Wednesday 31 March 2010

We must defend Pope Benedict against his anti-life opponents

Frances Kissling, former president of "Catholics for Choice", a front organisation for the pro-abortion lobby, has just sent the following message to her anti-life colleagues:
"The outrage in various European countries over the sexual abuse of children and its proximity to Pope Benedict present European Progressive Catholics and Secularists with an unprecedented opportunity to push for roll backs in state financial support to Catholic schools, parish priests and other agencies as well as to rescind religious taxation of citizens."
It is clear that Pope Benedict is being defamed by opponents of the sanctity of human life and the dignity of the human person. In a remark which seems directed at this defamation, he said in his Palm Sunday sermon that:
"Jesus leads us ... to the courage that does not let itself be intimidated by the gossip of dominant opinions."
It is therefore incumbent upon pro-lifers of all faiths and none to help defend the good name of Pope Benedict, one of the world's great pro-life leaders and the head of the world's largest pro-life organisation. Below are quotes and sources from some prelates, clergy and other commentators setting the record straight about Pope Benedict and cases of the sexual abuse of children: 
  • "[There is] a well-oiled campaign against Pope Benedict ... peddling falsehoods to destroy the Holy Father’s good name. It needs to be called what it is – scandalous." 
  • "There is no evidence at all that Cardinal Ratzinger ever blocked any decision about [Fr Lawrence] Murphy [a priest accused of abusing children]"
  • "[T]he false allegations of last week have obscured the good work that the Cardinal Ratzinger did at the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith and as Pope."
  • "Cardinal Ratzinger brought about a profound change in how sexual abuse cases were handled ... Since his election, Pope Benedict has repeatedly demonstrated that even high-ranking priests are to be held accountable, and has not minced words about the failures of his brother bishops – both here in the United States and just last week, in his letter to the Catholics of Ireland."
"[W]e all need in a particular way to give thanks to God for the leadership of Joseph Ratzinger, as Cardinal and Pope, who has acted decisively, fairly, consistently, and courageously to purify the priesthood and to make the Church a safe place for everyone. Anyone with any knowledge of this terrible reality realizes that Pope Benedict has led the way in confronting this evil."
"I believe, and history will confirm that his actions in responding to this crisis, swiftly and decisively and his compassionate response to victims/survivors, speak for themselves. The Holy Father has been firm in his commitment to combat clergy sexual abuse; root it out of the Church; reach out to those who have been harmed; and hold perpetrators accountable. He has been a leader, meeting with victims/survivors and chastising bishops for their lack of judgment and leadership."
Fr Timothy Finigan of the Association of Priests for the Gospel of Life:
  • "[T]he Pastoral Letter of the Holy Father Pope Benedict to the Catholics of Ireland ... is a noble and powerful response."
  • "Pope Benedict has long been known as tough on the "filth" of clergy sexual abuse and, as Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith, introduced procedures to ensure that offenders were dismissed from the clerical state."
  • "[The BBC is] essentially using the plight of abused children and scandalised Catholics to further their secularist, anti-Catholic agenda while distracting everyone from benefiting from the wise pastoral advice of the Pope."
  • "The mainstream media are clearly gearing up for an all-out attack on the Holy Father when he visits Britain in September."
Sean Murphy, published on the website of the Catholic Education Research Center
and
Bill Donohue, Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, "Going for the Vatican Jugular

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Tuesday 30 March 2010

English bishops' election questionnaire does not challenge candidates

The Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales has published today a questionnaire for parliamentary candidates.

The questionnaire says [my emphases in bold]:
"Here are some issues and questions which may help inform your decision on who to vote for. They are open questions with no single ‘right’ answer."
The questionnaire also says:
"Firstly in valuing life. That means opposing abortion and euthanasia, and life-cramping poverty, and the neglect of the elderly."
The questionnaire then suggests asking the candidate:
"What does respect for life mean to you? Do all lives have the same value? Older people and the infirm … the severely disabled … the unborn?"
This questionnaire falls seriously short from a pro-life perspective. To suggest that there is "no single 'right' answer" to questions on pro-life matters is to suggest that candidates don't have a duty to uphold the right to life by voting against anti-life laws.

Putting poverty in the same category as abortion is to equate the relative with the absolute. This question thus repeats the 'seamless robe' error of the bishops' pre-election statement, which also equated second-order social issues with first-order moral issues. Virtually all candidates will promise to fight against poverty, but many candidates will support and vote for abortion if elected.

The questionnaire omits or fails to detail certain pro-life issues likely to come up in the new parliament, such as assisted suicide. A candidate in favour of assisted suicide, but asked instead a vague question about 'euthanasia', can thus easily leave the impression of being pro-life on end-of-life issues.

By posing vague, open, multi-issue questions, the questionnaire fails to pin candidates down on how they will vote if elected. The questionnaire thus fails on its own terms, to 'help inform [a voter's] decision on who to vote for'.

SPUC has produced its own questionnaire for candidates. Please contact SPUC to order a copy on (020) 7091 7091.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Monday 29 March 2010

Landmark letter against government sex ed bill published in Sunday Telegraph

The Sunday Telegraph has published a letter, signed by 640 people, calling upon parliament to reject the government's Children, Schools and Families bill. (The web-page on which the letter is published actually starts with another letter from six Anglican bishops which argues that "the religious rights of the Christian community are being treated with disrespect.")

The letter reads:
"Parents and guardians have the primary responsibility for bringing up their children in accordance with their own values and culture. They may entrust the task of formal education to a school of their choice, but the overall responsibility for the upbringing of their children remains theirs.

