Catholic Education Service appoints anti-life and anti-family ex-MP as deputy director

The Catholic Education Service (CES), an agency of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, has appointed Greg Pope (pictured), former Labour MP for Hyndburn, as its new deputy director. Mr Pope has a lengthy and strongly anti-life and anti-family parliamentary record - see below. According to a CES press release earlier this week:

"Greg [Pope] was appointed after a rigorous selection process and was the unanimous choice of the final interview panel, which was chaired by Bishop Malcolm McMahon, Chairman of CESEW."

"Oona Stannard, Chief Executive and Director of CESEW, welcomed the appointment, saying...'[It] will help us to continue to both promote and protect Catholic education...'"

Parents, clergy, teachers and other concerned citizens, both Catholic and non-Catholic, up and down the country have already been outraged by the CES's shameful complicity with the government and the pro-abortion lobby in spreading the culture of death through schools. The CES, along with the pro-abortion lobby, helped draft the government's guidance on sex education, which is a cornucopia of anti-life and anti-family ideas. The CES did everything it could to help the government mislead the public about the Children, Schools and Families bill. The bill, as passed by the House of Commons at third reading, was a vehicle to impose the teaching of abortion, contraception and homosexuality* on schools, including Catholic and other faith schools.

It is clear that the CES and its agenda has the full backing of Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster. Archbishop Nichols has today expressed "deep shame" at the sexual abuse of children within the Catholic Church, apologising:

"to those who have suffered abuse, those who have felt ignored, disbelieved or betrayed".

That is all very well, but neither Archbishop Nichols, nor Bishop McMahon, nor Oona Stannard have apologised for exposing schoolchildren to abuse via government-led sex education. Nor have these Catholic leaders apologised to all those parents, clergy, teachers and other concerned citizens "who have felt ignored, disbelieved or betrayed" by them. The CES's appointment of Greg Pope is an grotesque adding of insult to injury. I pray that Pope Benedict and his supporters in the Curia will relieve the Catholics of this country from this oppression by the episcopal policy in England and Wales.

Greg Pope MP’s parliamentary record against life and family

Abortion
Greg Pope voted for amendments to lower the 24-week time-limit for abortions done on social grounds to 22 weeks or to 20 weeks but voted against amendments to lower the same limit to 16 weeks or to 12 weeks. (20 May 2008).

Abortion and contraception for school-age children
Greg Pope:

• voted against a bill which would have required practitioners providing contraception or abortion services to a child under the age of 16 to inform his or her parent or guardian (14 Mar 2007).
• signed a parliamentary motion praising a condom manufacturer for helping schools host “National Condom Week” (11 May 2004).

Abortion of disabled children
Greg Pope voted against an amendment which would have required doctors to provide pregnant mothers with certain information and an offer of counselling before any abortion of an unborn child on grounds of disability (20 May 2008).

Abortion groups
Greg Pope signed parliamentary motions praising the leading domestic and international pro-abortion organisations:

• All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health (24 May 2005)
• All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Choice and Sexual Health Group (15 Jul 2004)
• Family Planning Association (15 Jul 2004) (9 Feb 2006) (21 Feb 2007) (9 Feb 2009)
• International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) (1 Jul 2004)
• Marie Stopes International (1 Jul 2004)
• United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) (16 Dec 2002) (1 Jul 2004) (9 Jun 2005).

Abortion rights
Greg Pope signed parliamentary motions promoting:

• “reproductive health” (16 Dec 2002)
• “sexual and reproductive health” (24 May 2005) (9 Jun 2005) (20 Oct 2006)
• “sexual and reproductive health and rights” (1 Jul 2004)

According to the British government and to the US administration, these terms include a right to abortion on demand.

Contraception
Mr Pope signed parliamentary motions promoting:

• “Contraceptive Awareness Week” (9 Feb 2006) (21 Feb 2007) (9 Feb 2009)
• “contraceptive choice” (20 Oct 2006)
• “contraceptive needs” (8 Feb 2006)
• “family planning” (16 Dec 2002)
• “National Condom Week” (11 May 2004) (11 May 2004) (9 May 2007)
• a tax reduction on condoms (30 Nov 2005)

Euthanasia
The Mental Capacity Bill (now Act) enshrined euthanasia by neglect into English statute law. Greg Pope:

• voted for the bill at second (11 Oct 2004) and third readings (14 Dec 2004)
• voted against amendments motivated by pro-life concerns (14 Dec 2004) (14 Dec 2004) 5 Apr 2005).

