Catholic Education Service has helped draft the government's anti-life/anti-family sex ed draft guidance

The department for children, schools and families (DCSF) has drafted new guidance on sex and relationships education (SRE). The department's press release says, among other things:

• "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promotions of homosexuality*, contraception and abortion is confirmed repeatedly - and far more openly -  in the draft guidance's 62 pages, which I shall detail below. The department's press release accompanying the draft guidance quotes Oona Stannard of the Catholic Education Service (CES) of England and Wales saying:

"Today's draft guidance for SRE is a positive step forward."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"The list of stakeholders involved in developing the draft guidance were as follows ...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The draft guidance explained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The draft guidance says (1.6) that :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.)

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

The Tablet's deceitful homosexual* manifesto means churches should unsubscribe

The Tablet's latest editorial, "Deepest human desire", argues that "the Church [should] move on with confidence, if not doctrinally then at least pastorally" on the subject of homosexuality". Among other things, it:

• implies that the Church is open to the charge of "anti-­homosexual prejudice, even bigotry"
• says that the Church should "move beyond a sterile state of dis­approval" of homosexuality, lest it "lose the sympathy of wide sections of the public"
• criticises "the Church's inability to comprehend and value [homosexual persons'] emotional lives [and] their relationships"
• implies homosexual love "is to be treasured and respected"
• insists that homosexuals must be defined "positively ... by their affections"
• claims that there are homosexual couples who "demonstrate a constancy and a stability in their partnerships that, rather than causing scandal, set an example to their heterosexual friends and relations"
• questions whether homosexual men or women are unsuitable parents
• questions whether homosexuality is unnatural, and implies that homosexuality is innate rather than acquired

*(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.)

Most perniciously, The Tablet's editorial attempts to co-opt Pope Benedict, the late Cardinal Hume and the former Master-General of the Dominicans. Whilst the quoted words of the latter two leave (to say the least) a lot to be desired, in no way can any words of Pope Benedict be used to endorse homosexuality. The editorial nonetheless claims that "the reintegration of erotic love into Christian spirituality" in his encyclical Deus caritas est "has a direct relevance" which provides a "compelling" basis for normalising homosexual love. Although the editorial admits that "[t]he role of eros in homosexuality the Pope leaves alone", it still uses the Pope's reflection on eros to promote a pro-homosexual agenda, even though the Pope clearly stated that his definition of eros is "love between man and woman" [Deus caritas est, 3]

The Tablet's editorial goes beyond mere opinion, and is in fact a manifesto for homosexual equality. To that end, it is part of a softening-up and consciousness-raising exercise within the Church. It is clear that The Tablet intends to use the months leading up to the Pope's visit as part of a media campaign to entrench an anti-life and anti-family agenda within official Catholic circles. In The Tablet's 30 January edition, Sue Gaisford, The Tablet's literary editor, writes about Kay Gilderdale, who helped cause the death of Lynn, her daughter who had ME:

"[S]he was innocent of attempted murder. Nor - and this is harder - do I think that what she did could be considered sinful."

In contrast, Pope Benedict made clear in his ad limina address to the Scottish bishops that:

"Support for euthanasia strikes at the very heart of the Christian understanding of the dignity of human life."

One hundred years ago, St Pius X, a similarly courageous pope, rejected the very essence of Tablet-think when he taught that Catholic teaching

"[does not] evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously"

and

"may [not] be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age".

It is simply a matter of historical fact that official Catholic teaching on pro-life and pro-life family matters has never changed. Some of the Church's earliest documents condemn abortion, euthanasia, contraception and homosexuality.

The only reason I am subscribed to receive (a single copy of) The Tablet is so I can expose its deceitful agenda. For a parish priest, however, to take (i.e. subscribe to) The Tablet in bulk for sale to his parishioners is like a psychiatrist ordering cyanide capsules in bulk for sale to his depressed patients. The Tablet isn't known as "The Bitter Pill" for nothing, not least its notorious dissent from Humanae Vitae.

Some may argue that it's wrong to seek to restrict The Tablet's distribution, arguing that there are other publications on sale at churches which offer a counter-balance to it. Yet, again, it makes no sense to supply poison liberally simply because there are antidotes available. Pope Benedict made this clear in his ad limina address to the English and Welsh bishops:

"[I]t is important to recognize dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate."

We should prepare for Pope Benedict's visit to Britain in September by honouring that teaching and by deleting The Tablet. I am therefore today joining Fr Tim Finigan's campaign "Tabula delenda est" (image courtesy of Fr Finigan) to encourage churches and other Catholic points of sale to cancel their bulk subscriptions.