"The Children, Schools and Families Bill undermines this principle and seeks to impose a particular ideology by means of statutory sex and relationships education from the age of 5 (which primary schools do not currently have to teach). We would therefore urge Parliament decisively to oppose it.

"A state which seeks to centralise responsibilities which are properly fulfilled by families is acting in an unjust manner and undermines the basis of a free society."
The letter, led by Norman Wells of the Family Education Trust, has been signed by several Catholic bishops and over three hundred clergy, both Catholic and from other denominations/faiths. Among them are:
  • Rt Rev Brian Noble, Catholic bishop of Shrewsbury
  • Rt Rev Mark Davies, co-adjutor bishop of Shrewsbury
  • Rt Rev Patrick O'Donoghue, bishop emeritus of Lancaster
  • Monsignor G M Dasey, vicar-general, Middlesborough diocese
  • Canon T A McBride, episcopal vicar for formation and cathedral dean, Salford diocese
  • Canon A T Hayes, diocesan safeguarding officer, Lancaster diocese
  • Canon Jeremy Garrett, rector, St John’s Seminary, Wonersh, Southwark archdiocese
  • Fr John Fordham, vice-provost, London Oratory
  • Fr Leo Chamberlain, former headmaster, Ampleforth
  • Dom Antony Sutch, former headmaster, Downside
The more than 100 Catholic headteachers and governors among the signatories include:
  • Dr Andy Stone, Headteacher, Holy Family Technology College, Walthamstow
  • Mrs Michelle O’Sullivan, Chairman of Governors, St Alphonsus School, Manchester
  • Eric Hester, former headmaster, chief examiner and chief inspector
The SPUC website has a selected list of signatories. If you know any of the signatories, perhaps you could contact them to congratulate them for standing up against the government's sex ed agenda?

The massive support the letter has received from leading Catholics is yet further proof of just how out of touch the Catholic Education Service (CES) is with the concerns of the Catholics community in England and Wales. Bishops, diocesan officials and Catholic schools are now losing confidence in the CES, as evidenced by their rejection of a bill supported by the CES.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Friday 26 March 2010

US health care bill highlights danger of bargaining over babies' lives

President Barack Obama has signed into law the health care bill passed by the US Congress. As feared, the new law provides massive funding for abortion. The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) has described the law as "the most abortion-expansive piece of legislation ever" before Congress. At the last moment, Congressman Bart Stupak (pictured with President Obama) and other Democrat politicians who claim to be pro-life made a deal with Mr Obama. Mr Obama offered to sign an presidential executive order, allegedly excluding funding for abortion from the bill, if these Democrat politicians would agree to vote for the bill. The deal enabled the bill to pass.

All the main pro-life groups plus the Catholic bishops' conference have rejected the executive order as worthless. Pro-life groups have stripped Stupak of endorsements and prospective honours. Many pro-life groups feel betrayed, considering that they supported Mr Stupak last year when he was successful in having an earlier version of the bill changed with what they regarded as a worthwhile amendment. Some pro-life groups had warned, though, that the amendment was a half-measure which couldn't make the bill ethically acceptable. They feared that the amendment would actually help, not hinder, the passing of an law with many anti-life evils.

The lesson for the UK from the US health care bill is clear. The Church, and pro-life groups, must:
  • oppose, from the very start and throughout its progress, any legislation in which there is a distinct possibility of any individual's right to life being undermined
  • not be cowed from speaking out against bargaining over babies' lives, out of a misplaced fear of divisiveness or disloyalty.
Sadly, Catholic bishops' conferences and many pro-lifers in the UK and Ireland did not see the prudence of this approach during the: All too predictably, this weekend's Tablet greets the health care bill with an editorial headlined "America affirms right to life" and a feature article headlined "Victory for dignity". Both the editorial and feature article are replete with gross misrepresentations. For example, the editorial claims that Mr Obama "buil[t] into his scheme cast-iron guarantees to meet" pro-life objections, yet the main pro-life groups have explained in great detail that Mr Obama's guarantees are worthless deceits. The feature article claims that the bill "received widespread support from a host of pro-life leaders", when in fact Democrats for Life was the only pro-life group to support the bill. The feature article omits mention of the many pro-abortion and other anti-life elements in the bill, and makes specific claims (e.g. on community health centres) which pro-life experts have already debunked. 

Such obfuscation is spread and replicated elsewhere in the Catholic media, by bishops' conferences and their agencies, and by Catholic parliamentarians. Sorting out this problem is a Herculean task akin to cleaning out the Augean stables. We cannot, however, shirk from this task, for the sake of the unborn and the vulnerable born.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Thursday 25 March 2010

Northern Ireland power devolution welcome

SPUC has welcomed the devolution of criminal justice in Northern Ireland from the Westminster parliament to the Stormont assembly (pictured). A number of pro-life issues will now become the responsibility of the assembly. The Abortion Act thankfully does not apply to Northern Ireland. From 12 April (when the devolved powers take effect) the assembly will be able to amend the existing legislation in respect of abortion, or not, as it sees fit. Sex education is already a devolved matter, but end-of-life issues are subject to Part II of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1966. From 12 April the Northern Ireland assembly will assume responsibility for them.

Liam Gibson of SPUC Northern Ireland told the media today:
"Opposition to liberal abortion was one of the few issues which united the people and politicians of Northern Ireland throughout the long years of sectarian conflict. A relentless campaign over four decades by SPUC, its supporters and colleagues in other organisations has helped to ensure that repeated efforts to overturn Northern Ireland's legal restrictions on abortion were defeated. The most recent attempt by the abortion extremists in Westminster to introduce the Abortion Act in 2008 failed due to the fierce opposition of members of the assembly.

