A blog launched on the 41st anniversary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the first pro-life organisation in the world, established on 11 January 1967. I wrote this blog in my role as SPUC's chief executive, commenting on pro-life news, reflecting on pro-life issues and promoting SPUC's work. I retired from my post on 31st August 2021 and will therefore be adding no further posts.
The prayers of people of all faiths are greatly needed in Britain as we continue our fight against the sex and relationships proposals in the government's Children Schools and Families bill. Ed Balls, the Secretary of State for Children Schools and Families, made clear this week that one of the purposes of the Bill is that in all schools, including faith schools, schoolchildren must have access to abortion. This is, arguably, the greatest advance in the culture of death in Britain since the passage of the Abortion Act in 1967. The Government's bill is being given the general support of the Catholic Education Service, an agency of the Catholic bishops of England and Wales.
I'm pleased to draw the attention of Catholic visitors to the events below in London next month. For Catholics, Our Lady of Guadalupe has a special role as patroness of the unborn. I hope that as many as possible to pray for our children, our country and, as a Catholic myself, for our bishops at this critical time.
SPUC has threatened the health department in Northern Ireland with further legal action following its decision to re-issue an edited version of the abortion guidance deemed unlawful by the high court last year.
Our solicitors have written to the health minister notifying him that the Society will seek a second judicial review if the guidance is not withdrawn. We argue that the High Court identified serious flaws in the way the guidance dealt with counselling for women and the right of doctors not to participate in abortions. Lord Justice Girvan, who rejected a request to allow an edited version to remain in operation, ordered the department to withdraw the guidance in full.
The letter from our lawyers describes the department's latest move as "irrational or perverse".
Liam Gibson of SPUC Northern Ireland told the media this morning:
"It’s simply irrational and perverse for the department of health to re-issue its guidance on abortion law without giving any weight to the High Court's findings. It was clear from Lord Justice Girvan’s judgement on 30 November that the guidance ought to be withdrawn as a whole, not just in part. Any doubt about this was removed on 14 December when the judge rejected the department's request merely to cut two sections from the document. The judge accepted SPUC's argument that the guidance was not made up of hermetically-sealed sections but the issues it dealt with were inter-related.
"Allowing the re-issued guidance to stand could be seriously misleading and might result in grave injustices taking place. It could suggest that there is no right of non-participation in abortion, that counselling is unimportant, or that there is no guidance which can usefully be given on either of these matters.
"SPUC is calling on the department to withdraw the guidance immediately. We are prepared to go back to court to make sure that it is withdrawn."
Peter Smith (pictured), archbishop of Cardiff, who speaks on pro-life matters on behalf of the Catholic bishops of England and Wales, has said today that he "welcome[s]" new guidelines on assisted suicide published today by Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions (DPP). Archbishop Smith highlighted positive changes in the guidelines and made no mention of any negative aspects.
Paul Tully of SPUC Pro-Life, which was officially represented before the courts in the Debbie Purdy case, told the media this evening:
"Archbishop Smith's comments are very disturbing. It seems he may be suggesting that disabled people are better protected now than they were before the interim guidelines issued last September.
"While today's final guidelines certainly appear to have eliminated some of the worst aspects of the interim guidelines, today's guidelines retain many damaging elements. Today's guidelines fail to mention relevant factors from the general Code for Crown Prosecutors, which tells prosecutors that a victim's disability or vulnerability are factors that should weigh in favour of a prosecution. The element of implicit discrimination is more subtle, but it is still there.
"Furthermore, today's guidelines still represent a significant shift towards judging the suspect's motive ("compassion") in committing the crime, rather than his/her intention (to help cause death). This shift clearly undermines the protection that the law affords to those who might commit suicide, and leaves prosecutors with a very difficult task, when faced with relatives who claim to be grief-stricken by the death of someone they loved, but helped to commit suicide."
As I mentioned last week, Archbishop Smith, on behalf of the bishops' conference, publicly opposed SPUC's campaign on the pro-euthanasia Mental Capacity bill (now Act), welcomed the bill, accepted the government's assurances on the bill, and co-operated with the government in ensuring its passage through parliament. The Act enshrines in statute law euthanasia by neglect.
New guidelines published today by Keir Starmer (pictured), the director of public prosecutions (DPP) blunt the law against assisted suicide.
Paul Tully of SPUC Pro-Life, which was officially represented before the courts in the Debbie Purdy case, told the media this morning:
"It is not credible for Keir Starmer to claim that he has not relaxed prosecuting policy on assisted suicide. The new policy effectively decriminalises assisted suicide in a wide range of circumstances.
"Assisting suicide is wrong in itself, not merely because there may be coercion or ulterior motives involved. The intentional killing of the innocent is always wrong.
"Mr Starmer has said today: 'The case of Purdy did not change the law, nor does this Policy, and suggestions to the contrary are simply wrong.' Mr Starmer cannot make this true just by saying it. He must demonstrate his determination to bring prosecutions that euthanasia-sympathisers in the media will dislike. Such prosecutions will be used to generate vitriol against him by the euthanasia lobby in the BBC and other media and in the judiciary. We saw this in the recent case of Lynn Gilderdale and Mr Justice Bean.
"The focus on motivation (why the suspect assisted a suicide) rather than intention (the suspect's deliberate will to assist the suicide) is a radical departure from the rule of law. The 'victim’s wish to die' is the most significant factor now in the guidelines. It undermines the law, and is the main concession that the euthanasia lobby was seeking. It makes assisted suicide very different from other serious crimes against the person, where consent to becoming a victim is not accepted either as a defence in court or as a factor against prosecution.
"The fact that references to disability have been eliminated will be something of a relief to disabled people and their families, and this eliminates one of the anomalies between this offence-specific code and the general code for Crown Prosecutors. However, the disabled and chronically ill remain the most likely victims of this weakening of the right to life."
The Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales (CBCEW) issued earlier this month a draft document: “A practical guide to the spiritual care of the dying person”. They have invited comments, to be submitted by Friday 26th February - by email to asta.radziunaite@cbcew.org.uk
I think that the guidance has many good points in it, but it also raises serious concerns because of its very strong promotion of the controversial Liverpool Care Pathway.
Even before the document gets started, it brings up the Liverpool Care Pathway and in a totally uncritical way presents it as the optimum way of caring for the dying. There is passing mention of hospices, but the Pathway has centre stage here.
I think it is a mistake to endorse it so strongly and unreservedly.
Like so many aspects of medical care today, the Pathway has become something of a political totem – the vehicle by which the Department of Health can claim it is advancing palliative care without the investment of building or supporting more hospices. The fact that it could be said to be championing a bargain basement kind of palliative care makes it a questionable move.
When patients are put on the Pathway, care is managed by ticking boxes, meaning less attention may be given to patients’ personal needs. The Pathway has been strongly criticised by experts like geriatrician Professor Peter Millard and others who have noted instances of improper use.
Many have pointed out that the Pathway amounts to ‘tick-box’ medicine, when individualised care is needed in the final stages of life.
Putting the Pathway into action depends on a diagnosis that death is approaching and that the person has begun “the dying phase”. This can be a difficult call, even for palliative specialists. Some versions of the Pathway give this task to a multidisciplinary team, none of whom may be experts in the final stages of life. How accurate are these decisions? And this is a critical decision. For most patients once a diagnosis of being in the dying phase has been made, the Pathway leads inexorably to death. In a few cases, reassessment leads to the pathway being abandoned. By suggesting tacitly that food and fluid may be withheld there is a risk that it may lead to terminal sedation – a practice now widely recognised as hastening death.
Elderly patients, or those with brain injuries or stroke and others may need to receive food and fluids by tube either temporarily or for a more extended time. This doesn’t always mean they are dying, but they are dependent on a tube for food and fluids. The bishops refer to this as clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH). It is critical that nurses and doctors as well as relatives should have good care in such situations, and the Pathway could be a serious threat to such patients.
But the guidance document confuses the issue. At one point it says that CANH is not a medical treatment – at least, not like most other treatments.
But what about patients who decline medical treatment by a living will? The bishops' guidance says that patients have a legal right to refuse CANH, and for this purpose, it counts as a treatment. If that’s the case, a living will which says “I don’t want any medical treatment, just keep me comfortable,” could lead to a person being starved to death. This issue is not specifically canvassed in the bishops' document, but it is only a short step from what the document says to endorsing passive euthanasia.
The bishops’ document has a lot to say about medical, as opposed to spiritual, care. No doubt doctors were prominent in drafting it. When it comes to spiritual issues, however, some Catholics have spoken to me highly of it, and others have noted a weakness in the way the sacraments are treated.
Section 1.5.11 (about praying with patients) seems to suggest that hoping or praying for a person’s conversion would be wrong, which seems a very weak position to take – especially in view of the Caroline Petrie case – the nurse vindicated after offering to pray with a patient. Putting undue pressure on a person would be wrong of course, but praying for patients is surely right. I’ll certainly pray for the bishops’ conversion over the points I’ve mentioned above.
Following last night's Commons vote for the government's sex education bill, the Catholic Education Service (CES) has issued a statement. The statement effectively repeats its endorsement of the government's worthless amendment on faith schools, and adds:
"The teaching of all aspects of the curriculum in Catholic schools reflects their religious ethos. In the same way, the SRE in Catholic schools will be rooted in the Catholic Church’s teaching of the profound respect for the dignity of all human persons."
Neither sentence is true. The first statement,
"The teaching of all aspects of the curriculum in Catholic schools reflects their religious ethos"
would be laughable if its deceitfulness was not a matter of the gravest scandal. This CES claim was debunked by the government itself in a departmental media release last week. The release cited St Thomas More school, Bedford, as a good example of how Catholic schools are already facilitating abortion and contraception, in line with the government's demands.
The government's draft SRE guidance - which the CES both welcomed and helped draft - recommends "All that I am", the sex education programme started by the archdiocese of Birmingham under Vincent Nichols, then CES chairman and now archbishop of Westminster. Fr John Fleming, SPUC's bioethical consultant, tells me that:
"The content of the Birmingham programme in relation to homosexuality* is difficult to reconcile with the fullness of Catholic moral teaching."
In 2006, Mac McLernon, a teacher at a Catholic comprehensive school for boys and girls in Kent, spoke out publicly against the sex education given to her class of 13- to 14-year-old children. Not only were the children given obscene lessons in how to use condoms, but they were given the clearest possible instructions on how to access abortion and contraception.
The CES's claim reminds me of a similar (and similarly fictitious) claim made in 2005 by Dr Austen Ivereigh, then director of public affairs to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, in a letter to The Catholic Herald:
"[T]here is no Catholic school in Britain, joint or otherwise, in which Catholic children are being taught less than the Catholic faith in its integrity."
The other sentence from last night's CES statement
"the SRE in Catholic schools will be rooted in the Catholic Church’s teaching of the profound respect for the dignity of all human persons"
has also been spectacularly debunked the government. Apart from Ed Ball's clear statements yesterday, the government last night indicated a further totalitarian-style interference in Catholic school teaching. Harry Cohen, a Labour backbencher, asked Vernon Coaker (pictured), junior minister for schools:
"Will my hon. Friend assure me that no faith school teacher will be allowed to spread long-term fear among children by telling them that if they subsequently have an abortion or partake in homosexuality they will end up going to hell?"
Mr Coaker replied:
"Of course I can give my hon. Friend that assurance."