Homosexual* activity
Greg Pope voted to:

• reduce the homosexual age of consent to 16 (to equalise it with the heterosexual age of consent) (21 Feb 1994) (22 Jun 1998) (22 Jun 1998) (25 Jan 1999) (1 Mar 1999) (1 Mar 1999) (28 Feb 2000). He also signed a parliamentary motion in the same vein (24 Mar 2004).
• reduce the homosexual age of consent to 18 (21 Feb 1994)
• allow active homosexuals in the military (9 May 1996). He also signed a parliamentary motion in the same vein (24 Mar 2004).

He also signed parliamentary motions celebrating the decriminalisation of homosexuality in England (24 Jul 2007) and calling for the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Uganda (12 Nov 2010).

Homosexual* parenting
Greg Pope:

• voted against amendments which sought to retain the requirement for doctors to consider the child’s need for a father (20 May 2008) or male role model (20 May 2008) before a woman is given fertility treatment.
• voted against amendments restricting adoption to heterosexual couples (20 May 2002) and married couples (4 Nov 2002). He also signed a parliamentary motion in the same vein (24 Mar 2004).

Homosexual* propaganda
Greg Pope:

• voted against measures (popularly known as “section 28”) preventing local councils from promoting homosexuality, including the teaching in schools of “the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship” (5 Jul 2000) (10 Mar 2003) (10 Mar 2003). He also signed a parliamentary motion in the same vein (24 Mar 2004).
• signed parliamentary motions promoting measures against “homophobia” (4 Nov 2003) (26 Oct 2005) (22 June 2006) (4 Jul 2006) (10 Jul 2006) (12 Dec 2006) (24 Jul 2007) (12 Nov 2010).

Homosexual* rights
Mr Pope signed parliamentary motions promoting homosexual rights generally and in other various ways (24 Mar 2004) (21 Feb 2005) (30 Mar 2006) (4 Jul 2006) (20 Nov 2006) (20 Mar 2007).

Homosexual* unions
Mr Pope signed parliamentary motions promoting homosexual unions (7 Sep 2004) (13 Oct 2004) (20 Jul 2005).

Marriage
Greg Pope voted against:

• an amendment to reject plans for a no-fault divorce system in England and Wales (24 Apr 1996)
• amendments to extend the cooling-off period for divorce from one year to 18 months or to two years (24 April 1996).

Mr Pope also signed a parliamentary motion arguing that “unmarried couples should receive the same benefits as married couples should one partner die”. (16 April 2002)

Parents’ rights
Greg Pope:

• voted against a bill which would have required practitioners providing contraception or abortion services to a child under the age of 16 to inform his or her parent or guardian (14 Mar 2007)
• voted for the Children, Schools and Families bill at second (11 Jan 2010) and third readings (23 Feb 2010), which would have restricted parents’ rights over their children’s education, especially regarding sexual matters.

Population control
Greg Pope signed parliamentary motions promoting population control (16 Dec 2002) (1 Jul 2004).

Transsexual* rights
Mr Pope signed a parliamentary motion “call[ing] on the Government to bring forward legislation to give transsexual people full rights and legal recognition” (27 Nov 2002).

Sex education
The Children, Schools and Families bill, as debated by the House of Commons, would have forced all state-funded schools (including faith schools) to provide sex and relationships education, based on anti-life/anti-family principles. Greg Pope voted for the bill at second (11 Jan 2010) and third readings (23 Feb 2010). He also signed a parliamentary motion in the same vein (21 Feb 2007).

* Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, teaches in paragraph 97 of Evangelium Vitae 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

Archbishop Vincent Nichols goes along with prevailing ideas on sex and relationships education

On 4 April I gave my initial reaction to an interview on BBC WM (West Midlands) radio with Vincent Nichols, the Catholic archbishop of Westminster (pictured with Ed Balls, secretary of state for children, schools and families, and Oona Standard, head of the Catholic Education Service.) I offered up my Easter Triduum in reparation for his comments in that interview and said that I would write more fully about it. Here are my more detailed reflections on it.

Sex education

Archbishop Nichols said:

• "[T]he [government's external steering] review [of sex education] is [sic] trying to set sex education much more in the context of relationships, therefore much more in a moral context...."
• "We have secured the right that sex and relationships education in a Catholic school will be presented in a way that’s consistent with Catholic teaching."

Archbishop Nichols paints the government's intentions, the review and the Children, Schools and Families bill in an entirely positive light, when all those things enable the promotion and facilitation of abortion, contraception and homosexuality in schools, including Catholic schools. He seems not to have been correctly advised, or advised himself, that the government’s intentions were to impose an obligation on all schools to teach children that choices for abortion and contraception are reasonable choices, and to promote homosexuality as a normal, healthy life-style. The Gospel of Life requires bishops to teach that no one has a moral right to choose something which is morally wrong. Furthermore, Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, teaches in paragraph 97 of Evangelium Vitae 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 effect of the Archbishop’s positive assessment of the government’s intention where sex education is concerned is to assist and promote the government's anti-life/anti-family sex education agenda and seriously to undermine the culture of life.

Contraception

Archbishop Nichols said:

• "[If] sex is not open to transmission of life ... then we run the risk of reducing it to an entertainment, or a past-time, or simply a pleasure. Now, I know that's a high ideal, and I know that that's sometimes hard to relate into the harsh circumstances of poverty, or, I think, the rather blind circumstances of hedonism and just the pursuit of pleasure..."
• "I think when it comes to Third World poverty, and the great pressure into which many women are put by men, I can see the arguments why, in the short-term, means that give women protection are attractive.”
• "The use of condoms doesn't lack for champions; there are plenty of champions around giving and distributing condoms. I don't think it's the Church's role simply to add its voice to that but rather, in contrast, to keep saying, 'If we solve the poverty then consistently we know the birth-rate comes down.'"
• "They are the radical issues that we should be addressing and not short-term intrusive fixes."

Presenting the Church's teaching on contraception as a ‘high ideal’ is seriously inadequate and therefore seriously misleading. He is obligated, by his office, to affirm and promote the Church's teaching that contraception is not just a high ideal but something that is intrinsically wrong. I have blogged before about the importance of Humanae Vitae for the pro-life movement - and how another English bishop has questioned Humanae Vitae. (And I say here arises out of my experience as a pro-life activist as well as the teaching of the Catholic Church to which I belong.)

Moreover, artificial birth control methods (ABCMs) do not, in fact, protect women. On th contrary, they contribute to the sexual misuse of women by men. In 1968, Pope Paul VI predicted that that the use of ABCMs would reduce respect for women and contribute to a range of other social disasters (Humanae vitae n 17). The evidence suggests that his predictions have come to pass. From this we know that the misguided attempt to reduce poverty by contraception simply compounds a whole raft of other evils such that the state of that society is worse for the intervention.

It is beyond doubt that ABCMs have encouraged promiscuity, unwanted pregnancies, and abortions. Promiscuity is the key factor in spread of STIs.

The Church cannot embrace a policy which explicitly endorses a means (contraception) which is malum in se (i.e. evil in itself) and which implicitly endorses immoral and destructive sexual behaviours. Nor can she cooperate in the promotion of activities which put a person’s salvation at risk and contribute to an increase in serious social problems.

Even worse, while the use of condoms may slow down the rate of HIV transmission, they cannot eliminate it. It would be irresponsible for the Church to promote condom use knowing that the use of condoms in a regular sexual relationship between husband and wife where the husband has HIV will ultimately culminate in his wife receiving the virus.

Birth rates

Archbishop Nichols said:

“If we solve the poverty then consistently we know the birth-rate comes down.”

On the face of it, this is a true statement. Richer countries have lowered birth rates having first become rich aided by higher birth rates. Developing countries are being asked by rich countries to depopulate in order to prosper, the opposite of what they themselves did.

It is not clear that Archbishop Nichols supports decreasing birth rates as a good thing. We should assume he does not in light of the fact that Catholics in Britain and Ireland are only too aware of how the Scottish Highlands were depopulated in the mid-18th century and how Ireland was depopulated during the 19th century.

And the Archbishop would also have been aware that:

• People in poor societies and developing countries have what seems in modern Western eyes to be large families, when in fact it is the historically small size of modern Western families which should be remarked upon. The trend in recent decades for Western couples to only have one or two children mirrors the decline of ancient Greece, as Plutarch, the Greek historian noted.
• People in poor societies and developing countries choose to conceive children above replacement level (two children per woman of child-bearing age) for many good reasons:

• natural conjugal and parental instincts
• love of family
• a desire to preserve and increase their native population
• fidelity to religious precepts e.g. "Go forth and multiply and fill the face of the earth."
• high child mortality rates
• a need to provide security in old age

• Birth-rates in developing countries are falling to dangerously low levels. As long ago as 2005, the United Nations Population Division (UNPD) reported that:

"In the least developed countries, fertility is 5 children per woman and is expected to drop by about half, to 2.57 children per woman by 2045-2050. In the rest of the developing world, fertility is already moderately low at 2.58 children per woman and is expected to decline further to 1.92 children per woman by mid-century."