“Attempts to undermine the protection of our children, however, will continue. Health officials persist in promoting medical guidelines which do not accurately present the law, guidelines which SPUC is actively resisting through the courts. Foreign pro-abortion agencies continue to pressurise Northern Ireland to change its abortion law.

“Nevertheless, the devolution of criminal justice powers means that Northern Ireland is entering a new period, in which it will much more difficult for the abortion industry to impose its agenda. Northern Ireland remains the safest place in the UK for unborn children, with the best record on maternal mortality. The pro-life movement is now in a much stronger position to safeguard our existing legislation, as well as introduce new measures to protect women and their unborn children.”
Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Wednesday 24 March 2010

Pro-life vigil, Maidstone, Kent, 14 April

"A great prayer for life is urgently needed … prayer and fasting are the first and most effective weapons against the forces of evil." Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae.

The Helpers of God's Precious Infants is an international pro-life group founded by Monsignor Philip Reilly under the direction of Bishop Thomas Daily of New York. Its main work is prayer vigils at abortion facilities. To date, 5 cardinals and over 100 bishops worldwide participate, including Bishop Bernard Longley of Westminster, Bishop Thomas McMahon of Brentwood, Bishop John Hine of Southwark and Bishop Arthur Roche of Leeds. The spirituality is one of solidarity with Jesus in the person of the forgotten poor: “Whatever you do for the least of these my brethren, you do for me.” (Matt.25:40).

The Helpers will be holding a vigil, with full police co-operation, on Wednesday 14 April at the Marie Stopes abortion facility, Brewer Street, Maidstone, Kent ME14 1RV. The proceedings will start at 10.00am with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass at St Francis’ Church, Week Street, ME14 1RH celebrated by Father Paul Johnston S.O.L.T.
10.30am: prayerful and peaceful procession to Marie Stopes abortion facility, processing with image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Holy Rosary.
12.00pm: return procession with prayers. Break for tea and get together (please bring a packed lunch).

Directions: Connex South East runs a direct line from Victoria to Maidstone East Station, which is directly opposite St. Francis Church.
By road: The M20 – come off at Junction 6. Follow signs to town centre then to Maidstone East station. There is a car park at the station and also two car parks in Brewer Street and one in Wheeler Street, both of which are accessed by Lower Boxley Well road. The shaded areas on the map are pedestrian areas only.

The Helpers ask those unable to join the procession to join them spiritually.

For further information contact:
The Helpers Of God’s Precious Infants, P.O. Box 26601, LONDON, N14 7WH
Telephone: 020 8252 3109 E-mail: info@hgpi.co.uk Web: www.hgpi.co.uk

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Tuesday 23 March 2010

Shameful message from Westminster archdiocese education director

Fr Richard Parsons, parish priest of St. Theresa of the Child Jesus, Headstone Lane, where my wife and I often go to Mass, has shared with me a message he received last weekend from from the office of Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster. Fr Martin Hayes, the archbishop's secretary, wrote that the archbishop has asked Paul Barber, the archdiocese's director of education,
"to assist [the archdiocese's] understanding of issues around the subject of sex and relationship education in Catholic schools".
Mr Barber has written the following:
"There has been much misinformation about this topic put about by sections of the media, some politicians and various organisations. This short e-mail is intended to advise you, as briefly as possible, about the current situation as far as our schools are concerned.

"1. All Catholic schools in the Diocese teach sex and relationship education, and are required to do so in accordance with the teachings of the Church.

"2. There is nothing in the current Bill which will prevent Catholic schools from continiuing to teach sex and relationship education in accordance with the teachings of the Church.

"3. Parents have the right to withdraw their children from sex and relationship education: under the Bill they will continue to have this right until the child reaches 15.

If you would like more information, and see the actual documentation, please go to the Diocesan website:
http://www.rcdow.org.uk/education/default_view.asp?library_ref=8&category_ref=171&content_ref=2716

or the CES website:
http://www.cesew.org.uk/sre

I hope this information is reassuring" [etc.]
I can say that, as a practising Catholic living and worshipping within Westminster archdiocese, Mr Barber's message is certainly not "reassuring". In fact, it is shameful that such misinformation is being disseminated to clergy and parishes in the archbishop's name. Mr Barber's message almost totally ignores the large and growing number of cogent, detailed arguments which have been made by clergy, laity and by concerned expert groups, who have already debunked Mr Barber's scanty assertions. The link to the archdiocesan website provided by Mr Barber claims that:
"[T]he longstanding parental right of withdrawal from sex education is extended to SRE, although it now ends when the child reaches 15 (in accordance with the principles laid down by the House of Lords in the Gillick case)."
But, as I pointed out last night, the Gillick judgment applies to consent to medical treatment, not education. And what is also not pointed out is that schoolchildren will not have any right to withdraw themselves from SRE at any age. The net result of the Catholic authorities' support for the bill will be that, if the bill is passed,
  • abortion, contraception, homosexuality and "a wide range of [sexual] practices" will be promoted and facilitated in schools
  • pupils will forcibly be taught anti-life/anti-family sex education. I can certainly envisage situations where pupils will be taught against their consciences.
In common with the CES's statements, Mr Barber expresses no concern whatsoever about pupils in non-Catholic schools, which includes large numbers of Catholics.

Also in common with the CES's statements, Mr Barber fails to explain or reference "the teachings of the Church". The almost total silence by the Catholic authorities in England and Wales about the Magisterium's key document on sex education, "The truth and meaning of human sexuality", simply increases the impression that those authorities dissent from Catholic teaching in this area.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Monday 22 March 2010

The CES condemns itself from its own mouth

The correspondence below between the Catholic Education Service (CES) and an enquirer has been forwarded to me. Although it dates from November, it is very much applicable to the current situation regarding the Children, Schools and Families (CSF) bill.