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

Catholic episcopal policy in England and Wales harms the common good

The British Government, it seems, is backing down on its discrimination legislation in the light of stiff opposition to its equality bill from Anglican bishops and others in the House of Lords, from the Catholic bishops, and, last but by no means least, as a result of Pope Benedict's stirring address to the English and Welsh bishops this week in Rome.

However, a much more important development has not yet occurred.

The British Government may have heeded church leaders' warning (including Catholic leaders) in relation equality legislation currently before Parliament, but will Pope Benedict's words be heeded by the Catholic bishops when he told them earlier this week:

" ... I urge you as Pastors to ensure that the Church’s moral teaching be always presented in its entirety and convincingly defended. Fidelity to the Gospel in no way restricts the freedom of others – on the contrary, it serves their freedom by offering them the truth ... " ?

I explained earlier this week the terrible harm done by the Diversity and Equality guidelines published in 2005 by the Catholic bishops of England and Wales (which continue to appear on the Catholic Education Service website) and I concluded:

"With the bishops welcoming and guaranteeing the presence of homosexual, bisexual and transsexual teachers in Catholic schools, is it not completely unrealistic to expect that Catholic sexual morality, including the sacredness of human life before birth, will be taught in these schools?"

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.

And shamefully, as I have said before, the Catholic Education Service in England and Wales (CESEW), an agency of the Catholic bishops, is betraying Catholics and non-Catholics alike by its giving general support to the British government’s legislative proposals to require all state schools to teach sex and relationships education throughout the school years (from ages five to 16). (N.B. The state schooling system in England and Wales includes the majority of Catholic schools.) The British government has stated clearly that its proposals have been drafted to entrench a form of sex education which promotes access to abortion and contraception in all state schools, including in Catholic schools.

What a strange world we live in. On the one hand the British Government is seen to bow to church leaders' pressure (including the Catholic bishops of England and Wales) whilst, on the other, the same Catholic bishops are happily complying with the government's bidding! Let's remember, it's our children and grandchildren whose welfare is being put at risk - as well as the culture of life itself - by Catholic episcopal policy in England and Wales. Catholics have a right and a duty to tell the bishops that their policy is not in keeping with Catholic teaching and is doing harm to the common good.

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

Pope stresses no compromise on life issues in address to Scottish bishops

The text of Pope Benedict's address to the Scottish bishops on their ad limina visit has just been released. Most notably, he said:

"A renewed focus on lay apostolate will help to clarify the roles of clergy and laity and so give strong impetus to the task of evangelizing society. That task requires a readiness to grapple firmly with the challenges presented by the increasing tide of secularism in your country. Support for euthanasia strikes at the very heart of the Christian understanding of the dignity of human life. Recent developments in medical ethics and some of the practices advocated in the field of embryology give cause for great concern. 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. Pastors of the Church, therefore, must continually call the faithful to complete fidelity to the Church’s Magisterium, while at the same time upholding and defending the Church’s right to live freely in society according to her beliefs." [my emphasis]

Pope Benedict's strong words are similar to those he used when addressing the English and Welsh bishops, which I referred to on Tuesday. The Pope's warnings and directions about dissent from Church teaching on life and family issues will be greatly appreciated by countless ordinary Catholic and non-Catholic citizens in Britain. They are distressed by the undermining of Catholic pro-life and pro-family witness by influential clergy, laity, bodies and publications at home and abroad:

• the Catholic Education Service (CES) for England and Wales' general support for the government's plans to force all state schools to teach sex education
• the Diversity and Equality Guidelines, issued in 2005 by the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales, which I have called upon the bishops to repudiate
• the undermining of Humanae Vitae by Kieran Conry, bishop of Arundel and Brighton, by The Tablet and by Cardinal Turkson of Ghana
• the demands by Tony Blair and in this weekend's Tablet that the Catholic Church changes its teaching on homosexuality*
• invitations by Catholic universities and charities to Cherie Blair, despite her open dissent from Catholic pro-life/pro-family teaching
• the approval by Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, the then-archbishop of Westminster, of an ethical code at St John and St Elizabeth’s Hospital, London, which failed to ban abortion referrals.

Instead of such co-operation with the culture of death, " ... what is urgently called for is a general mobilization of consciences and a united ethical effort to activate a great campaign in support of life ... ", as Pope John Paul II put it in Evangelium Vitae (95).

