Alright – forgive the obligatory disgusted of Tunbridge Wells tone, but remember how everyone scoffed at the idea that following ‘same-sex marriage’, the next step would be to follow in the footsteps of Spain and replace the terms of ‘mother’ and ‘father’ with Progenitor A and Progenitor B?
It would appear that, Elton John and David Furnish have decided to lead the way by declaring that David Furnish is the ‘mother’ on the birth certificate of their new baby son, Elijah as well as their elder son Zachary.
That’s right – David Furnish is officially recognised as a mother, despite the fact that he isn’t, he never can be given that he possesses entirely the wrong set of equipment. So not content with redefining marriage, we now need to redefine motherhood and fatherhood into one homogenous mass known as parenthood. Or is it that David Furnish recognises the importance of a mother, just as the LGBT lobby recognise the importance of marriage and has decided to reclaim it for himself? After all, why should motherhood be restricted to women on account of their sexual organs and reproductive ability? Isn’t that rather sexist? This is why we see the overlap between queer theory and feminism, because by declaring that gender is a separate entity to sex and performative in nature, it paves the way for boys to be girls, men to be mothers, girls to be fathers and vice-versa and everybody gets an excuse to indulge their own notions of self-identity.
And whilst I recognise that gender dysphoria can be a serious and debilitating condition requiring treatment of some sort or another, transsexualism or its younger sister transvestitism, is all very well and good, so long as it does not impact on other people, although on a very local level it will mean that when visiting my friends or taking the children to the beach at nearby Rottingdean, I’d better be sure not to drink too much tea as personally I am extremely uncomfortable using gender neutral lavatories in common with, I suspect, most women.
Causing a minor personal inconvenience or embarrassment is in a wholly different league however, to a sacred doctrine whose effects impact on vulnerable children. Men cannot be mothers, women cannot be fathers and to declare otherwise, no matter how legally binding one wishes to make this by declaring it on official documents, does children a massive disservice by seeking to deny them the links to their biological parents.
I am not ashamed to admit that the reason for my distaste and opposition to this, is like many forms of alleged ‘phobia’ , due to feeling threatened. It is threatening when on account of their sexual preferences other people seek to deny that my biology, the fact that I carried my 4 children in my womb myself, that I birthed them, that I breastfed them, that I held them, soothed them, sang to them and tended to them in a way that only a mother can, that they responded to me, from the moment they were born as being comfort and love- I only needed to pick up the newborns when they were crying for them to be instantaneously soothed; all of these things are irrelevant and none of these make me a mother. That, if necessary the state could determine that two men would be every bit as good for them as their mother and their father. It worries me on behalf of every single woman everywhere, that the unique and innate qualities that make women mothers, are now deemed irrelevant, motherhood is just now another form of childcare. Mothers are simply biological vessels and nothing more – something that’s bought into by a frightening amount of women, and was highlighted by Hilary Mantel’s critique of the Duchess of Cambridge. The image she projected was not one that Kate’s extended family have imposed onto her, but one that she has imposed upon Kate, and one can’t help but note that Hilary Mantel has herself suffered from unfortunate infertility problems, which might perhaps explain her disdain towards child-bearing women.
Biology must not be written off in order to satisfy the whims of sexual identity for a minority. To do so is the first step in a dangerous process of dehumanisation. By degrading motherhood, feminism has managed to wipe thousands of years of evolutionary history off the map, a woman’s unique ability to give birth does not render her in any way special, deserving of extra protection or elevate her in any way, it rather weakens her and her womb is something of an encumbrance that makes her not as good as men.
And, if any more proof were required as to how this new child of Elton John and David Furnish has been commodified, their comments are extremely telling, due to a ‘wonderful nanny, fantastic paediatrician, all the great support’, they had found Elijah far more easy to cope with.’
‘Now we have that wonderful infrastructure in place so we can just sit back more and enjoy the little person themselves without the worry – or as much worry.’
Most of us don’t have the luxury of nannies and paediatricians or even great support, particularly if we are not living near our families. Our children are not little pets to be cooed over, admired and enjoyed, no matter how enjoyable or rewarding raising them can be, children are little human beings requiring infinite love, patience, time, energy and self-sacrifice and in those early baby days, enjoyment is not top of the list. You do what you can to get through the back-to-back breast feeding, nappy changing, endless walking up and down stairs to get them to sleep, waving toys and rattles at them, blowing bubbles to cheer them out of their grumpiness, whilst trying to fit everything else in around that. Eventually you’ll be rewarded with a smile of recognition or a soft purring that would indicate they are sleeping contentedly, you’ll feel your baby’s soft cheek against your flesh, gripping on for dear life and comfort whilst they sleep, and that is a reward in and of itself. A baby is not something to sit back and enjoy whilst everyone else gets on and does the hard graft.
Most people don’t need to buy a fantastic infrastructure and that’s because they already have it – a loving mother and father.
The Catechesis of Caroline 
Amen!
So true!
So true
I’ve said it before, babies are not ‘desirable consumer goods’ to be bought with money on a whim. I fear for the future of these children.
I used to wander why the world said the Church hated womam when we put our Lady on such a high pedastal as the zenith of creation. Then it dawned on me that she represented all that they hated, pure motherhood. The heresy of our age is not so much a sexual revolution but a real attack on feminimity. Therefore it makes sense to me that it will be through Mary’s immaculate heart that we shall win. The Churh of course is mother too.