Enquirer: "What will happen to Catholic pupils at non-Catholic schools?"
CES: "CESEW does not have authority over pupils at non-Catholic schools, so queries relating to any such schools ought to be directed to DCSF" [JS note: Ed Ball's Department for Children, Schools and Families]
JS comment: This is a shameful comment. Instead of showing concern for Catholic pupils, the CES abandons them to the most pro-abortion and anti-family government in British history.

Enquirer: "What will the sex education be based upon?"
CES: "Ed Balls emphasised that the approach to Sex and Relationships Education (SRE) will be determined by each school’s governing body, and this should be in accordance with the ethos of the school. In the case of Catholic schools, this means that SRE will be taught in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church."
JS comment:
  • There is nothing in the bill which says that Catholic schools will be able to teach SRE "in accordance with the teachings" of the Catholic Church. The government has never used this language; it has always spoken only of the "ethos" of schools and of teaching which "reflect[s] the school's religious character".
  • The CES never explains (at least clearly or adequately) what it means by "the teachings of the Catholic Church" regarding SRE.
  • Many Catholic schools are teaching, facilitating or promoting anti-life/anti-family practices. There is no evidence that the CES is doing anything concrete about it.
  • The bill requires schools to teach SRE according to the principles of "equality", "diversity" and "rights". These concepts are interpreted by the government to mean abortion, homosexuality* and non-marital sexual acts, including contraceptive intercourse. It is the government's interpretation that will have most influence before the courts and with regulatory bodies - which are often all too willing to follow an anti-life/anti-family agenda.
  • The bill requires information presented in SRE to be "accurate" and "balanced". These concepts are interpreted by the government in a way which excludes pro-life facts, such as the physical and psychological damage caused to women by abortion, and the abortion-inducing mode of many birth control drugs and devices.
  • The bill requires that the SRE taught "is appropriate to the ages of the pupils concerned and to their religious and cultural backgrounds". This is interpreted by the government to include exposing primary school children in faith schools to pornographic representations of sexual activity.
Enquirer: "Will pupils be taught about abortion and contraception? If so at what age?"
CES: "The programmes of study are available online: http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/key-stages-1-and-2/subjects/personal_social_and_health_education/keystage1/index.aspx?return=/key-stages-1-and-2/subjects/index.aspx and http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/key-stages-3-and-4/subjects/pshe/index.aspx?return=/key-stages-3-and-4/subjects/index.aspx Whilst pupils will be taught the factual content within these frameworks, in Catholic schools this content will be placed within the context of Church teaching."
JS comment:
  • The answer avoids the question.
  • Again, the CES never explains (at least clearly or adequately) what "within the context of Church teaching" means.
Enquirer: "Will they follow DCSF guidelines?"
CES: "Yes, DCSF guidelines apply to all schools within the state sector."
JS comment:
  • The government's draft SRE guidance is an anti-life/anti-family corncupia, including the promotion and facilitation of abortion, contraception, homosexuality and a "wide range of [sexual] practices".
  • The CES helped draft the guidance and welcomed it as "a positive step forward".
  • In saying that the Catholic state schools will follow the guidance, the CES is going even further than the law, which requires state schools to "have regard" to the guidance.
  • This answer shows that the CES is colluding with the government to promote and even impose the culture of death in Catholic schools.
Enquirer: "How does all of this square with paragraphs 78 and 83 of the Vatican’s Truth and Human Sexuality http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_08121995_human-sexuality_en.html [JS: These paragraphs teach pre-pubescent children should not be exposed to direct sex education.] Is this move announced yesterday [JS note: SRE from age five onwards] not in contradiction with Vatican teaching?"
CES: "Parents continue to have the right to withdraw their children from SRE classes up until the age of 15, thus protecting the important parental rights and duties enshrined in the Pontifical Council for the Family’s teaching document. You will have seen the two statements issued by CESEW (http://www.cesew.org.uk/standardnews.asp?id=8844 and http://www.cesew.org.uk/standardnews.asp?id=8845 and these represent our final position on the above."
JS comment:
  • Why should parents be forced to withdraw their children from school classes? It is Catholic schools who should conform themselves to Catholic teaching instead. The CES is effectively telling Catholic parents to like it or lump it.
  • Neither of the statements cited by the CES explain how the government's plans are compatible with "The truth and meaning of human sexuality", the Magisterium's key document on sex education.
  • The first statement says: "[L]egal encumbrances mean that a blanket right of withdrawal can no longer apply". What this means is that the CES has accepted the government's interpretation of the Gillick judgment. Yet the Gillick judgment doesn't apply to education, only to consent to medical treatment. Isn't it encumbent upon the CES to challenge that interpretation? I suspect that the CES doesn't really mind.
  • The first statement also says: "[W]e are comforted in the knowledge that our schools and colleges will do an exceptional job in providing Sex and Relationships Education, set within the teachings of the Catholic Church." As I've pointed out before, many Catholic schools are doing a bad job, by promoting and facilitating practices contrary to Catholic teaching, teaching which the CES never defines.
  • The second statement says: "We welcome the government’s reiteration of its support for the important principles underlining SRE, which emphasise that schools continue to have the legal right to determine the content of what is taught in PSHE within their schools and that governing bodies retain the right to determine what is taught, and must determine this in line with the ethos of the school." Yet the government has never said that "schools continue to have the legal right to determine the content of what is taught". The bill is clear, and the government has been clear, that schools must teach SRE according to certain principles (which will be interpreted in an anti-life/anti-family sense, see above) and are forbidden from teaching according to other certain principles. The DCSF has made clear that schools will be forbidden to teach (what it regards as) "discrimination" or "suggest that their views are the only valid ones" (DCSF reply, 18 March).
Enquirer: "Will the CES support Catholic schools if they choose to maintain the right of sex-education opt-out from 15? If it will do, how will it be supporting them? What form will the support take?"
CES:  "Such a move would be unlawful and as such we would not be able to support a school that took this approach."
JS comment: The CES is quite content for Catholic schools and Catholic parents to suffer, as long as the law upholds the government's sex education agenda. A truly Catholic education service would instead pursue and be pursuing every legal and other avenue to stop the government's agenda.