*In this connection, we must never forget the teaching of Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae, paragraph 97. He said 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

Daily Telegraph gives good news on PVS patients a sinister twist

The headline of the top story on the front-page of today's Telegraph reads: "Patients in 'vegetative' state can think and communicate".  It's exciting stuff and well worth reading.

Readers of the Telegraph who remember the 1992 House of Lords judgment in the case of Tony Bland (pictured right with his mother) could be forgiven for thinking that the story would suggest that, perhaps, the judges got it wrong in the Bland judgement. No such luck I'm afraid. Indeed, in my view, the Telegraph gives this thoroughly "good news" story a sinister twist.

(For those who don't know about Tony Bland, he was seriously injured in the Hillsborough Stadium tragedy of 1989, leaving him in a persistent non-responsive state – often called a “persistent vegetative state” [PVS]. He could breathe by himself and assimilate foods and fluids administered by tube, yet following a High Court application by the Airedale Hospital trust, a decision was made to remove his feeding tube. That decision was upheld on appeal and by the House of Lords. Tony died nine days after the tube was removed. You can read more about him in a post of mine last September.)

Alison Davis of No Less Human has given me the following thoughts on today's story:

"It seems that the main preoccupation of the authors of this story on direct communication with supposed 'Persistent Vegetative State' (PVS) patients is that they may 'choose to die'.

"When one thinks about the many thoughts and ideas that people may want to express who have been silenced by their physical condition for five years or more, one would guess that the so-called 'right to die' would be low on their list of priorities. Nevertheless, Jacob Appel, an American 'medical ethics expert' appears to assume not only that they will have these thoughts, but that if they do, doctors will have an 'ethical obligation' to kill them.

"However, the greatest arrogance and presumption is reserved for the final sentence of the article, where it is claimed that it is 'doubtful' that the 'mercy killing' of Tony Bland in 1993 would be affected by the new technique since 'he was thought to be in an extreme form of PVS.'

"This assumes that the state of medical knowledge 17 years ago is unchanged today. It also makes the reader wonder whether the writers of this sentence had actually read their own story. The people with whom doctors communicated successfully using the new technique were equally sure that their patients were in 'PVS' - until they communicated with them. Who is to say that Tony Bland could not have had the same ability?

"However, that is not the most important point. Whether or not a person said to be in 'PVS' is rightly or wrongly diagnosed makes not a jot of difference to their right to life, however restricted, attended by the best care and technology available, until they die naturally."

Alison Davis, in a recently published paper, shows how euthanasia has spread, starting with the 1992 Bland judgment, and has expanded as a result of the 2005 Mental Capacity Act and is now implemented through the Liverpool Care Pathway.


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

The celebrity-driven campaign for assisted suicide has revealing historical links

Dr John Sentamu, the Anglican archbishop of York, has spoken out about the celebrity-driven campaign for legalised assisted suicide.

His Grace certainly has a point: The Voluntary Euthanasia Society's campaign is backed by, among others, Sir Terry Pratchett and Martin Amis, the best-selling authors, Nick Ross, the former BBC Crimewatch presenter, and Zoe Wanamaker, the actress. And Debbie Purdy, whose court victory successfully undermined legal protection for the disabled, was effectively turned into a celebrity via media circuses. This was witnessed first-hand by Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager.

The manipulation of television and film by campaigners, celebrities and arts/media fellow-travellers to promote assisted suicide and euthanasia has a long-track record. Perhaps the first-ever such manipulation dates back to 1941, with Ich Klage An ("I accuse") (pictured), a propaganda film created designed to reduce resistance to the Nazi adult euthanasia programme. The film centres around a woman with multiple sclerosis (just like Debbie Purdy) who asks to be killed. Simon Konrad, the then-bishop of Passau, issued a pastoral letter against the film, warning:

"[D]o not let yourself be confused by the fascinating representation of cases, which are invented on purpose to make a specific point, namely in order to beguile both natural and Christian common sense by evoking human compassion in an especially clever way!"