Now, let me first say that Mr Cohen presented a caricature of solid pro-life/pro-family teaching in faith schools. Such teaching does not, and should not, "spread long-term fear" about "going to hell". Catholic pro-life/pro-family teaching in fact gives hope to children, born and unborn, in this life and for the next. Also, Catholic teaching is clear (CCC 1861) that:
"[A]lthough we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God."
That said, Catholic teaching is also clear that:
"Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense" (CCC 2272)
"Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity [are] homosexual practices." (CCC 2396)
"Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law" (CCC 1855)
"To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."" (CCC 1033)
Mr Coaker's reply to Mr Cohen is yet another example of just how false is the CES's claim that:
"Catholic schools will be entitled to continue to teach this subject in accordance with the teaching of the Catholic Church" (letters, Catholic Herald, 4 February 2010)
Opposition to the government's plans has also been stunted by the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group (APPPLG). Jim Dobbin, its chairman, circulated the CES's fallacies among MPs and voted for the bill last night. Before the debate, Claire Curtis-Thomas, the group's pro-abortion vice-chair, wrote to local SPUC supporters yesterday telling them that she would not be supporting opposition amendments which sought to lessen the harm of the government's proposals.
Yet again Scottish Cardinal Keith O'Brien has, in contrast to his English and Welsh counterparts, spoken the truth with clarity and courage, saying last night:
"[W]e have witnessed this Government undertake a systematic and unrelenting attack on family values."
SPUC will likewise not flinch in speaking truth to power, whether it be to our government or to its cooperators within the Catholic establishment.
*(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.)
This evening the House of Commons gave the Children, Schools and Families bill a third reading, by 268 votes in favour to 177 votes against. The bill now goes to the House of Lords. Commenting on the sex education proposals in the bill, Paul Tully, SPUC’s general secretary, told the media this evening:
“This is a dire result for school-children and for unborn children who are in the firing-line of this bill. They are the ones who will bear inordinate suffering and death as a result of schools being compelled to promote abortion and the sexualisation of teenagers.
“Ed Balls, the schools secretary, made clear this morning that the intention of his sex education proposals in the Children, Schools and Families bill is to make all schools, including faith schools, teach children how to use and where to obtain birth control and abortion.
“These are the key ‘advertising’ messages that the pro-abortion lobby is fighting to have promoted throughout the education system – where children can be influenced and corrupted without parental guidance or protection.
“The sexualisation of children in schools goes further than this, however. Already, parents are being kept in the dark about sexual health interventions on their children – whether birth control (drugs, implants or devices), STI/HIV tests and treatment, or abortion, being provided via the school system.
“Using the education system to by-pass parents and corrupt their children – especially those under the age of consent - is a grave abuse of power by the state.
“Many people will be especially appalled that both the National Society of the Church of England and the education service of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference have endorsed the provisions of the bill. Mr Balls made much of the support for the bill by Archbishop Nichols, and we have called upon the Archbishop, and other faith leaders to reconsider their support even at this late stage.”
"We beg Archbishop Nichols, and other religious leaders, to back parents, whether Catholic or of other faiths, who refuse to allow their children to be subjected to what the government's bill demands.
"Archbishop Nichols must say whether schools should do what Ed Balls demands - tell children how to access abortion and where to get, and how to use, contraception. Or will the archbishop tell schools to resist - even though they may risk legal action, losing Ofsted accreditation, or even losing hard-won state funding?
"SPUC urges all faith leaders to speak out in oppostion to Mr Balls' demands, assuring parents that this is not going to happen in their schools. Teachers and school governors need an assurance that their faith leaders will defend them when they refuse to be complicit in arranging abortions, promoting contraception or deceiving parents.
"The legislation and guidance enforcing this have been drawn up with the advice and support of the Catholic Education Service (CES), headed by Oona Stannard.
"Archbishop Nichols was chairman of the Catholic Education Service and Archbishop of Birmingham when that archdiocese drew up a sex education programme, with funding support from the government. That programme, "All that I am", included instruction for children in a wide range of contraceptives, including many believed to induce early abortions. Will he now have that programme withdrawn?"
I have written this afternoon to Archbishop Nichols calling on him to reverse the support of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales for the bill.
Ed Balls (pictured, with Oona Stannard of the Catholic Education Service (CES) and Vincent Nichols, archbishop of Westminster), secretary of state for Children, Schools and Families, has spoken this morning on BBC Radio 4's Today programme on his sex education bill, which will be debated later today in the House of Commons (please read and act upon SPUC's latest campaign alert). Mr Balls has also writtten a letter on the same subject, published in today's Times newspaper.
Here's some of what Mr Balls said on the Today programme (my emphases in bold):
"If you are currently a Catholic school ... you could choose to teach only to children that contraception is wrong, homosexuality is wrong. That changes radically with this bill." (at 06:30 mins)
"A Catholic faith school can say to their pupils we believe as a religion contraception is wrong but what they can't do is therefore say that they are not going to teach them about contraception to children, how to access contraception, or how to use contraception. What this changes is that for the first time these schools cannot just ignore these issues or teach only one side of the argument. They also have to teach that there are different views on homosexuality. They cannot teach homophobia. They must explain civil partnership. They must give a balanced view on abortion, they must give both sides of the argument, they must explain how to access an abortion, the same is true on contraception as well." (from 07:20 to 08:47 mins)
"To have the support of the Catholic Church and Archbishop Nichols in these changes is, I think, very, very important, is a huge step forward." (at 09:05 mins)
"[Catholic schools] cannot teach that homosexuality is wrong and that therefore it is OK to discriminate on homosexuality" (at 10:42 mins)
"[T]he Catholic Church, which I really welcome, is supporting, for the first time, compulsory sex education with an opt out at 15" (at 12:25 mins) (JS: Mr Balls knows that the opt-out i.e. parental right to withdraw children from SRE classes, ends at 15, not starts. Also, what is unappreciated is that no child of any age will be able to withdraw themselves from SRE.)