In conclusion, the CES has condemned itself out of its own mouth. An education service which prefers to listens to, follow and collude with the most anti-life/anti-family government in British history is not fit for purpose.

*(The reason why the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality is so important for the pro-life cause can be found in Pope John Paul II's Evangelium Vitae. In paragraph 97, Pope John Paul teaches that it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection.)

Saturday 20 March 2010

Another excellent article on government sex ed by Fr Cleevely

On 12 March I recommended to readers an excellent article on the Children, Schools and Families bill by Fr Philip Cleevely of the Birmingham Oratory (pictured). This weekend Fr Cleevely has followed up with a similarly excellent article on the same subject. Below are some key points from it, though do read it in full. This second article is a very good antidote to the recent article in The Times by Bishop Malcolm McMahon, chairman of the Catholic Education Service (CES).

Fr Cleevely writes:
  • "Any similarities between the Bill's approach to PSHE [personal, social and health education] and some fundamental teachings of the Church are illusory. Under the surface momentous threats to Catholic education remain."
  • "In PSHE, the two most influential buzz-words are 'diversity' and 'social cohesion'."
  • "'Respecting human diversity', for example, means opposing prejudice towards minorities; in PSHE, the most important minority is of course the 'gay community'. Thus the Bill insists Catholic schools must teach that civil partnerships are 'stable relationships' analagous to marriage."*
  • "Bullying, often wheeled out in this debate, is a smokescreen. Of course the Church opposes bullying. And of course she opposes 'homophobia' - if this means hating people identified as 'gay'. But 'homophobia', in our society, means a lot more than that."
  • "'Social cohesion' in PSHE means signing up to the Government's demoralised, fatalistic agenda of using 'facts' (abortion) and 'responsibility' (contraception) to reduce teenage ('unwanted') pregnancies. Education in chastity thus goes out the window."
  • "For the Church to fall in with the State's agenda under cover of bogus 'theological' justifications would be disastrously misconceived. Catholics promoting 'diversity' and 'social cohesion' in our schools must think again."
*(The reason why the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality is so important for the pro-life cause can be found in Pope John Paul II's Evangelium Vitae. In paragraph 97, Pope John Paul teaches that it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection.)

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Friday 19 March 2010

Armchair moralising undermines child protection

Quentin de la Bedoyere's portrait of his hands
Quentin de la Bedoyere, who authors a weekly column on ethical and other issues in The Catholic Herald, wrote a feature article for last weekend's Herald which he says that, under the Children, Schools and Families (CSF) bill, Catholic schools
"will remain entirely free to teach full Catholic doctrine".
I have addressed the fallacy of that argument many times in recent blog-posts. Instead I wish to turn readers' attention to the background of Mr de la Bedoyere's article. (I do so in my capacity as a Catholic pro-lifer.)

Mr de la Bedoyere wrote:
  • "[A] new educational approach will bring its own advantage" 
  • "[A] Catholic school ... must also evaluate, with scrupulous fairness, the opposing arguments."
  • "[T]here are alternative views which others hold, and are entitled to hold, even though we may believe them to be mistaken."
Mr de la Bedoyere's idea of education is this area seems remarkably similar to the "values clarification" method, which (as even its inventor now admits and regrets) was invented to eradicate from education any concept of right and wrong, such as the wrongness of abortion or of particular sexual practices.

No one is "entitled to hold" that abortion - the intentional killing of an innocent human being -  is morally permissible. Nor are Catholic schools morally permitted to present arguments in favour of abortion, contraception and homosexuality as if those arguments are equally as valid as pro-life/pro-family values.

Mr de la Bedoyere claims that:
"[T]each[ing] them the facts on contraception ... is general knowledge, not advocacy of a way of life." 
That is only true if the Church's teaching on sexuality is taught, not as general knowledge, but advocated as a way of life - indeed more than that: as a truth to be believed, with an obligation to practice it.

Mr de la Bedoyere asks:
"Do we really put such little trust in our ability to present the Church’s good or in our young’s ability to recognise it? And, if so, what have we been doing as parents?"
The answer is that many Catholic bishops and Catholic schools do not present (or present an erroneous or debased version of) the Church's teaching on pro-life/pro-family issues, and therefore the ability of Catholic pupils and their parents to recognise it is frequently thwarted.