Some euthanasia campaigners object to the assertion of any analogy between Nazism and their own campaign. They even try to invoke Godwin's law, a proposed rule for debate that attempts to bar any such analogy. However, Godwin's law doesn't apply here, because we are not talking about analogies but historical facts. Many of the aspects of the Nazi euthanasia campaign are the same ones proposed by the Voluntary Euthanasia Society and its high-profile supporters:

• Hitler's 1939 order empowered physicians to grant a "mercy death" to "patients considered incurable according to the best available human judgment of their state of health." Doctor-assisted killing of the terminally-ill is the VES's stated basic aim.
• The Nazi adult euthanasia programme was operated by a review commissions, in which a tribunal of medical experts decided who qualified for death. Sir Terry Pratchett has this week proposed similar tribunals.
• When opposition by the Catholic Church put a halt to the adult euthanasia programme within Germany, the technology was sent to Eastern Europe for use in the Jewish extermination programme. This included mobile gas vans and then the infamous gas chambers. Last week, Martin Amis proposed the establishment of booths where people deemed to qualify would be killed.

Sir Terry Pratchett questions why people would be frightened of doctors following the legalisation of doctor-assisted suicide. He is probably unaware that when assisted suicide was legalised briefly in the Northern Territory, Australia, aborginals feared going to doctors or hospitals for fear of being killed. And perhaps Sir Terry has not yet read the words of Dr Christopher Hufeland, Goethe's doctor:

"The physician should and may do nothing else but preserve life. Whether it is valuable or not, that is none of his business. If he once permits such considerations to influence his actions, the doctor will become the most dangerous man in the state."

The campaign for assisted suicide is indeed truly frightening. The only security against the mass killing of the sick, disabled and elderly are laws which are based, not on eugenic ideas of which lives are worthy of continuance, but on the inestimable value of human life. And the sick, disabled and elderly depend for such laws on the pro-life movement, church leaders, and responsible politicians working closely together to maintain a solid wall of pro-life resistance to any weakening of laws which uphold the sanctity and inviolability of every human life.

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

The bishops should repudiate their Diversity and Equality guidelines

Pope Benedict's address to the English and Welsh bishops has made headlines in the mainstream media, and sparked much comment and debate.

What I have yet to see is a reference to the bishops' 2005 Diversity and Equality guidelines. These guidelines no longer appear on the bishops' conference website, but are listed and replaced with a holding page informing visitors that new guidelines are being drafted to take account of recent legislative changes. The guidelines are a policy statement on British government and EU law on the equal employment rights of male and female homosexuals, and bisexuals and transsexuals.

The guidelines, whilst they contain elements of Catholic doctrine, welcome, seek to implement and state that the bishops' conference will monitor government policy within the Church, including in Catholic schools. Interestingly, the guidelines still appear on the website of the Catholic Education Service for England and Wales, which is giving general support to the government's proposals for sex education to be taught compulsorily in all state schools.

The bishops’ guidelines speaks about welcoming “the social and cultural changes which are required of us…”. It says “…it would be wrong to give some forms [of the six forms of discrimination listed by the Government] greater or lesser importance than others.” The guidelines say that Catholics “must understand and comply with discrimination legislation”.

The bishops’ guidelines calls on “those with authority at all levels of the church to be more aware of whether different groups are represented in the many facets of life of the Church e.g. schools…” and the bishops say: “…Organisations, institutions and diocese should consider appointing or entrusting someone with responsibility for diversity and equality”. Finally, the bishops warn: “We … intend to review progress … in two years”.

A pro-abortion document, prepared at the request of the EU Commission on the right to conscientious objection, links rights relating to sexual orientation to other supposed rights, including the “right” to abortion and the “right” to euthanasia and assisted suicide. The document quotes, in part, the bishops' Diversity and Equality Guidelines in a generally approving way. The bishops’ guidelines and the EU experts’ document clearly agree that, subject to limited and narrow exceptions, Catholic organisations must ensure that no job applicant or employee receives less favourable treatment than another on the grounds of sexual orientation.

With the bishops welcoming and guaranteeing the presence of homosexual, bisexual and transsexual teachers in Catholic schools, is it not completely unrealistic to expect that Catholic sexual morality, including the sacredness of human life before birth, will be taught in these schools?

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.

Particularly in the light of Pope Benedict's address to them so widely reported today, the bishops must repudiate their 2005 Diversity and Equality guidelines.

