self-identified as female and applied to be moved to a women’s prison. White’s application was successful, and he went on to sexually assault female inmates at the prison.

 

In March 2019, Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf admitted that criminal incidents are tracked according to the self-identified gender of victims. Such a system could easily distort crime statistics and also result in biological male offenders being placed in women-only spaces. Katie Dolatowski, 18, a transgender sex offender who preyed on girls in public toilets in Fife and was housed in women only accommodation after being convicted.

 

Richard Garside, director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, told The Times, “women who end up in custody are individuals who’ve often experienced quite grotesque and traumatic male violence so being asked to share their places of safety and refuge with individuals who they not unreasonably consider to be male and a threat to them – regardless of whether they are or not – is deeply problematic.”

 

There are also concerns regarding the safety and wellbeing of female schoolchildren if natal males are to be allowed to occupy female only changing facilities and toilets in schools. The importance of single-sex spaces and services, which is an exception under the Equality Act 2010 and which provides a vital protection for women and girls, cannot be overstated.

 

Irrespective of the outcome of the consultation, free speech and freedom of thought, conscience and religion must be upheld for those who do not subscribe to the idea that gender is fluid and/or that gender may be wholly divorced from biological sex. This is particularly important for, among others, those who work in education, for healthcare workers, marriage celebrants, prison staff, and religious representatives.

 

The Catholic Church understands that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. The determination of sex for this purpose is based on biology. The Church must be able to marry in accordance with her teaching.

 

The proposed changes risk creating medical, social and legal complications which will be difficult to resolve and damaging to those involved. There are particular risks for children and women.

 

 

5. Do you have any comments on the draft Impact Assessments?

 

No comment.

 

Footnotes

 

(1) Tavistock’s Experimentation with Puberty Blockers: Scrutinising the Evidence (2 March 2019)

(2) Early Pubertal Suppression in a Carefully Selected Group of Adolescents with Gender Identity Disorder, 4 November 2010, Research Ethics Committee number 10/H0713/79)

(3) Daily Mail, 25 February 2016

(4) Gender Incongruence in children, adolescents, and adults by Susan Bewley, Damian Clifford, Margaret McCartney and Richard Byng, Br J Gen Pract 2019; 69 (681): 170-171

(5) Seminar on Gender dysphoria/confusion in children and young people, Scottish Parliament, 5th March 2020.

(6) Windsor Lochnerizing on Marriage? Case Western Reserve Law Review 64 (2014), 988

(7) Sexuality and Gender Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences, Special Report, New Atlantis, 50 (Autumn 2016), 89

(8)  Institute of Medicine, Committee on Understanding the Biology of Sex and Gender Differences, Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health: Does Sex Matter? Theresa M Wizeman and Mary-Lou Pardue (Washington DC: National Academies Press, 2001), Executive Summary

(9) Seminar on Gender dysphoria/confusion in children and young people, Scottish Parliament, 5th March 2020.

(10) Zucker KJ et al, Gender Dysphoria in Adults, Annual Review Clinical Psychology 2016; 12: 217-247

 

  

2. Letter from the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland to the First Minister

 

17 March 2020

 

Dear First Minister,

 

Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill

 

Our thoughts are with you and those in Government at this difficult and uncertain time for us all, and we appreciate the guidance being given.

 

However, it is on another matter that I write.

 

On behalf of the Bishops Conference of Scotland – which has made its own submission to the Consultation – I wish to express deep misgivings concerning the proposed Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. Together with a growing number of other voices in our society, the Catholic Church in Scotland is of the view that the proposed changes to the existing legislation risk creating grave medical, social and legal complications which will prove difficult to resolve and a source of harm to those they concern.

 

I am writing therefore to express the wish that this proposed legislation is not adopted.

 

True clinical gender dysphoria is a real, if reasonably rare, condition and, if persistent, can cause significant distress and anxiety to those affected by it. It must be distinguished from the normal developmental gender anxieties and uncertainties of adolescence, which can indeed also cause great pain to those who suffer them. However, the concern is that, by de-medicalising legal transition and moving to a self-declaratory model, this distinction will be lost and our society fail to provide the necessary health-professional support for those genuinely affected by Gender Dysphoria. Such a move risks failing vulnerable people. The question is, how can these gender anxieties and uncertainties be best addressed? Surely, not by blurring clinical boundaries, nor by allowing a certain social momentum – or indeed simply by a fashion – to determine our responses.  My sense is that, by not permitting the proposed legislation to proceed, the Scottish Government would do us, and especially our youth, a great service and show itself more in tune with an ever more critical public opinion.