And Mr de la Bedoyere is really plumbing the depths of naivety when he writes about the CSF bill:
  • "There is nothing to lose" 
  • "[W]e can insist that secular schools give an equally balanced account of our views"
  • "[W]e may hope that our judges still remain even handed".
But we don't have to go far to find that Mr de le Bedoyere's ideas about the Church and Catholic doctrine are, shall we say, somewhat unusual:
  • "The history of the Church and sexuality is not edifying." (blog)
  • "[T]he Church appears not to offer, either officially or pastorally, good teaching on the formation of conscience" (blog)
  • "[B]ullying a gay person on the grounds of orientation or lifestyle is a sin against love far greater than any which might be imputed against homosexual acts." (blog)
  • "The ultimate result [of Humanae Vitae] has been high lapsation, few vocations, decreasing Catholic marriage, and abandonment of Confession as a regular sacrament. I would not excuse people for doing this, but I would suggest that the Magisterium has made a big contribution to this sorry situation." (blog)
  • "[T]he Church’s teaching on contraception applies only to marriage" (blog) and "[The Church] makes no statement about the use of contraceptives outside marriage; and that would equally apply to homosexual acts." (blog)
Mr de la Bedoyere's claim (above) about "bullying a gay person on the grounds of orientation or lifestyle" simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Even if it may be held that such bullying is driven by anger and hatred and is therefore a mortal sin, homosexual acts are also mortal sins (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2357). It is therfore false that such bullying is "a sin against love far greater than any which might be imputed against homosexual acts." [my emphasis]

Mr de la Bedoyere's last claim (above) - that the Church is silent on the use of contraceptives outside marriage - is simply wrong as a matter of historical fact. Here are some teachings from Church authorities throughout the centuries (my emphases in bold): 
  • St John Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church, A.D. 390, referring to men who use prostitutes: "Why do you sow [w]here there are medicines of sterility? ... [F]or she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God, and fight with His laws? What is a curse, do you seek as if it were a blessing?" Professor John T. Noonan, author of a famous history of Catholic teaching on contraception, has written about this sermon: "[T]he reason given for condemning contraception is equally applicable whether contraception occurs in fornication or in marriage."
  • St Augustine, Doctor of the Church, A.D. 419: "[I]f he does not control himself, let him enter into lawful wedlock, so that he may not beget children in disgrace or avoid having offspring by a more degraded form of intercourse." (De Conjugiis Adulterinis 2, 12; CSEL 41, 396)
  • St Jerome, Doctor of the Church, A.D. 384: "I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall...Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness." (letter 22 to Eustochium)
  • Second Council of Braga, A.D. 572 : "If any woman...contrives to make sure she does not conceive, either in adultery or in legitimate intercourse...such women and their accomplices in these crimes shall do penance for ten years. (Canon 77; Mansi IX, 858).
  • Decretals of Burchard, an influential collection of canon law, A.D. 1020: "Have you done what some women are accustomed to doing when they fornicate...if they have not yet conceived they contrive not to conceive? If you have done so, or consented to this, or taught it, you must do penance for ten years on legal ferial days." (num. 19; PL 140, 972)
  • Holy Office (now known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), answer, 1853: "[C]ondomistic copulation [is] a thing intrinsically evil." (Enchiridion Symbolorum Definionum et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum n.2795, Q.2 and ad 2. ed H. Denzinger, A Schonmetzer, Romae, 1974)
  • The bishops of France, November 1968, pastoral note on Humanae Vitae: "Contraception can never be a good. It is always a disorder..."
  • The bishops of the United States, 1976: "In contraceptive intercourse the procreative or life-giving meaning is deliberately separated from its love-giving meaning and rejected; the wrongness of such an act lies in the rejection of this value." In other words, contraception is wrong in itself, not only in the context of marriage.
    Some Catholic scholars or writers who agree that the contraception outside marriage is wrong, including in the light of the Church's teaching, are:
    In short, the use of contraception in non-marital acts is an aggravation of the principle sin which is non-marital sexual acts.

    May I suggest that the Catholic Herald replaces Mr de la Bedoyere with someone who actually understands, upholds and promotes Catholic teaching on pro-life/pro-family issues? His armchair moralising undermines the protection of both born and unborn children.

    Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
    Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
    Follow SPUC on Twitter
    Join SPUC's Facebook group
    Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

    Thursday 18 March 2010

    Petition against anti-life sex ed closes 25 March, please sign and promote today

    I'm advised that the excellent petition, "Against Government-led Sex Education in Catholic Schools", will close for signatures on 25 March, the feast of the Annunciation (pictured). If you are a resident of England and Wales, please sign it (if you haven't done so already) and urge other residents of England and Wales to sign it. It's addressed to the Catholic bishops of England and Wales and says:
    We, the undersigned, call upon the Bishops of England and Wales and the Catholic Education Service to fulfil their duty as guardians of our Catholic Faith and unequivocally reject recent Government measures forcing Catholic schools to teach what is explicitly condemned by the Church, viz: presenting active homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle, and providing information on the nature - and provision - of contraception and abortion services. Compliance on the part of the Bishops and the CES in such measures would effectively render our schools no longer Catholic in any meaningful sense, and would place the faith and moral life of our children in jeopardy. As Catholic parents, teachers and pastors, we earnestly beg of you, our Shepherds in Christ, that you do not allow this to happen.
    Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
    Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
    Follow SPUC on Twitter
    Join SPUC's Facebook group
    Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

    Tuesday 16 March 2010

    Don't trust the government with sex ed plans

    Baroness Morgan, schools minister in the House of Lords, has answered the following question from Lord (David) Alton:
    Lord Alton: "To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Children, Schools and Families Bill will place a requirement on Catholic, Jewish, Anglican and Muslim voluntary aided schools to provide children with details of abortion clinics and abortion referral agencies."

    Baroness Morgan: "It will not. Schools will have to teach their pupils where and how to obtain health information. They will also be encouraged to teach their pupils how to access information about contraception and sexual health as part of their delivery of SRE, but whether and how they do that will be at their discretion."
    I have two reactions to Baroness Morgan's answer:
    (1) it is internally contradictory
    (2) you can't trust this anti-life/anti-family government.

    The government interprets "health information" to include information on how to use and where to access abortion and contraception. For example, it is clear from the government's' "strategy for children and young people's health" entitled "Healthy lives, brighter future" that the government believes that information about contraception is essential health information for children.