"[S]tatutory lessons on sex and relationship education...includes education about contraception and the importance of stable relationships, including marriage and civil partnerships. It will not allow the teaching of homophobia. All maintained schools and academies will be required to teach the full programmes of study. This includes promoting equality and encouraging acceptance of diversity ... The bottom line is that...discrimination is prevented in all schools."
Mr Balls's statements today not only confirm, but add further truth to the warnings that SPUC has been issuing for months about the government's plans - and the English and Welsh Catholic bishops' complicity in those plans. Please make sure that you have read and acted upon SPUC's latest campaign alert on the Commons debate later today.
(P.S. 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.)
Tomorrow (Tue 23 Feb.) is the the final main day (report stage and third reading) in the House of Commons on the government's sex education bill. (The bill has yet to be debated in the House of Lords.) The Conservative opposition has tabled a new amendment (no.60) which seeks to exclude sex and relationships education (SRE) from primary schools.
Please email or telephone your MP immmediately to urge him/her to:
sign and support amendments 2 and 60, tabled by the Conservative opposition for report-stage, and
vote against the bill as a whole at third reading. Please read SPUC's latest campaign alert for more information and please act straight away.
The danger posed by the Children, Schools and Families (CSF) bill to both born and unborn children - and the Catholic Education Service (CES)'s betrayal of them, which I have focused upon in my recent blogging - is causing Catholic priests and concerned laity to speak out courageously.
"woolly language designed to hide a totalitarian agenda ... The relativism of Ed Balls and his friends who are setting the agenda for secular Britain is actually only applied to the "views" they disagree with, such as Catholic moral teaching on the sanctity of life, marriage, and the procreation of children ... Ed Balls and the DCSF have expertly exploited the weakness of the Catholic Church in England and Wales in its witness to the teaching of the magisterium. The constant support of the CES for its legislation, and the availability of examples such as the school described, enable the Government to take credit for preserving Catholic schools while effectively outlawing Catholic moral teaching in those schools."
Fr Marcus Holden, the co-founder of the (pro-life/pro-family) Evangelium project:
"Having consulted several influential priests and education experts, it seems to me that such laws, if introduced, may spell the end of official Catholic schools in state aided education. What most concerns me, however, is the unethical imposition of a sexual ideology upon our children and their families."
"The Catholic Education Service is a complete disgrace ... And, once again, SPUC has done a first class job of debunking the latest attempts of the CES to claim credit for getting the Government to back down on the CSF Bill ... [T]he CES...appears to be nothing more than a mouthpiece for the latest Government education policy."
I think these reactions speak volumes about who really speaks for Catholic pro-life/pro-family teaching in England and Wales.
Fr Euteneuer (pictured), president of Human Life International, is in London today. This evening he is coming to Harrow in north London, my neck of the woods, to celebrate Mass at the home of the Daverns.
John and Peggy Davern lead a wonderful Catholic prayer group which is totally committed to praying for the spread of the Gospel of life. Such people work, in my view, in the engine room of the pro-life movement.
Josephine, my wife, and I, have been members of John and Peggy's prayer group for almost twenty years.
Fr. Euteneuer has travelled more than one million miles as a pro-life missionary and has visited fifty-seven countries. I greatly admire the work of Human Life International which has affiliate offices and associates in eighty countries around the world. These last few days Fr Euteneuer has been with the leaders of Human Life International in the Republic of Ireland where the pro-life movement fights a continuous valiant battle against the combined forces of the media, the judiciary, and the body politic which are poised slavishly to promote the western world's anti-life practices. To read more about that daily battle visit Pat Buckley, European Life Network.
I'm looking forward to being at the Daverns this evening for Mass and to hear Fr Euteneuer's perspective on the state of the pro-life battle in Ireland.
Mass this evening at the Daverns will be at 7 p.m.. If you live, or know anyone who lives, in or near Harrow, do join us. Whether or not you're a Catholic, contact me at johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk and I will be delighted to give you directions to the Daverns if you would like to join us.
A government media release yesterday cites a Catholic school in Bedford as a good example of how faith schools should implement the government's plans for sex education. The media release says (my emphases in bold):
"St Thomas More is a mixed secondary school in Bedford. 60% of students are from a Catholic/Christian background with 40% from a range of ethnic minority groups, including Muslim. It has achieved Healthy Schools Status and has an Outstanding Award for cultural diversity.
"St Thomas More delivers SRE [sex and relationships education] through the pastoral programme in conjunction with the RE syllabus. It is led by pastoral tutors, all of whom are well prepared and confident to lead discussion with students across a wide range of SRE issues.
"The school has developed a very successful balance of providing students with accurate information within the faith ethos of the school. For example, sex within marriage is promoted as the ideal of the Catholic faith, but the school explicitly recognises the reality that some young people may choose to be sexually active and, if that is the case, they need the knowledge and confidence to make an informed choice to protect themselves from pregnancy and STIs.
"The school nurse provides students with clear accurate information about the full range of contraception and STIs and details of local services. Chlamydia screening is also offered to students in Years 11 to 13. Pregnancy options, including abortion, are also discussed in a non-judgemental way with the RE syllabus requiring students to understand the spectrum of pro- and anti-choice views on abortion. By combining the pastoral and RE teaching, the essential knowledge component of SRE is provided to students but within the context of relationships and the school's values."