 

We are all deeply concerned for the health and wellbeing of our young people. The possibility of permanent legal declarations being made at such a young age, along with the ensuing surgery or non-surgical interventions (with unclear long-term effects), will not enhance this well-being. Currently, individuals under 18 years of age cannot buy cigarettes, purchase alcohol in licensed premises or get a tattoo. Yet the current Bill assumes they have the maturity to make permanent legal declarations on their gender which could lead to irreversible consequences, with scant knowledge of what this means for their long-term health and wellbeing.

 

Evidence indicates that most young people will not persist in gender dysphoria and will reconcile with their biological sex beyond adolescence. A paper in the British Journal of General Practice admitted that the majority of people presenting with gender dysphoria before puberty will “desist”, and also that “35% of those seen in the Tavistock service have autism traits.” The paper concludes with a call for “well-funded, independent, long-term research” to “ensure doctors meet their ethical duties to ‘first do no harm’ and fulfil good medical practice.” We echo this call for more detailed research.

 

Finally, we are concerned that the proposed reform creates an increased risk to the safety of women. The Scottish Prison Service policy on transgender prisoners, for example, currently allows prison accommodation to “reflect the gender in which the person in custody is currently living.”  Since this guidance was implemented, the incidence rate of men identifying as women is now 350 times higher amongst the prison population than in the general population. Since many women in custody have often experienced what has been described as “quite grotesque and traumatic male violence”, being asked to share their places of safety and refuge with individuals who they not unreasonably consider to be male and a threat – regardless of whether they are or not – is deeply problematic.

 

These are only a few of the concerns that could be raised here - the de-stabilising effect on families would be another. This whole subject has many aspects and is not best grasped when reduced to mere individual choice. We do not want to enter heedlessly into such sensitive and uncharted territory. I envisage that even present policies will lead to a future backlash. There are some publicised instances of this already which explain the growing sense of unease. My earnest hope is that the Scottish Government will see the wisdom of desisting from any new legislation.

 

With assurance of my best wishes and prayers,

 

Yours sincerely

 

Bishop Hugh Gilbert

President

Bishops’ Conference of Scotland

Subscribe to Updates

Subscribe to:
Like   Back to Top   Seen 184 times   Liked 0 times

Subscribe to Updates

If you enjoyed this, why not subscribe to free email updates ?

Subscribe to News updates

Enter your email address to be notified of new posts:

Subscribe to:

Alternatively, you can subscribe via RSS RSS

‹ Return to News

We never share or sell your email address to anyone.

I've already subscribed / don't show me this again

Recent Posts

Bishops urge politicians to put human life at centre of Scotland’s political discourse

| 2 days ago | Blogging

Sunday 11 April 2021 Bishops urge politicians to put human life at centre of Scotland’s political discourse.   Scotland’s Catholic Bishops have released a pre-election Pastoral letter, urging Catholics to play their part “in putting human life and the inviolable dignity of the human person at the centre of Scotland’s political discourse” and to warn politicians against imposing “unjust restrictions on free speech, free expression and freedom of thought, conscience and religion”.   In a 1,000-word letter distributed online and via Scotland’s 500 Catholic parishes, the Bishops ask Catholic voters to give consideration to six key areas, when selecting a candidate:   Beginning and end of life Family and Work Poverty, Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery Environment Free speech, free expression, and freedom of thought, conscience and religion Catholic schools   Pointing out that “society relies on the building block of the family to exist and flourish” the bishops add; “government should respond to this reality with policies creating economic and fiscal advantages for families with children.”   Voters are also urged to visit the website rcpolitics.org and to use the resources there to help them consider a range of election issues and to question candidates.     ENDS   Peter Kearney Director Catholic Media Office 0141 221 116807968 122291 pk@scmo.org www.scmo.org     Note to Editors:   The Election resources are available here:  https://rcpolitics.org/scottish-parliament-election-2021/   The full text of the Pastoral Letter is shown below:       Scottish Parliament Election 2021 - Putting Human Life and  Dignity at the Centre   A letter from the Catholic Bishops of Scotland   Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,   This election presents us with an opportunity to play our part in putting human life and the inviolable dignity of the human person at the centre of Scotland’s political discourse. As Catholics we have a duty: to share the Gospel and to help form the public conscience on key moral issues. It is a duty of both faith and citizenship.  This election is an opportunity to be the effective witness our Baptism calls us to be.  The new parliament and government will be tasked with leading the recovery from the damage wrought by the current health crisis and to tackle the significant impact it has had on many aspects of life including health care, mental health and wellbeing, religious freedom, and care for the poor. It must also build on the positives arising from the Pandemic, including caring for the most vulnerable, and a renewed sense of respect for human life, human dignity, and the value of community.   These are some of the issues you may want to consider in the forthcoming election:   Beginning and end of life It is the duty of parliamentarians to uphold the most basic and fundamental human right to life. Elected representatives ought to recognise the existence of human life from the moment of conception and be committed to the protection of human life at every stage. Caring for the unborn and their mothers is a fundamental measure of a caring and compassionate society; a society which puts human dignity at the centre.   We ought to be mindful of a further attempt to legalise assisted suicide in Scotland, likely to happen in this parliament. Legalising assisted suicide or euthanasia suggests that some lives are not worth living, contrary to the Christian belief that every life has equal dignity and value. It is incumbent upon our parliamentarians to show compassion for the sick and dying. This is not achieved by assisted suicide or euthanasia but by ensuring support is provided through caring and attentive politics, including investment in palliative care.   Family and Work Society relies on the building block of the family to exist and flourish. The love of man and woman in marriage and openness to new life is th...

Return to Worship in time for Easter

| 01st March 2021 | Blogging

Return to Worship in time for Easter 1 March 2021 Responding to last week’s statement on the reopening of Places of Worship by the First Minister, the Catholic Bishops of Scotland have issued a statement welcoming the move and calling for a removal of the cap, which limits the number of people who can attend. Instead, the bishops maintain congregation size should be calculated in accordance with the size of each church, a system similar to that used in the retail sector, which still maintains social distancing regulations.   The full text of the statement is shown below. ENDS Peter Kearney Director Catholic Media Office 0141 221 116807968 122291 pk@scmo.org www.scmo.org     As Scotland’s Catholic bishops, we welcome the recent announcement by the First Minister foreseeing a return to our churches for the most important celebration of the liturgical year at Easter. We also welcome the recognition of the status of public worship implicit in this decision. The Catholic Community recognises the seriousness of the pandemic and is committed to working with others to avoid the spreading of infection. At the same time, we anticipate ongoing dialogue with the Scottish Government regarding the requirement of a numerical “cap” on the number of worshippers. As we continue to observe social distancing  and the protocols on infection control and hygiene formulated by the Bishops’ Conference working group under the leadership of the former Chief Medical Officer Sir Harry Burns, we maintain that it would be more appropriate for each church building to accommodate a congregation in proportion to its size rather than on the basis of an imposed number. We echo here the timely words Pope Francis addressed to the representatives of countries to the Holy See on the 8th February 2021: Even as we seek ways to protect human lives from the spread of the virus, we cannot view the spiritual and moral dimension of the human person as less important than physical health. The opening of churches is a sign that the sacrifices endured so far are bearing fruit and gives us hope and encouragement to persevere. We pray that the Risen Christ, for whom we long during this holy season of Lent, will bless and bring healing to our nation.  ...

Church leaders urge withdraw of controversial section of Hate Crime Bill

| 12th February 2021 | Blogging

Church leaders urge withdraw of controversial section of Hate Crime Bill to allow “adequate consideration”   Friday 12 February   An unprecedented alliance of Catholic and Evangelical church leaders are urging the Scottish Government to drop part of its proposed Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill to allow time for “detailed consideration of crucial provisions.” The Bill, which would potentially criminalise any criticism of Transgender ideology has been criticised by the Catholic Church, the Free Church of Scotland and the Evangelical Alliance.   In a letter addressed today (Friday 12 February) to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice Humza Yousaf, the church leaders call for greater protections for freedom of expression and say:   “We believe that people should be completely free to disagree with our faith in any way, including mocking and ridiculing us. We are convinced that our faith is true and has a sufficient evidential basis to withstand any criticism, we therefore welcome open debate.”    By contrast, concerns are raised that any disagreement with or criticism of Transgender identity could fall foul of the new law, if passed in its current form. The church leaders point out, that “Transgender identity has been subject of extensive and emotional public discussion. Such free discussion and criticism of views is vital as society wrestles with these ideas.” They warn however, that they “cannot accept that any position or opinion at variance with the proposition that sex (or gender) is fluid and changeable should not be heard.”   The letter marks the first time Catholic, Free Church and Evangelical Alliance leaders have jointly petitioned the Scottish Government and sought a meeting with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. Supporting “open and honest debate” the letter ends with an assertion, that “A right to claim that binary sex does not exist or is fluid must be matched with a right to disagree with that opinion; and protection from prosecution for holding it.” As well as a warning that: ”The Parliament now has approximately four weeks to complete the passage of the bill. This is extraordinarily tight and risks inadequate and ill-thought through legislation being passed. No workable solutions to issues of freedom of expression have so far been suggested. If no such solutions can be found we hope the Scottish Government will now consider withdrawing the stirring up hatred offences in Part 2 of the bill to allow more detailed consideration and discussion and to ensure freedom of expression provisions, which enshrine free and open debate, are afforded the scrutiny they require.”   ENDS   Peter Kearney Director Catholic Media Office 5 St. Vincent Place Glasgow G1 2DH 0141 221 116807968 122291 pk@scmo.org www.scmo.org     Notes to Editors:   The full text of the letter is shown below. Humza Yousaf MSP Cabinet Secretary for Justice The Scottish Government St. Andrew's House Edinburgh EH1 3DG   Friday 12th February 2021   Dear Mr Yousaf,     Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill – Stage 2 amendments   We are writing to you as representatives of three communities of churches in Scotland in relation to the progress of the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) bill at Stage 2 and to ask if we may be able to meet with you in the coming days in relation to this.   As you know we have engaged extensively throughout the bill process including a number of meetings with you and your officials, and all gave oral evidence to the Justice Committee on 10th November. In all of this we have sought to play a constructive role. We recognise the sensitivities involved in this bill, have sought consensus, and looked to help play our part in protecting vulnerable communities from hate crime whilst at the same time protecting fundamental freedoms on which we all depend for our common life. Our approach has never been to just narrowly consider...