    Another example is the Department for International Development's 2004 paper on sexual and reproductive health and rights says (my emphases in bold):
    • "Sexual and reproductive health is an essential element of good health and human development"
    • "[P]eople’s sexual and reproductive health needs are rights that they are entitled to demand"
    • "Specific rights relevant to sexual and reproductive health [include][r]ight of accesss to information"
    • "Comprehensive sexual and reproductive services aim to provide: [e]ducation and information
      on all aspects of sexual and reproductive health ... safe abortion services where legal .... contraceptives, condoms..."
    So what the government appears to give with one hand, it takes away with the other. This tactic is commonly used by Communist China. Every so often, government officials make statements, disseminated in the Western media and intended for foreign consumption, which suggest that the regime is relaxing or reforming the one-child policy in some way. These statements are soon followed by other statements, not so widely reported in the Western media and intended for domestic consumption, making clear that not only is the one-child policy not being relaxed or reformed, but that it is to be more strictly enforced. The British government (which is complicit in the one-child policy) is using the same manipulative tactics with regard to its sex education plans. Baroness Morgan's replying to Lord Alton is propaganda for its external critics, viz., Catholics, pro-lifers, conservative critics of its teenage pregnancy strategy. Ed Balls' comments to the Today programme is the reality clarified for the Labour government's natural supporters viz., secular humanists, who had been confused by the goverment's smokescreen concession (sic) to the Catholic Education Service (CES).

    Bishop Malcolm McMahon, the CES's chairman, has replied to a critic of the CES, saying:
    "The Catholic Education Service which I chair has been working very hard to secure the rights of parents and school governors as the Children, Schools and Families Bill passes through Parliament. There is no question of the CES colluding with the Government."
    Really? As the bill has been passing through parliament, Oona Stannard, chief executive and director of the CES, has been been both helping draft and welcoming (as "a positive step forward") the government's draft sex education guidance, which is a veritable cornucopia of anti-life/anti-family ideas and practices.

    The lesson from history applicable in this case were learnt by the Papacy last century. The Nazi regime began to violate the terms of the concordat between Germany and the Holy See as soon as it had been signed. This moved Pope Pius XI to write:
    "[I]it will be every one's duty to sever his responsibility from the opposite camp, and free his conscience from guilty cooperation with such corruption. The more the enemies attempt to disguise their designs, the more a distrustful vigilance will be needed, in the light of bitter experience."
    Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
    Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
    Follow SPUC on Twitter
    Join SPUC's Facebook group
    Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

    Friday 12 March 2010

    Excellent article from priest on sex ed in Catholic schools

    Fr Philip Cleevely (pictured) of the Birmingham Oratory has written an excellent article on the Children, Schools and Families bill, particularly the situation vis-a-vis Catholic schools. Below is a paraphrase of Fr Cleevely's article:

    The government reportedly made concessions on school-based sex education in its Children, Schools and Families bill. The amendment says that a Catholic school may teach sex education "in a way that reflects the school's religious character." However, while a Catholic school may convey church teaching, the bill would require it also to teach what the government told it to teach about sex and sexuality.

    Mr Ed Balls, secretary of state for children, schools and families, says this teaching would include "how to access contraception [and] how to use contraception" and "[explaining] civil partnership" in a way which shows "that there are different views on homosexuality". They include "a balanced view on abortion, [giving] both sides of the argument, and [explaining] how to access an abortion."

    This is like requiring schools to teach why racism can be thought morally acceptable and telling children where they can get racist literature, attend racist meetings, join a racist political party and put racism into practice on the streets. Many teachers would have a conscientious objection to giving such information, just as good Catholic teachers would refuse to tell pupils how to obtain birth control and abortion.

    Only the Catholic church consistently teaches the wrongness of contraception, homosexuality and abortion. What is at stake is the church's right, in her own schools, to continue to do so, free from state censorship and control. If the amendment to the Children, Schools and Families bill was an attempt to win the Catholic vote, Catholics will soon have an opportunity - indeed a duty - to demonstrate that it has failed.

    Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
    Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
    Follow SPUC on Twitter
    Join SPUC's Facebook group
    Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

    Thursday 11 March 2010

    Lobby to keep anti-life sex ed out of this parliament and the next

    On Monday 8 March the Children, Schools and Families bill was debated in the House of Lords at second reading. As per parliamentary convention, no vote was taken on the bill and the bill now awaits debate in committee. The imminent general election - almost certainly 6 May - means that the bill might not be debated again in this parliament. However, the bill should not be regarded as dead. The bill could be rushed through in the clearing-up procedure by which bills can pass through several readings in a matter of minutes, prior to an election. It is therefore vital that SPUC supporters continue to lobby. At this point, we would ask you to write to (1) The party leaders - especially Gordon Brown and David Cameron and (2) key peers (see below).
    Please urge the government members not to attempt to force the bill through without proper consideration. 

    Please urge the opposition to maintain their strong resistance to the bill. Thankfully, the Conservative opposition has tabled motions regarding the bill which, while not directly relevant to pro-life issues, will nonetheless help to delay and therefore obstruct the bill's progress.