I will be writing to St Thomas More school, asking them to confirm or deny the government's claims about what is happening in its school. Readers of this blog may also like to write to the school at: Tyne Crescent, Bedfordshire MK41 7UL email@stm.beds.sch.uk If, however, the government's claims are proved to be true, then what is being taught is entirely contrary to Catholic pro-life and pro-family teaching:
Catholic education on sexual matters should not be taught according to some arbitrary notion of "balance", let alone the government's anti-life false idea of "balance". Such education should be according to the truth and meaning of human sexuality (specifically according to the Vatican document of the same name)
sex within marriage only is not simply an "ideal of the Catholic faith" but an absolute requirement of morality as taught by the Catholic Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches (para. 2353):
"Fornication...is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young."
Catholics may not, under any circumstances or for any reason, "choose" contraception, as is abundantly clear from 2,000 years of constant church teaching. For a Catholic school to "inform" children with "knowledge" to "choose" from "the full range of contraception" is like teaching children how to lessen the chances of getting caught by the police if they "choose" to rob a bank.
Contraception does not "protect" against pregnancy or STIs. To use contraception is to play Russian roulette with pregnancy and STIs - the more one uses it, the more likely those things are to happen.
"The full range of contraception" includes drugs and devices that not only prevent pregnancy, but may, according to the manufacturers, kill newly-conceived embryonic children.
Local "services" providing contraception will either provide, or refer schoolgirls for, abortions.
"Non-judgmental" "discussions" of "pregnancy options, including abortion" means that the school abandons moral responsibility for its pupils by leaving them free to accept the killing of innocent members of the human family. This model of non-teaching is the "values clarification" method designed to destroy any notion of right and wrong children might have.
St Thomas More (pictured) preferred to sacrifice himself rather than put the state's demands above the church's teachings. Catholic schools and the Catholic education system must be prepared to do the same.
The Liberal Democrat party and secularist groups are mistakenly claiming that a new government amendment to the Children, Schools and Families bill will let faith schools decide what to teach in sex education classes.
Paul Tully, SPUC's political manager, has told the media this morning:
"There has been no u-turn. Children in faith schools will be subject to the same abusive so-called education as children in other state schools. The government amendment is mere window-dressing. The amendment makes no difference to what must be taught in schools. It only restates the principle that allows faith schools to teach sex education 'in a way' that reflects the school’s religious character. The Liberal Democrats and secularists have confused the 'way' sex education is taught with the content. The government's amendment will not keep pro-abortion and anti-family content out of sex education classes in faith schools.
"The only people likely to be pleased with the press reports about the misinterpretation of this amendment are the Catholic Education Service (CES), who want Catholic parents and Catholic schools to think they are sticking up for them, when in fact they are betraying their principles.
"SPUC condemns the action of the Catholic Education Service (CES) in pursuing this amendment, which is designed to mislead pro-life MPs and thereby help the bill to pass. The CES both welcomed and helped develop the government's draft sex education guidance, which is full of radical anti-life and anti-family ideas. The CES does not represent Catholic teaching on sex education, and its betrayal of Catholic families is widely lamented within the Catholic Church.
"We call upon MPs instead to oppose the bill as a whole and to vote for a opposition report-stage amendment to delete the bill's PHSE principles."
The department for children, schools and families yesterday confirmed that:
"All maintained schools and academies will be required to teach the full programmes of study in line with the principles outlined in the Bill including promoting equality and encouraging acceptance of diversity."
"[F]aith schools should be forced to teach that homosexuality is normal and harmless"
The government's amendment "does not diminish or detract from the over-arching principles" in the bill for PHSE
"Faith schools...cannot...suggest that their views are the only valid ones"
Please read SPUC's campaign alert and take action immediately. The bill's report-stage and third reading in the House of Commons is this Tuesday (23 Feb).
"Five prominent members of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life are calling on the pope to remove Archbishop Rino Fisichella as the Academy’s president following their plenary meeting in Rome last week."
This unusual step has been prompted by Archbishop Fisichella's opening address to members of the Academy in which he stood by the original wording of his article in L'Osservatore Romano, last year, which implied that there are difficult situations in which doctors enjoy scope for the autonomous exercise of conscience in deciding whether to carry out a direct abortion. I explained the potentially disastrous implications of Archbishop Fisichella's article in a talk at the 4th Pro-Life World Congress in Saragossa last November.
A statement from the Academicians indicates that many members of the Academy now consider that they are being led by a churchman who does not understand what absolute respect for the sanctity of human life entails:
"This is an absurd state of affairs in a Pontifical Academy for Life but one which can be rectified only by those who are responsible for his appointment as President"
the statement says.
I congratulate the five academicians for their statement, which upholds the integrity of the Catholic Church's pro-life witness. Countless numbers of unborn children are saved daily by the strength of that witness. Archbishop Fisichella's article and his justification of it jeopardise that same witness.
"Too often it happens that believers, even those who take an active part in the life of the Church, end up by separating their Christian faith from its ethical requirements concerning life, and thus fall into moral subjectivism and certain objectionable ways of acting. With great openness and courage, we need to question how widespread is the culture of life today among indiviual Christians, families, groups and communities in our Dioceses. With equal clarity and determination we must identify the steps we are called to take in order serve life in all its truth."
The Academicians, clearly speaking for others in the Academy, have demonstrated that "openness and courage" and "clarity and determination" for which Pope John Paul II called. I also wish to congratulate LifeSiteNews.com for their reportage. This sort of courageous pro-life journalism is essential too.
Speaking earlier this month to the Scottish bishops, Pope Benedict urged that there must not be the slightest compromise in the Church's witness on the sanctity of human life. He said:
"If the Church’s teaching is compromised, even slightly, in one such area, then it becomes hard to defend the fullness of Catholic doctrine in an integral manner."
The position set out by Archbishop Fisichella, like the collaboration of the bishops of England and Wales with the British government on life issues, are cancers which are threatening to destroy countless human lives. They require diagnosis and removal.