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

Former abortion facility director exposes abortionist's trade

Brad Mattes of Life Issues Institute in America has conducted an amazingly revealing interview with Abby Johnson, the former director of a Texas Planned Parenthood (PP) abortion facility. Here's some of the things Abby told Brad:

• Some of Abby's co-workers were angry when women decided not to go ahead with an abortion. This has led her to conclude that many people who call themselves pro-choice are in fact pro-abortion.
• There are not many people who work in abortion facilities who are in fact for choice. The people who work there have a sense of shame.
• Abby's boss started really hounding her about increasing abortion numbers at her facility. Her boss told her: "We've just got to get more women in here for abortions ... Abortion's got to be your priority, because that's where our money is." Abby described this as "sick", and PP's stated aim of helping women as "a farce". Abby said this conversation was the beginning of the end of her commitment to PP.
• PP don't really give women informed consent, and PP staff have no idea of when a baby has a heartbeat.
• Abby took the decision to leave PP after assisting in an ultrasound-guided surgical abortion. She was horrified by the reality of abortion, and eventually join pro-lifers who held vigils outside the abortion facility.

Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, wrote in 2005 a dissertation on the subject of abortion facility staff. Anthony sent me his reaction to the interview:

"This extremely professional interview is a seminal moment in the campaign to dismantle the abortion industry. Abby's revelations relate to two of my own speculations about abortionists: 

• abortion inevitably results in what moral philosophers call instrumentalisation. People become instrumentalised when they are used for a lower, ignoble end. Abortion facility staff are being instrumentalised by Planned Parenthood, which is using their skills, not to serve the higher, noble end of medicine, but to serve the lower, ignoble end of easy profit-making. Planned Parenthood is also instrumentalising patients (both women and unborn children) by treating them, not as ends in themselves, but as cash-cows. 
• complicity even in such a horrific vice as serial killing of the innocent doesn't result in absolute and irrevocable corruption of an individual’s human nature. When Abby discovered the reality of abortion and the abortion industry, she rejected it swiftly and entirely."

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

Powerful sex education lobby hates us, says a Manchester parish priest

Fr Connolly (pictured), the parish priest of St. Kentigern's, Fallowfield, in Manchester, has posted a powerful homily on his website which he intends to deliver at Sunday Masses this weekend.

He says that the crowd in Nazareth hated Christ and: " ... they rose up in a foul rage and bundled him out and tried to throw him down a cliff. In other words - they hated him - our Saviour."

Referring, amongst other matters, to the Government's intention of making abortion and birth control drugs and devices even more accessible to schoolchildren through all state schools, including Catholic schools, he says:

"His Church is being treated like that now by those who hate us ...

" ... It is like saying to the MPs that the National Front should be allowed membership of their party. Religious faith is of no consequence. Our children will be forcibly indoctrinated by the false ideology of those who rule us. They say it will bring down teenage pregnancies. We have the highest in Europe seemingly. The reality is that 30 years of this kind of stuff in our High schools has not proven successful."

Too true Father.

And sadly, as I have mentioned frequently before, the Catholic Education Service in England and Wales (CESEW) has betrayed Catholics and non-Catholics alike by its giving general support to the British government’s legislative proposals to require all state schools to teach sex and relationships education throughout the school years (from ages five to 18). (N.B. The state schooling system in England and Wales includes the majority of Catholic schools.) The British government has stated clearly that its proposals have been drafted to entrench a form of sex education which promotes access to abortion and contraception in all state schools, including in Catholic schools.

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

Catholic bishops of England and Wales have been deceived says former headteacher

In an article in this weekend's Catholic Herald, Eric Hester challenges the Catholic Education Service to a public debate "to obtain from any Government Minister a statement that it is true that school governors can 'determine the content' of what is taught in sex education and can omit anything that they do not like."

Eric Hester was a headteacher of Catholic comprehensive and grammar schools for 24 years and has extensive experience of inspecting schools. He writes:

" ... I have been informed by one bishop that they were given assurances by the CES [Catholic Education Service] that governors would have complete control and that there would be no question of any teaching about civil partnerships or information given to pupils about how to obtain contraception and abortion without parental consent.

"It seems as if the bishops have relied entirely on the information of the CES and ignored other advice. They have been deceived ... "

Eric is right. I have frequently posted on the government's plans on sex education and on the Catholic Education Service's betrayal of Catholics and non-Catholics alike - which is why my wife and I will not be giving to the collection in Catholic churches tomorrow in their support. The government has, for example, accepted all the major recommendations of the 2007/2008 report by the Teenage Pregnancy Independent Advisory Group (TPIAG). The report's major recommendations include that:

"The Government's current review of SRE should ...

* ... [s]tate clearly 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
* ... [m]ake explicit links to young people's advisory services and provision of contraception and sexual health services and demonstrate this by teaching young people how to access services".