    Even if the bill goes no further in this Parliament, soon after the general election legislation on education will be introduced into the new parliament, regardless of which party heads the government. If the Labour party are re-elected, either with a majority or as the single largest party in a hung parliament, then the bill, or the sex education part of the bill, will probably be resurrected. Alternatively, the Conservative opposition have pledged, if elected, to introduce their own education bill within weeks of the election. There will be intense pressure by anti-life groups and bureaucrats to continue with the government's anti-life sex education plans. These include the draft sex education guidance from the department of children, schools and families (see SPUC's briefing
    Therefore, please write to:
    • Government peers: Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Leader of the House), Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Deputy Leader of the House), Lord Bassam of Brighton (Chief Whip), Lord Davies of Oldham (Deputy Chief Whip), Lord Brett, Baroness Crawley, Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, Baroness Thornton, Lord Tunnicliffe, Lord Young of Norwood Green. 
    • Opposition peers: Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Chief Whip), Baroness Seccombe (Deputy Chief Whip), Lord Luke, Viscount Bridgeman, Lord Astor of Hever, The Duke of Montrose, Baroness Morris of Bolton, Lord De Mauley, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, Baroness Verma, Earl Cathcart, Earl Attlee, Lord Bates, Lord Marland, Baroness Warsi, Earl Howe, Lord McColl of Dulwich.
    • Crossbench peers: Baroness Cox, Lord Alton
    You can find email addresses for Lords via http://www.spuc.org.uk/lobbying/email/email (Please SPUC know if you experience any problems using this list).
    • Rt Hon Gordon Brown, the prime minister, at 10 Downing Street, London, SW1A 2AA
    • Rt Hon David Cameron, the Conservative opposition leader, at House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA. You can also email him at david.cameron@conservatives.com
    Please forward any replies you receive to SPUC by:
    More information can be found in:
    Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
    Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
    Follow SPUC on Twitter
    Join SPUC's Facebook group
    Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

    Wednesday 10 March 2010

    Girls are told to taste flavoured condoms in Catholic London school

    In her letter to the Catholic Herald last Sunday, Oona Stannard, the chief executive and director of the Catholic Education Service for England and Wales, says:
    "Catholic schools uphold the teachings of the Church in all that they do."
    I feel compelled to ask the question: What planet does Ms Stannard live on?

    May I hereby invite her to visit my part of the planet - which, during the day, is SPUC's office in Kennington, London, SE11 4AB. She will quickly discover that a good part of my time is spent dealing with the constant concerns of parents and teachers about the provision to their children of inappropriate, often arguably abusive "sex education" in schools which are advertised as Catholic. This includes the provision of information about how to access abortion and contraception.

    It also includes teaching young girls how to put a condom on a life-size model of a penis - at Sacred Heart School, Hammersmith. I have received this information from more than one source. The girls were told to taste the condoms, which were all of different flavours. How, may I ask, does this fulfil the mission statement of the Sacred Heart school?

    May I urge Catholics among my readers to join me in praying a traditional Act of Reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, in reparation for what has been happening at Sacred Heart School, Hammersmith? The prayer says, among other things:
    "[W]e are determined to make amends for the manifold offenses against Christian modesty in unbecoming dress and behaviour, for all the foul seductions laid to ensnare the feet of the innocent...."
    In this connection my blog visitors may like to sign to an excellent petition "Against Government-led Sex Education in Catholic Schools" - and to urge others to do so. It's addressed to the Catholic bishops of England and Wales and says:
    We, the undersigned, call upon the Bishops of England and Wales and the Catholic Education Service to fulfil their duty as guardians of our Catholic Faith and unequivocally reject recent Government measures forcing Catholic schools to teach what is explicitly condemned by the Church, viz: presenting active homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle, and providing information on the nature - and provision - of contraception and abortion services. Compliance on the part of the Bishops and the CES in such measures would effectively render our schools no longer Catholic in any meaningful sense, and would place the faith and moral life of our children in jeopardy. As Catholic parents, teachers and pastors, we earnestly beg of you, our Shepherds in Christ, that you do not allow this to happen.
    I have frequently blogged about the co-operation of the bishops and the Catholic Education Service with government measures on sex and relationships education - and the government has welcomed Archbishop Nichols's support for the government's terrible legislative proposals.

    Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
    Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
    Follow SPUC on Twitter
    Join SPUC's Facebook group
    Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

    Tuesday 9 March 2010

    Government's latest intervention in education system will harm children's welfare

    Last night the House of Lords debated the Children, Schools and Families bill at second reading. The bill threatens to impose pro-abortion and anti-family sex education on all state-funded schools. As per parliamentary convention, there was no vote. The bill now awaits any further parliamentary time available.

    Paul Tully, SPUC's general secretary, told the media this afternoon:
    "The government has an appalling record on the protection of both born and unborn children. Its constant promotion of abortion, especially secret abortions on schoolgirls without parental knowledge or consent, shows the contempt in which it holds human life in the womb and the family. The Children, Schools and Families bill takes fundamental rights aways from parents and schools, and gives them instead to government bureaucrats doing the pro-abortion lobby's bidding.

    "Last night the government said that 'All schools will still be under a duty to comply with the [bill's] principles regarding accuracy, balance and diversity' (Baroness Morgan). We know that the government's definition of accuracy means denying the physical and psychological damage can abortion can cause and the abortion-inducing mode of many birth control drugs and devices. The government is also in chronic denial about the failure of classroom sex education to assuage premature sexual activity and abortions among teenagers.

    "We congratulate the Conservative front-bench for its opposition to the bill, for standing up for the rights of parents and schools, and for exposing the government's appalling record.* We call upon the Conservatives not to let the bill, in part or as a whole, to proceed any further in the current parliament."
    * Lord Bates, speaking for the Opposition said last night:
    "We have had some 30 years of believing that, if only you provide an education for people and tell them about conception and the alternatives to abortion, then, basically you would solve this problem—education is the answer in these areas. We beg to differ, because the numbers beg to differ ... If the answer was simply more education, surely the trend ought to be heading in the other direction .... Good legislation recognises the importance of the parent in the raising of their children, which places an emphasis on morality and on character, which trusts parents and school governors ... [A]llowing parents, teachers and governing bodies to interpret that in their own setting would seem to be the best way forward."
    Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
    Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
    Follow SPUC on Twitter
    Join SPUC's Facebook group
    Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy