Religious catechesis distorts scientific knowledge while despising opposing views.
Can all views be presented in our schools in the name of plurality and critical thinking? The question arises – not for the first time – following the recent (arguably excessive) accusation by MP Alexandra Attalidou of showcasing a homophobic video in a Religious Education class in a Nicosia high school.
Her accusation was followed by the furious reaction of Pavlos Mylonas, the chairman of the House Education Committee, who described it (Attalidou’s accusation) as a “fascist mentality to impose children’s education by MPs or organised groups that do not respect the opposing view.”
In the video, the Greek Bishop of Mesogaia, Nikolaos, “scientifically explains the Church’s stance on the issue of marriage and childbearing by homosexual couples,” as P. Mylonas stated.
I will bypass the “scientifically” part, as the Bishop in his eloquent speech mixes a bit of biology with some Christian theology, to conclude that individuals of the same sex cannot “unite” solely out of love: Marriage is a womb that births life – children – and its purpose is to provide a union where people should not be “identical” but “complementary” anatomically, since “an ovum does not go with an ovum, nor a spermatozoon with a spermatozoon.”
The reproductive process is not disputed, but it is not the sole purpose of marriage nor does it imply a ban on the coexistence of two people of the same sex in marriage and the possibility of having children. The Bishop has the right to express his opinion like anyone else. Can his view be presented in a school lesson? Certainly, provided there’s room for counterargument (which the Church detests) and free discussion, as recommended by the Commissioner for Children. Otherwise, it constitutes unilateral propaganda from the pulpit, aiming to impose the “sole truth.”
Science and irrationalism coexist in the modern school – this episode was just a typical example: As the good metropolitan attempted to lend credibility to his view using elements from biology, leaving out human rights (not exactly the Church’s forte), the theory of evolution in Biology coexists in the Cypriot school with the outdated and homophobic rhetoric of the Apostle Paul and Adam and Eve in Religious Education (probably “Christian,” since it only promotes the superiority of Orthodoxy over other religions).
Catechism clashes with science, patriarchy, misogyny, and religious prohibitions conflict with human freedoms and critical thinking – all without the possibility of their confrontation in a genuinely fruitful discussion in classrooms. And in the end, children are called to choose(?) what they accept, without having the tools and opportunity to judge for themselves.
There’s confusion about what is an opinion and what is not. “I consider Alexandra Attalidou’s action an exercise in spiritual terrorism and muzzling,” writes MP Pavlos Mylonas in a letter to the Minister of Education, protesting the investigation she requested, “and at the same time a sign of weakness on your part to face such phenomena of banning the transmission of ideas in our schools in a humble and moderate manner.”
But not all ideas are the same, nor is everything a matter of opinion. Can someone say, for example, “Homosexuals should be executed”? Yet, that is precisely what Paul says (Romans 1:24-32), that they “are worthy of death,” in the specific passage of his letter invoked by the Holy Synod and Bishop Nikolaos to argue that homosexual marriage is unacceptable. This is Apostle Paul, who is taught in Religious Education!
The problem, then, is not so much the specific video but that, within the framework of a selectively “free” circulation of ideas in school, theologians teach children such things, not merely as a historical reality of another era, but as the correct and mandatory stance of a Christian towards his contemporaries today.
Why? Because, as the Holy Synod states in its announcement, it is part of the tradition “stemming from the Holy Scripture, the teaching of the Church Fathers, and the order of the Mystery of Marriage,” hence not subject to criticism or counterargument.
Nevertheless, the Church claims to love all people, “young and old, unmarried and married, clergy, monks and laypeople, scientists and non-scientists, rulers and the ruled, heterosexuals [sic] and homosexuals and exercises its philanthropic love, provided, of course, they themselves want it.” And those who don’t? To be executed, as Paul advises (the Apostle, not Mylonas, I hope)?