Eric Hester's article continues:

" ... John Paul II put the rights of parents like this in his Charter of the Rights of the Family: 'Article 5 c. Parents have the right to ensure that their children are not compelled to attend classes which are not in agreement with their own moral and religious convictions. In particular, sex education is a basic right of parent and must always be carried out under their close supervision, whether at home or in educational centres chosen and controlled by them.'

"I publicly challenge the CES to obtain from any Government Minister a statement that it is true that school governors can "determine the content" of what is taught in sex education and can omit anything that they do not like. Everything the Government has said is to the contrary. Under the Freedom of Education Act I have obtained correspondence between the CES and the Government, where the CES asks for that very assurance and is not given it.

"So does the CES claim that it has been given private assurances that all will be well? That was exactly the argument used about gay adoptions, where the Government broke any promises given and which has resulted in the ending of Catholic adoption in England as we used to know it. I further challenge the CES to debate sex education with me, or a better speaker, on behalf of Catholic teaching at a public meeting."

I join Eric Hester in that challenge.

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

My wife and I will not be donating to the Catholic Education Service this weekend

In many parts of England and Wales this weekend there will be a special collection for the Catholic Education Service (CESEW). (Pictured right are Ms Oonagh Stannard, the chief executive and director of the CESEW with Mr Ed Balls MP, Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families.) My wife and I will not be giving a donation - and this is why:

The CESEW welcomes into Catholic schools Connexions, a British government agency. Connexions’ staff are trained* to tell children that they have a right of access to abortion and contraception without parental knowledge or consent. SPUC has evidence of Connexions’ staff giving children such information in Catholic schools. In addition, the Connexions website includes pages promoting abortion and contraception to children.

(2) CESEW is giving general support to the British government’s legislative proposals to require all state schools to teach sex and relationships education throughout the school years (from ages five to 18). (N.B. The state schooling system in England and Wales includes the majority of Catholic schools.) The British government has stated clearly that its proposals have been drafted to entrench a form of sex education which promotes access to abortion and contraception in all state schools, including in Catholic schools.

CESEW has defended itself on these matters. CESEW’s defence, however:
• fails to present Catholic teaching on sex education
• is at variance with Catholic teaching on sex education
• provides no credible evidence for its claim that, under the government's proposals, Catholic schools will be able to uphold Catholic teaching on sexual ethics
• leaves pupils in non-Catholic schools (which are attended by many Catholics) at the mercy of the full force of government-specified pro-abortion sex education
• endorses the presence of on-site sexual health clinics at schools, including in Catholic schools.

*Connexions, “Young people and sexual health – A Reader for those participating in the Connexions’ training programme”, Crown Copyright 2003.


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

Legal protection against assisted suicide must remain says RADAR

I am delighted to see that RADAR, (chaired by Baroness Campbell of Surbiton [pictured]) has responded to the Gilderdale case on which I blogged yesterday. On Monday Kay Gilderdale was acquitted of attempted murder after admitting to assisting her 31 year old daughter’s suicide. Lynn was diagnosed with chronic fatigue disorder at 14 and said that she decided she wanted to die after being ill for many years. RADAR is a charity ran by disabled people and the UK’s largest disability campaigning network.

Their press release can be found on their website, but I reproduce here in full:

Amidst the clamour for the laws on assisted suicide to be changed following the case of Lynn Gilderdale, RADAR wishes to state its commitment to the principle that those who have a hand in the death of another person, regardless of that person’s disability or the stated motivation of the perpetrator, should have to answer for their actions before a court of law.

This provides a vital safeguard for thousands of the most vulnerable people in our country, and creating a group of people for whom this safeguard does not exist is both dangerous and discriminatory.

This danger is further illustrated by the case of Tom Inglis. His mother Frances, in spite of medical opinion and acting on her own convictions that he was suffering and that it was what he would have wanted, decided to kill her brain-damaged son.

What if it was not what he wanted, at that time? What right did Frances Inglis have to make that decision for him? Tom’s disability does not give another person, even his mother, the right to take his life based on their own judgements. Tom has the same rights to legal protection and justice as anyone else, and the prospect of setting out circumstances in which people whose lives are deemed by others to be intolerable can be stripped of those rights is chilling beyond measure.

Commenting in the wake of the Gilderdale judgement Caroline Ellis, RADAR’s Joint Deputy Chief Executive whose teenage son has Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), the same condition as Lynn Gilderdale, said:

“I condemn those who would try to use this case as ammunition for their fight to legalise assisted dying for people who are terminally ill or severely disabled or introduce a so-called ‘mercy killing’ defence. Singling out individuals for legalised killing based on their medical condition or prognosis would be discriminatory and repugnant – we must maintain current legal protections.”