The news so far this week has brought reports of Catholic bishops speaking out courageously for life and family around the world:
In Scotland, Archbishop Mario Conti of Glasgow has said that: “[I]t is wrong in principle for someone to take their own life” and “it is wrong in principle for someone to help them to do so.”
In Oregon, America, Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker has ended his diocese's sponsorship of a local hospital which was performing sterilisations.
In the Philippines, the bishops' conference has said that the distribution of free condoms in Manila "undermines the significance of human sexuality and love and and deserves the condemnation of the entire population"
At the Vatican, Cardinal Carlo Caffarra has written that: "It's impossible to consider oneself a Catholic if that person in one way or another recognizes same-sex marriage as a right," said Cardinal Carlo Caffarra of Bologna.*
And Pope Benedict told the Romanian bishops last week that they should respond to "the scourges of abortion [and] birth control by methods contrary to the dignity of the human person" by "organis[ing] improved pastoral care of the young."
When the full weight of the Catholic Church is put behind an uncompromising pro-life stance, lives can saved in large numbers. For example, the educational effort by the Catholic Church in Poland was effective in massively reducing Poland's abortion rate. And LifeSiteNews.com reports that the Philippines has one of Asia's lowest HIV rates, no doubt thanks to the resilience of the Philippines bishops' conference.
The pro-life movement in this country in England and Wales could achieve so much more if the Catholic bishops' conference here would end its collaboration on pro-life/pro-family issues with our anti-life/anti-family government. "For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?" (1 Cor.14:8)
*(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.)
SPUC Pro-Life has criticised the BBC’s decision to give sympathetic coverage to Ray Gosling (pictured), a BBC presenter who claims to have killed his terminally-ill ex-lover. Mr Gosling claimed that his victim, whom he said had AIDS, was in “terrible, terrible pain”.
“If doctors found the victim’s pain difficult to control, they should have referred him for specialist palliative care.
“Mr Gosling claims that he killed the man as part of a ‘pact’. Morally and legally, this does not change the case from one of murder to one of suicide. We hope Mr Gosling’s frank admission will lead him to regret his crime, though nothing will bring back the sad victim. We are glad that the police are investigating. We call upon the legal authorities to ensure that future potential victims are protected, by upholding existing laws against the intentional killing of the innocent.
“Changing the law or watering down prosecuting policy on assisted suicide or euthanasia would pose a major threat to the terminally-ill, the disabled and vulnerable people generally.
“In practice, acceptance of assisted suicide or euthanasia leads to cases of murder. The BBC has been complicit in this slippery slope towards unlawful homicide through its biased programming.”
"the gift that is a child, the treasure of children ... They need our careful guidance and tutoring ... [M]arriage, as the strongest foundation for stable family life and the best environment for the growth of children, is to be supported in our country today if we are really to pursue, both politically and socially, the genuine common good of all."
I applaud the archbishop's words and thank him for them. It is therefore all the more disturbing that the Catholic Education Service (CES), an agency of the Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales, has both welcomed and helped draft the government's sex education guidance. The draft guidance is a cornucopia of anti-life and anti-family evils. Routes to these evils will be established in both faith and non-faith schools if the Children, Schools and Families bill is passed unamended. (A government amendment related to faith schools will be ineffectual in keeping these evils out of Catholic schools.) The ideology of the guidance is "sexual and reproductive rights", the mantra that everyone, including teenagers, have a right to be provided with abortion and contraception in order to enable consequence-free sex. Yet, as Cardinal Antonelli told the Pontifical Council for the Family last week:
"It's only because of children that sexual relations become important for society"
meaning that sex is naturally ordered towards procreation of children.
Archbishop Nichols was the CES's chairman until becoming archbishop of Westminster. I have spoken before about how:
the openness of Bishop Malcolm McMahon, the current CES chairman, to headteachers being in same-sex unions*
the "Diversity and Equality guidelines", a publication of the bishops' conference. This policy document welcomes, seeks to implement, and says that it will monitor the implementation (in the Catholic Church, including in Catholic schools) of British government and EU law on the equal employment rights of male and female homosexuals, and bisexuals and transsexuals.
Also this past weekend Archbishop Nichols spoke of:
"[the] fear of undertreatment or neglect – sometimes, for instance, food and water may be simply put in front of patients unable to feed themselves who are then noted as having refused their food."
Again, I applaud and thank Archbishop Nichols, in this instance for his opposition to euthanasia by neglect (and, elsewhere in the same sermon, to assisted suicide). Yet Archbishop Peter Smith, on behalf of the bishops' conference, publicly opposed SPUC's campaign on the pro-euthanasia Mental Capacity bill (now Act), welcomed the bill, accepted the government's assurances on the bill, and co-operated with the government in ensuring its passage through parliament. The Act enshrines in statute law euthanasia by neglect.
Is it not time that the English and Welsh bishops cease their collaboration on pro-life/pro-family issues with the government? Pope Benedict told the Pontifical Academy for Life last week that:
"History has shown us how dangerous and deleterious a state can be that proceeds to legislate on questions that touch the person and society while pretending itself to be the source and principle of ethics."
Indeed, the lesson from history was 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."
*(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.)
The final main day (report stage and third reading) in the House of Commons on the government's sex education bill has been announced for Tuesday 23 February. (The bill has yet to be debated in the House of Lords.)
What you need to know:
The government's Children, Schools and Families bill would force all state schools to provide sex and relationships education (SRE) for all primary and secondary school pupils.
The government want SRE to include signposting and links to abortion and other anti-life/anti-family services in schools, including faith schools.
The bill would force schools to teach SRE according to principles of "equality", "diversity" and "rights".
The government's draft SRE guidance interprets those principles to include abortion, birth control, homosexuality and "a wide range of sexual practices".