FUNERAL MASS FOR BISHOP VINCENT LOGAN 26 JANUARY 2021

| 26th January 2021 | Blogging

FUNERAL MASS FOR BISHOP VINCENT LOGAN 26/01/2021 It seems almost a cliche to say it, but every human person is a mystery. It’s not surprising though, as it is in God ‘we live and move and have our being’ and he himself is the ultimate mystery, and we have our origin in God. The Catechism reminds us that ‘we are most like unto God in our soul’, and since each one of us is unique in every way, to say we are a mystery seems almost like an understatement. And this mysteriousness is at so many levels. From the biological point of view, we are a mystery because we are formed by the mixing of our parents’ genes and by the environment in which we are planted. From a psychological point of view, we are formed by our parents by our families, by our siblings, friends and relations, by the circumstances of our lives and our loves, our knocks and our disappointments. Most of us have had the good fortune to have been conceived in love and nurtured and nourished in love. Others, though, regrettably haven’t had that great start. And often, for those who are fortunate, there is one great thread of God’s goodness that powerfully shapes us. For most of us, this powerful goodness originates in the Faith passed on to us from our parents, a thread which runs throughout our lives and more than any other influence, arguably, shapes and guides the direction of our lives. Also, for those of us fortunate enough to be baptised, as well as inheriting the common humanity into which we are created in the image and likeness of God, our baptism in Christ also confers on us divine filiation - sonship and daughtership in God - enabling us, as St Paul says, to call God, Abba, our Father. And we spend the rest of our lives on earth finding out what are the consequences for us of this wonderful gift: we never stop learning how to become a better son or a daughter of God. All of this is true of Vincent Paul Logan. Vincent was born on 30th June 1941 to Joseph and Elizabeth Logan (nee Flannigan) into a committed Bathgate Catholic family and - like all Bathgate Catholic bairns – Vincent, together with their other four sons, inherited a strong faith from them. Of Vincent’s brothers James, John, William and Joseph. Only James now is still alive. Later also, Vincent’s four married brothers’ spouses (Esther, Maeve, Grace and Celia) and subsequently their families – nephews (Vincent and Joseph here today), Gerard and Edward, also Paul, now deceased, who like Bishop Vincent, tried his vocation also at Drygrange Seminary, and nieces Elizabeth, Margaret, Lisa and Anne-Marie - All members of this great extended family had their influence on Bishop Vincent throughout his life, just as today they mourn for him, assisting him by their prayers and Masses on the cleansing road to the Heavenly Kingdom. But for a baptised Catholic man, who has in addition received a vocation from the Lord to priesthood, it is also his special relationships, outside the family - school friends, close friends met on life’s journey, fellow seminarians, priest friends and the pastoral and personal relationships a priest makes through his pastoral work, also continued to shape Vincent, up until almost the moment of his death. From his earliest days, Vincent Paul Logan wanted to be a priest. His desire to attend and serve Mass daily, as a young boy with his mother and brothers after their dad went off to work, of course pointed him in the direction of a vocation to priesthood. As a committed Altar Boy, Vincent’s first desire to put himself forward as a candidate for priesthood resulted, as he says himself, in ‘being chased’ in 1952 by Canon Davitt his parish priest because he was too young - only 11. A year later 1 though, in 1953, he went to Blairs, our National Junior Seminary, at 12 and his journey to priesthood began in earnest. Drygrange, the seminary for the Archdiocese of Saint Andrews and Edinburgh was the next step towards priesth...