Slightly digressing but we have this lack of compassion within the NHS. Of course there are many contributing factors. However nursing was always a womans job as her natural motherly instincts are to nurse and care. However generation after generation we have been telling women that in order to be equal to men they most be ambitious, not servile, ect ect. So they go into the nursing profession to be demi-doctors and the servile jobs of caring and tending the sick is seen as below them. We reap what we sew. I am a little afraid for my daugters future. Only a little for above all I hope and trust in the Lord that all will be well, all manner of things will be well. I believe that when this heresy withers as it most assuredly will, we will see an age where for the first time woman will truly be respected for there role in society but as Mothers first and foremost.
Of course these babies do have mothers, real mothers who bore them, but they will never see them.
We live in strange times! l thank God that although l don’t have children l had a loving mother and a still living loving father. I feel sorry for these two children and their biological mother(s). We live in an age where people think they can have everything they want.
And there was me thinking Sir Elton looked more like ‘mummy 🙂
When two men use a woman’s body, in this case as an incubator, pay her and then expect her to disappear it is called misogyny. As is a man deciding he will define motherhood. But feminism seems to have sold out so Caroline, you will be one of the few who point it out.
Wow, you put it SO well!
And can I just say…how does a surrogate mother ever get over giving her baby away? It must be awful 😦 I feel so bad for them.
I can’t help wondering if we’re going to see Elton John’s name on this register of slave owners released today.
What a well written letter.
What a terribly SICK society we have become when we see these homosexuals treating children like this.
What kind of future are they likely to have in that environment?
John and Furnish should be charged with Child Abuse.
what lovely and lucky children to be so wanted by elton and david. They are obviously much loved.
If I had the funds I would definitely hire a nanny and paediatrician for my children! In Elijah and Zachary’s case in particular isn’t it a good thing that they have a female role model during their childhood (I’m assuming the nanny is female!!)?
Plenty of loving mothers and fathers use nannies, and most loving mothers and fathers can’t do the job of a fully trained specialist doctor, so your last comment seems rather mean-spirited, akin to pointing out to a woman unable to breastfeed ‘most of us don’t need to buy in milk for our babies – we use breastmilk’.
Nothing can take away from you the fact that you gave birth to your own children and are raising them yourself. Even if birth certificates change in the future so that we mothers are listed as progenitor A, what we actually do wouldn’t change.
Most mothers and fathers don’t need to buy in a specialist to look after their child to ensure that the child has an opposite gender role model.
Breast feeding doesn’t enter the equation, you’ve read in a subtext. Why does Zachary need a nanny? Aren’t his ‘parents’ rich enough to afford to stay home and look after him full time?
Why does he need a paediatrician? It all smacks of what it is, namely commodification.
What’s the difference between progenitor A and B? Who decides who is who? What is there to stop the courts from allocating additional or replacement ‘progenitors’if it’s simply a title.
I am not a progenitor or a breeding machine, I am a mother.
“Most mothers and fathers don’t need to buy in a specialist to look after their child to ensure that the child has an opposite gender role model.”
No most parents don’t, but most parents are not two hugely successful and talented men with large amounts of money at their disposal. Plenty of parents do hire nannies for all sorts of reasons. If the problem with David and Elton having children is that they won’t be able to provide a female influence, why do you object to them paying someone to help them with this?
I don’t know why they need a paediatrician. Perhaps the children have health problems. If you’ve got the money to pay for it what’s wrong with employing a doctor to ensure your children are as healthy as possible? Why is wanting to provide the best for your children ‘commodification’?
“What’s the difference between progenitor A and B? Who decides who is who? What is there to stop the courts from allocating additional or replacement ‘progenitors’if it’s simply a title.”
One of the main purposes of listing parentage on a birth certificate is to assign legal responsibility for the child. It doesn’t say anything about how you raise the child or what kind of a parent you are. I suppose the only place where it would make a difference would be where the parents separate, when mothers are usually given precedence where custody of the children is concerned. If it is not clear who the ‘mother’ is I suppose it would have to be decided on individual merits. That whole area is fraught with difficulties even for ‘traditional’ families though…
There is nothing to stop us continuing to raise our children in a traditional Catholic family. Just because David and Elton don’t, that doesn’t mean we can’t.
Firstly with all that money and alleged talent, it’s interesting that they can’t take time out of their lives to be full time parents and again, this boils down to money and commodification.
There’s nothing to stop traditional or orthodox Catholics from raising their children how they please, but neither should we be praise, encourage or endorse the setup of Elton John and David Furnish.
How do you know they aren’t? A quick google shows Elton John is in Paraguay at the moment. Perhaps employing a nanny means they can bring the children with them, or perhaps David Furnish has stayed home with the kids? Anyway, wealthy people have always employed nannies to help with childcare, whether they themselves need to go out to work or not. A quote attributed to that famous Catholic Evelyn Waugh springs to mind: “I have numerous children whom I see once a day for ten, I hope, awe-inspiring minutes.” :o)
I agree Catholics don’t need to endorse or praise gay couples who bring up children together, but neither do we need to be constantly criticising them either. It is doing immense damage to Catholicism in this country, our perceived antipathy towards people who are more often than not only trying to spread love.
The problem is though that these sorts of situations do need to be condemned because sadly many people take their lead from celebrities.
What Elton John and David Furnish have done is deliberately deprive a child of their biological mother and pay a woman to rent her womb.
We shouldn’t be afraid to call out these situations for what they are. These are issues that if we don’t speak out over, we will find ourselves persecuted for in the future.
I’d like to see more positive engagement with gay Catholics, obviously condemnation of these situations must not be all we do.