Schools, if challenged, may well have to prove their SRE programmes accord with the bill's principles and that they had "regard" to the government's anti-life guidance.
Faith schools may argue that they are entitled to protect their ethos, but the government has demanded that schools accept its sexual health agenda. The government says schools may adapt "the way things are taught", but it insists that all aspects of SRE will have to be delivered in all schools.
Please contact your MP, asking him/her to oppose the bill. A Conservative amendment (amendment 2, tabled 5 Feb.) seeks to lessen the damage of the sex education proposals, so also please ask your MP to show his concern by signing this amendment (which will increase the chance of it being selected for debate) as well as opposing the Bill as a whole.
"the key issues essential to effective SRE [include] [h]elping young people ... to respect the choices other people make regarding sex and relationships".
"Secondary school pupils will ... learn how to avoid unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections when they do become sexually active"
"SRE ... allows young people to make well-informed decisions"
That the above points are thinly-veiled promotions of homosexuality*, contraception and abortion is confirmed repeatedly - and far more openly - in the draft guidance's 62 pages, which I shall detail below. The department's press release accompanying the draft guidance quotes Oona Stannard of the Catholic Education Service (CES) of England and Wales saying:
"Today's draft guidance for SRE is a positive step forward."
The press release also reveals that:
"The list of stakeholders involved in developing the draft guidance were as follows ... Sex Education Forum ... Catholic Education Service ... Teenage Pregnancy Independent Advisory Group ..."
The Sex Education Forum includes, and is run by, Britain's pro-abortion and anti-family lobby: the Family Planning Association (FPA), Marie Stopes International, Education for Choice, Brook, Stonewall, The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement and British Humanist Association. Regarding the Teenage Pregnancy Independent Advisory Group (TPIAG), I have blogged before about its anti-life/anti-family recommendations on sex education, accepted by the government. I have also blogged how the TPIAG has used the CES's support for compulsory sex education to claim (falsely) that the Catholic Church supports it, too. I pointed out how the CES is not the Catholic Church but a bureaucracy with no doctrinal status.
Oona Stannard and the CES has thus gotten together with Britain's anti-life/anti-family lobby to help draft the government's anti-life/anti-family sex education guidance.
The draft guidance explained
Freedom of schools to teach pro-life/pro-family values
The draft guidance says (1.6) that :
"[Under] the provisions in the CSF [Children, Schools and Families] Bill ... there would be no ‘opt-out’ from the statutory content [of SRE]"
So far, we know that the "statutory content" under the CSF bill (clause 11) includes a principle that SRE
"should be taught in a way that:
endeavours to promote equality
encourages acceptance of diversity, and
emphasises the importance of both rights and responsibilities.
I have blogged before about how these principles reflect the recommendations of the Teenage Pregnancy Independent Advisory Group (TPIAG) I predicted then that the government will use those principles to advance its anti-life/anti-family agenda in schools. The draft guidance bears out my prediction, even more than I expected.
Ultimately, it will be up to the courts to decide what is or isn't "statutory content" under the law. However, as the guidance makes clear:
"Head teachers and governing bodies are required by law to have regard to the guidance"
a requirement which is repeated in the CSF bill (clause 12).
Schools will therefore have to prove that what they teach in SRE not only accords with the bill's principles (above) but that they had "regard" to the government's guidance. The guidance is so insistent in its promotion of anti-life/anti-family concepts that it places pro-life/pro-family schools in an almost impossible situation. How will a school which doesn't teach those concepts prove that it upholds the bill's principles, having regard to the guidance? We can expect any such school to be pursued vigorously. By helping draft the guidance and by welcoming it as "a positive step forward", the CES is once again selling Catholic schools down the river.
Religious beliefs
The draft guidance also insists (3.1) that:
"Schools should make a clear distinction between factual information and views and beliefs."
I have no doubt that this has been included to deter schools from teaching amongst other things that life begins at conception. The government, in accord with the pro-abortion lobby, wants people to believe that the beginning of life at conception, the right to life of unborn children etc are simply private religious beliefs, which should be subordinated to so-called "factual information". (This mindset is clear from the repeated references to religion in Gordon Brown's letter to MPs on embryo research in March 2008). Ed Balls, the secretary of state, has said:
“Some faiths have a view about what in religious terms is right and wrong – what they can’t do though is not teach the importance of tolerance”.
and confirmed that faith schools should be forced to teach that homosexuality is normal and harmless, saying:
"If their faith has a view in scripture, they can inform pupils of that. What they must not do is teach discrimination. They must be absolutely clear about the importance of civil partnerships"
Abortion and contraception
The draft guidance says (3.1):
"[SRE] should also cover responsibilities to protect the sexual health of oneself and others"
It is thus clear that the government expects schools to teach pupils that that they have a duty to use condoms. Thus the draft guidance insists (1.3) that:
"[I]t is vital that all young people have information about contraception"
The government believes this information is vital because it believes sexually-active young people should use contraception, contrary to Catholic teaching. That such provision is not limited to information, and not limited to contraception, is made clear at 3.1:
"Information provided by schools should reflect the latest medical evidence available on topics such as: the efficacy of different contraceptive methods in preventing unplanned pregnancies and STIs; and pregnancy choices."