“The real outrage is that people with CFS and their families are literally left to get on with it, with most not getting effective treatment or support. I am staggered at the lack of specialist resources available.”

“I have no way of knowing how severely CFS will affect my own child in the future but I know this: I never want him to feel like society is giving up on him, I want him and everyone else living with illness and impairment and their families to be supported to live [author’s emphasis], with access to the best possible care and support, free at the point of use. The idea that the law could be relaxed in future to encourage people to give up sends chills down my spine.”

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

Civil partnerships have same value as marriage says David Cameron

According to the Daily Telegraph this morning, David Cameron (pictured), the leader of the Conservative party has said regarding sex education for schoolchildren:

“Should we teach them about civil partnerships being a way of same-sex couples showing commitment just as married couples show commitment? Yes we should.”

He apparently made it clear at a Cameron Direct meeting that this should be embedded "in the ethos of our education".

Last week I reported that Ed Balls, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, agrees with Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, that faith schools must teach that homosexuality is normal and harmless.

It appears, then, that the three major party leaders are in step with each other on this issue. All of this, of course, is in the context of the Government's Children, Schools and Families bill currently being considered by the Public Bill Committee in Parliament. This bill would make sex education compulsory in all state schools, including faith schools, from ages 5-16.

The first consequence of this rare agreement between party leaders is that concerned citizens must ensure that they don't vote along party political lines, but reflect on the voting intentions and voting record of individual parliamentary candidates.

It's important to remember, as the general election approaches, that David Cameron is on record as backing wider access to abortion and that all three party leaders voted in support of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, a law designed to kill countless human beings who are deliberately created never to be born.

The second consequence of the major party leaders' consensus on civil partnerships is that concerned citizens should make it clear that they refuse to allow their children to be taught in such a way at any stage in their education. As Catholics and pro-lifers, my wife and I have always taken this stand. We must never forget in this connection the teaching of Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae, paragraph 97. He said 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.

We must begin to organize more effectively to resist, peacefully and firmly, the State's attacks on the moral welfare of our children. In addition, Catholic parents and young people must also resist, peacefully and firmly, Catholic episcopal policy in England and Wales (on the government's sex education plans), which is contrary to Catholic teaching, undermines the culture of life, and betrays our children and unborn children by delivering them to the abortionists.


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

Assisted suicide case shows pitfalls of pseudo-compassion

This morning SPUC issued a statement expressing concern at the outcome of the case of Lynn Gilderdale whose mother was acquitted of helping to kill her. ( Lynn was diagnosed with chronic fatigue disorder at 14 and said that she decided she wanted to die after being ill for many years.)

I commented:

"The jury's verdict and the judge's comments appear to have disturbing implications for vulnerable, disabled and seriously ill people. Laws against assisted suicide are actually there to protect such vulnerable people. We shall be studying this sad and worrying case carefully with a view to doing all in our power to step up our educational and political campaign on the need to explain and maintain the current legislation in this area.”

Mrs Kay Gilderdale was acquitted of the charge of attempted murder after admitting to assisting her 31 year old daughter’s suicide “by giving her sleeping pills, antidepressants and injecting air into her veins … after her daughter [Lynn] had injected herself with morphine”.

The media treatment of this story has been dominated by anti-life propaganda. For example, The Daily Telegraph, in nearly three pages of coverage sympathetic to Kay Gilderdale – pages one, two and three – devoted 30 words to presenting a pro-life perspective.

Media hero of the day is High Court Judge, Mr Justice Bean, who criticised the prosecution for pursuing the charge of attempted murder and who paid tribute to the jury’s “common sense, decency and humanity” for acquitting Kay Gilderdale of attempted murder of her daughter.

This case highlights the pitfalls of “pseudo-compassion”, the theme of a timely article entitled “The Pitfalls of Compassion” published this week by Monsignor Michael Schooyans, Professor Emeritus at the University of Louvain.

Monsignor Schooyans explains that compassion has traditionally been understood as an expression of human solidarity in suffering. To be compassionate has been thought to show understanding, to sympathize or to comfort. However, “in cases of abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide which appear in the news, compassion is frequently invoked to 'justify the act'". As killing somebody is not self-evidently compassionate, in the same way that comforting them is, compassionate intentions have to be presented as the justification for killing.

The Gilderdale case is an example of “compassion” being used as a justification for killing, rather than the expression of care towards another. Schooyans explains that coupled with judgments on the quality of life of human beings, this pseudo-compassion becomes the vehicle by which the most vulnerable in society are disposed of. Schooyans uses the example of an unborn child with disabilities to explain how people can be “ethically” exterminated. By claiming that the only way to help such children is by terminating their lives, society has created a moral principle whereby a child will be killed out of compassion. Likewise with Lynn Gilderdale the jury considered it justified for her mother to kill her on the “compassionate” grounds that it was the best way to relieve her daughter of her suffering.

Monsignor Schooyans explains that this brand of ethics goes on to impose its framework upon society. In the case of abortion it is claimed that it is contrary to compassion to impose the “insupportable ‘burden’” of pregnancy upon women. The act of abortion then is justified by its ‘compassion’ toward both mother and child and those who object to such an action thereby become opponents of “compassion”.

Schooyans explains, compassion has been further “manipulated” as a tool of congratulation. This is seen in the demand by society to sympathise with and applaud those doctors who

“‘for the good’ of the child or its mother take the ‘courageous’ decision to go ahead with an abortion”.

Such congratulation for what Schooyans dubs as “bogus compassion” has terrifying consequences. Schooyans cites the 1962 case in Belgium where a woman who murdered her child who had been born with “serious malformations” due to her having taken thalidomide, was acquitted by the Belgian court to “hearty applause from the public.”

The same “bogus compassion” is at operation and imposes its framework in the Gilderdale case. A false understanding of the notion of compassion has led a mother to kill her daughter, believing that it was the compassionate thing to do. This "compassion" has been manipulated by the judge as a tool of congratulation in his remarks to the jury - with the clear implication that those who might oppose the jury's decision are the opponents of compassion.

We must stand firm for true compassion. Last week Margo MacDonald launched her End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill in the Scottish Parliament. Alison Davis of No Less Human, a division of SPUC, who lives with severe spina bifida and other debilitating conditions that have brought her to the brink of suicide in the past, told the Scottish media:

"Sometimes what desperate people, disabled or not, need is to be given hope. What they definitely don't need is to be told they are right to feel so unhappy and that they would be better off dead. This is simply the moral equivalent of the practical example of seeing a person about to jump off a high bridge and giving them a push."

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

Faith schools must teach homosexuality* is normal and harmless, Telegraph reports

I hope the interview with Ed Balls (pictured), the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, in yesterday's Telegraph, will persuade Catholic church leaders in England and Wales that they are wrong about British government policy on sex and relationships education policy.

The Telegraph interview says:

" ... Does he agree with Nick Clegg that faith schools should be forced to teach that homosexuality is normal and harmless? The answer is yes. '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 [and that] bullying of homosexuals is wrong ... '".

Now Archbishop Nichols reportedly says that British government policy means that Catholic schools have "retained their rights through the governing body that their sex and relationships education is delivered according to Catholic ethos and teaching".

So does that mean, in the light of Ed Balls's reported statement above, that Catholic schools can teach paragraphs 2357 - 2359 of Catechism the Catholic Church?  These state:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

And when teaching children about "the importance of civil partnerships", is it the British Government's policy that Catholic church schools can do so in accordance with Catholic teaching on the subject which has been so well explained by Fr Boyle in his blog, Caritas in Veritate?

I am afraid it does not mean that. As I have mentioned before the government has accepted all the major recommendations of the 2007/2008 report by the Teenage Pregnancy Independent Advisory Group (TPIAG). The report's major recommendations include that:

"The Government's current review of SRE should ...

• ... [s]tate clearly 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
• ... [m]ake explicit links to young people's advisory services and provision of contraception and sexual health services and demonstrate this by teaching young people how to access services"

How tragic that the TPIAG says 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]

Please pray that church leaders in England and Wales reverse their position.  As I said yesterday, they risk throwing our children to the wolves.  A tragic error was made by Catholic church leaders and other Christian leaders in the 1960s in failing to organize a great campaign amongst Christians to oppose the passage of the Abortion Act 1967 which has now cost over 7 million unborn lives and the welfare of countless mothers.  There's a risk of a worse error being made  by the Catholic church and Anglican authorities this year - in  effectively seeking to undermine the pro-life campaign on the Children Schools and Families bill by giving general support to Government policy on sex and relationships education.  This policy is clearly designed, as the TPIAG makes clear above, to promote access to secret abortions through the state school system, including faith schools.

*In Evangelium Vitae paragraph 97, Pope John Paul II taught 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