The Catholic Church does not support the government's sex ed plans

The Teenage Pregnancy Independent Advisory Group (TPIAG), a government-established pro-abortion quango, has claimed in its latest report that:

"TPIAG commends the Government for its decision to make PSHE education, including SRE, statutory at all key stages .... We are very pleased that Church of England and Catholic Church are also supporting this move." [my emphasis]

The TPIAG is undoubtedly referring to the general  - and disgraceful - support given by the Catholic Education Service (CES) of England and Wales to the government's proposals, contained in the Children, Schools and Families (CSF) bill. The CES, however, does not comprise the Catholic Church: it is an organ of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales (CBCEW). Whilst it is understandable that a bishops' conference and its organs seek to speak for and on behalf of the Catholic Church, it may be illuminating to read what Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) said whilst Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

"We must not forget that the episcopal conferences have no theological basis, they do not belong to the structure of the Church, as willed by Christ, that cannot be eliminated ... No episcopal conference, as such, has a teaching mission: its documents have no weight of their own save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops."

Among the government's proposals is, as the TPIAG report explains, the teaching of sex and relationships education (SRE) from the start of primary school (key stage one, ages five to seven) onwards. In contrast, the Catholic Church's key teaching document on sex education, The truth and meaning of human sexuality: guidelines for education within the family (Pontifical Council for the Family, 1995), teaches that:

• "[P]rudent formation in chaste love during this period [before puberty] should be indirect..."
• "In some societies today, there are planned and determined attempts to impose premature sex information on children. But, at this stage of development, children are still not capable of fully understanding the value of the affective dimension of sexuality. They cannot understand and control sexual imagery within the proper context of moral principles and, for this reason, they cannot integrate premature sexual information with moral responsibility. Such information tends to shatter their emotional and educational development and to disturb the natural serenity of this period of life. Parents should politely but firmly exclude any attempts to violate children's innocence because such attempts compromise the spiritual, moral and emotional development of growing persons who have a right to their innocence."
  
• "Homosexuality should not be discussed before adolescence unless a specific serious problem has arisen in a particular situation."
• "As regards sterilization and contraception, these should not be discussed before adolescence..."

On this point (of pre-pubescent sex education) and on other points which I have blogged about recently, it is clear that the government's proposals, and the CES's general support for them, are contrary to Catholic teaching.

There can be no doubt the government will use the bill, if passed, to promote abortion in schools. The bill's principles will be used to ensure that pro-abortion propaganda dominates the content of sex education. Schoolgirls will be told that they have a right to abortion, that abortion is virtually harmless and that pro-abortion agencies provide good sexual health services. 'Equality' and 'diversity' will be used to suppress opposition to abortion. The abolition of parents' right to withdraw older children from sex education classes will ensure that no child leaves state schooling without having been brainwashed with an pro-abortion mentality.

It is therefore imperative that Catholics put the record straight by speaking out against the government's plans so disgracefully supported by the CES.

(Image source: http://malpighi.altervista.org/appelloeducazione )

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

Humans, not dolphins, have rights needing to be upheld

Some scientists are calling for dolphins to be given the same respect as humans, on account of their supposedly relatively high intelligence. The scientists claim that dolphins are more intelligent than chimpanzees, based on brain size and behavioural observations. There is a push by anti-life academics such as Peter Singer and Richard Dawkins to accord human-style rights to chimpanzees and other apes.

Let us look, however, at the differences between humans and animals. Dr Armand Leroi, an evolutionary biologist at Imperial College London, has said that, although the genes of humans and chimpanzees are

"pretty much the same"

humans are

"so much better at imitation, language and culture ... [P]rimates simply don't have the social skills we humans take for granted."

Dr Leroi cited behavioural observation experiments at the Max Planck Institute in Berlin, which found that chimpanzees

"can't understand the intentions of [human] adults. Human children, by contrast, are naturally very good at understanding the intentions of others."

Dr Leroi interviewed a psychologist who has used Shakespeare's Othello as a key to understanding human interaction. The psychologist said that

"chimpanzee[s] could never understand a play by Shakespeare, even if they could understand language. Their minds are limited to second-order intentionality at best, which means they simply couldn't even follow the plot."

Dr Leroi concludes that:

"We alone among the animals can step beyond our biology. Perhaps it is this that truly makes us human."

The proposal to accord personhood status to dolphins and apes takes animal welfare into the realms of rights. This runs contrary to the widely-held beliefs that animals are not persons and that only persons are capable of possessing rights. Indeed, permission for abortion, embryo experimentation and (in certain cases) euthanasia is often predicated on the erroneous belief that unborn children and the severely mentally incapacitated are not persons.

The proper treatment of animals is a legitimate concern. We need to treat all aspects of our world responsibly, and it's wrong to abuse any creature even if it's not human. It would be a tragic irony if society affords extra dignity to dolphins and apes while continuing to deprive some of its most vulnerable human inhabitants of every possible dignity by killing them in abortion, embryo experimentation and euthanasia.

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

Filipino bishops' conference leads the way with pro-life election catechism

The Episcopal Commission on Family and Life of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines have issued a particularly solid "Catechism on Family and Life" for this year's elections in the Philippines. Here are some key points from the catechism:

• "The Church has the duty to teach Catholics about the importance of taking their Faith with them in all their endeavors, including voting."
• "[T]he dignity of the human person and the sacredness of human life...are at the very core of the Catholic moral and social teaching. Because we are people of both faith and reason, it is appropriate and necessary for us to bring this essential truth about human life and dignity to the public square. Church authorities exercise their teaching function also by reminding Catholic civil leaders of their moral obligations, especially in matters related to family and life."
• "Our manner of active involvement in the democratic process means that we will use the power of the vote, as citizens of the Republic, to elect political leaders who will uphold and promote the dignity of human life and the sanctity of family and marriage."
• "[A]bortion is always a most violent, unjust and inhumane act committed against the most harmless, defenseless, and weakest member of our society –the baby– and committed by those who have the greatest duty to care for, love and defend him or her most –the mother, father, doctors and other health care professionals."
• "[R]esponsible parenthood has nothing to do with encouraging individuals to use contraceptives as what reproductive health programs do."
• "[C]ontraception makes the conjugal act a lie. It expresses not a total love, but rather a merely conditional or partial love."
• "[R]eproductive health necessarily presupposes access to contraception and abortion."
• "[T]he Reproductive Health bill (House Bill 5043), which carries the same definition of reproductive health, will penalize with one to six months imprisonment, and/or 10-50 thousand pesos fine, parents who for example prevent their grade school and high school children from using contraceptives, and having satisfying and safe sex."

I blogged in August about the Reproductive Health bill. I also blogged in September on the speech of Kit & Fenny Tatad, senior Filipino pro-life figures, to SPUC's annual national conference.

I give thanks to the good Lord that the Philippines has such strong voices in defence of life and family, especially in the lead-up to elections. I hope that the bishops of England and Wales will speak out with equal strength and clarity before this year's UK general election.

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