This clearly means that the government expects schools to help pupils select the most effective abortion and contraceptive techniques. This is made even clearer at 2.2.2:
"SRE should also increase pupils’ knowledge and understanding at appropriate stages by:
learning how to avoid unplanned pregnancy and STIs including learning about contraception and infection avoidance
learning about pregnancy and the choices available
learning about the range of local and national sexual health advice, contraception and support services available
That is clearly designed in a way which facilitates abortion and contraception. Lest there is any lingering doubt that this would apply to faith schools, readers should note that the government accepted in November the TPIAG's recommendation that:
"all schools including faith schools must teach all aspects of SRE within the context of relationships in an anti-discriminatory way; contraception, abortion and homosexuality are all legal in this country and therefore all children and young people should be able to learn the correct facts"
The draft guidance (3.1) says:
"SRE should: provide children and young people with information about their right to confidential advice and support on sex and relationships." (3.1)
and
"[S]chool nurses, youth workers, Connexions personal advisors and sexual health professionals have particular areas of expertise that complement the SRE curriculum ... SRE is a good opportunity for school nurses to meet students to talk about how they can access individual confidential advice and support when needed." (3.4.2)
That is clearly linked to the government's expectation that schools will facilitate secret abortions without parental knowledge or consent. Connexions, a government agency whose staff facilitate such abortions, has been welcomed into Catholic schools by the CES.
Pro-abortion material approved
The draft guidance recommends (2.6.2) the "Speakeasy" programme to help parents talk to their children about sex. "Speakeasy" is produced by the Family Planning Association (FPA), Britain's main pro-abortion group and the national affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the world's largest promoter and provider of abortions.
Abstinence
The draft guidance says (2.4):
"The evidence is conclusive that SRE does not increase rates of sexual activity or sexual experimentation in young people ... ‘[C]omprehensive’ programmes of SRE, covering a broad range of topics including factual information about contraception, sexual health services and sexuality and where the programme is coordinated with young people friendly confidential advisory service, have a positive impact on young people’s sexual behaviour ... International evidence-reviews [show that] [m]any of the comprehensive programmes had a positive impact on young people’s sexual behaviour but none of the abstinence-focused programmes had a positive impact"
The teaching of so-called comprehensive sex education in schools is one of the pro-abortion lobby's goals. The draft guidance thus promotes the type of sex education promoted by the pro-abortion lobby, and rubbishes abstinence education.
Sexual practices
The draft guidance says (3.1):
"SRE should promote awareness, respect and understanding for the wide range of practices and beliefs relating to sex and relationships within our society. Many people still face unacceptable prejudice and discrimination on the basis of their sexuality ... and intolerance towards difference needs to be challenged ... SRE should support pupils to value differences between people, to challenge stereotypes ..."
An anonymous young person is then quoted, saying:
"As a gay person, it was as if I didn't exist."
Apart from the obvious promotion of homosexuality here, there is nothing to say that "the wide range of practices" couldn't include paedophilia or bestiality (the latter is being promoted in a Spanish sex education course)
Further detail on what the government expects schools to teach
The draft guidance goes into detail about what should be taught to, and expected of, pupils at the different key-stages. At key stage 2 (ages 8 to 11), pupils should be taught
"To recognise and challenge stereotypes"
asking themselves:
"What is ... homophobic bullying and what skills do I need to do something about it?"
Pupils should also be able to answer the question:
"How does the sperm and egg meet during sexual intercourse and can conception be prevented?"
It should noted that many, if not most, of the pupils at this key-stage will not have started puberty. The Church's key document on sex education, The truth and meaning of human sexuality (Pontifical Council for the Family) has made clear that:
"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..."
Yet one wouldn't know that from the CES, as The truth and meaning of human sexuality isn't even referred to on the CES's website.
The draft guidance says that at key stage 3 (ages 11 to 14), pupils should be taught via:
"the clarification of personal values".
Tim Matthews of the National Association of Catholic Families (NACF) has explained how "values clarification" was invented to eradicate from education any concept of right and wrong, such as the wrongness of abortion or of particular sexual practices. At the same key-stage, pupils will be taught to answer:
"What are sexually transmitted infections, how are they transmitted, treated, tested and prevented (including condoms)?"
"What choices does a woman have if she gets pregnant, including keeping the baby, abortion and adoption?"
"What are the different types of contraception including emergency contraception and how are these used?"
"What can I expect from contraception and sexual health services and where and when are these services available?"
Key stage 4 (ages 15 and 16), pupils will be taught how to answer:
"What are the features of different methods of contraception and what protection do they offer in terms of STIs and pregnancy?"
"Is responsibility for contraception and protection shared in relationships and how can responsibility be negotiated?"
"How can I contribute to challenging ...homophobia ...?"
"What sexual and reproductive rights do I have as a young person (including rights relating to information, healthcare, confidentiality and the law)?"
"What is the full range of services, help and information available to me including local contraception and sexual health services?"
So here we have anti-life and anti-family cornucopia of ideas:
"sexual and reproductive rights", by which the government means abortion on demand
abortion as a woman's choice
easy access on demand to abortion clinics
girls taught how to induce early abortions via the morning-after pill
condoms prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases
objections to homosexuality as normal silenced.
The government thus expects all state schools, including Catholic schools, not only to teach a panoply of anti-life and anti-family dogmas, but to do everything possible to facilitate anti-life and anti-family practices. I am repelled by the fact that an agency of the Catholic Church, the Catholic Education Service, has helped draft this guidance and has welcomed it as "a positive step forward".
In the latest Catholic Herald, Oona Stannard claims that:
"The Catholic Education Service for England and Wales is fully committed to the promotion of the sanctity of life, in accordance with the teachings of the Church"
In fact, the CES is engaged in a systematic betrayal of the Catholic Church and of all this country's children, Catholic and non-Catholic, born and unborn.
Addressing the Pontifical Council for the Family on Monday, Pope Benedict said:
"Jesus' harsh words against those who scandalize one of these little ones (cf. Mark 9:42) commit all to never lower the level of this respect and love [for children]. That is why the Convention on the Rights of Children was also received favorably by the Holy See"
The scandalizing of born children and the destruction of unborn children (contrary to the Convention) is exactly what the draft guidance is designed to achieve.
*(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.)