• In addition, the Population Research Institute (PRI) has reported that:

• "The birth rate in developing countries like Mexico and India has plummeted to just over three children per couple today from about six in 1950." [26 Oct 2005];
• "Mexico is committing suicide. Her birthrate is now below replacement level." [6 Oct 2006]

Homosexuality

(I emphasise again that my comments below, both as a Catholic and as a pro-lifer, are motivated and inspired by John Paul II’s words in Evangelium Vitae, paragraph 97 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.)

Archbishop Nichols said:

"[W]here government and Church part company is that government legislation identifies people by their sexual orientation ... Catholic moral teaching is not concerned with sexual orientation".

In the context the Archbishop is rightly rejecting the idea that a human being should be described, in a reductionist way, by same-sex attraction. Is a person who has same-sex attraction, but abstains from homosexual acts, a ‘homosexual’? The moral question concerns homosexual activity, not orientation. This does not mean the Catholic Church is unconcerned that some people are burdened with the temptations that come from a disordered inclination. In her pastoral concern for people the Catholic Church is always conscious of psychological factors affecting moral choice. So it is that the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches  that:

"Homosexual acts ... do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity" (n. 2357)

and that

the homosexual "inclination ... is objectively disordered" (n. 2358).

In 1986 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the pastoral care of homosexual persons" was approved by Pope John Paul II and published. The document teaches that:

• "Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder." [n 3]
• "[I]ncreasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered ... The Church's ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church." [n 8]
• "[T]his Congregation wishes to ask the Bishops to be especially cautious of any programmes which may seek to pressure the Church to change her teaching, even while claiming not to do so. A careful examination of their public statements and the activities they promote reveals a studied ambiguity by which they attempt to mislead the pastors and the faithful. For example, they may present the teaching of the Magisterium, but only as if it were an optional source for the formation of one's conscience." [n 14]

Conclusion

The message from Archbishop Nichols is clear: yes, the Catholic Church teaches high ideals of sexual ethics, but in practice the Catholic bishops of England and Wales will go along with prevailing ideas in government and society which deviate from those ideals.

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

Government sex ed guidance misleads on law and evidence

SPUC has responded to the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF)'s consultation on its draft guidance on sex and relationships education (SRE) in schools. Paul Tully, SPUC general secretary, told the media this afternoon:

“The draft guidance is in conflict with both the law and the evidence about sex education. It refers to abortion as if it was a right, but in fact it remains a criminal offence in English law.

“The guidance’s promotion of sexual health for children pays little or no regard to the legal age of consent to sexual intercourse. The guidance contradicts research evidence which it claims supports the proposed approach to sex and relationships education.

“The draft guidance ignores parents’ rights over education upheld in international law, and fails to support faith schools in their duty to protect their ethos.

“School governors, who are supposed to read this document, deserve better than this. They will have to wade through 60 pages of often poorly written, repetitive and, in some places, legally and factually erroneous material.”

The draft guidance is separate from the government’s Children, Schools and Families bill. The bill’s sex education clauses were dropped before parliament was dissolved for the general election. We are asking SPUC supporters to urge parliamentary candidates to oppose anti-life and anti-family sex education measures if they are re-introduced after the election.

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

Irish women are under threat from Irish Labour leader's plan

Mr Eamon Gilmore, the leader of the Irish Labour Party, has announced his commitment to a fundamental review of the Irish Constitution. One of his major motivations for doing so is to reverse the protection currently afforded to women and their unborn children in the Irish Constitution, by its prohibition of abortion. Mr Gilmore has said that

“[t]here is much about it [the Irish Constitution] that has served us well, but it is a document written in the 1930s for the 1930s”.

and in the 1930s

“women were considered to be second-class citizens”.

Whatever the merits or otherwise of Mr Gilmore's historical analysis, what a sad irony it is that his proposals include going much further than turning a category of Irish people into second-class citizens in 2010. If Mr Gilmore is successful, unborn Irish children will be robbed completely of citizenship, having their most fundamental right, the right to be born, cruelly taken away from them.

Why does Mr Gilmore think that it is appropriate to deprive women of their rights before they are born? Why does Mr Gilmore think that it is beneficial for women to do something that kills their children and harms them too?

It is highly misleading for Mr Gimore to attempt to mask a pro-abortion agenda behind the veil of equality for women. Abortion kills unborn females and harms pregnant mothers.

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

Lesbian parentage not in the best interests of children

The Daily Telegraph reports that a lesbian couple (pictured) from Brighton, England, are the first such couple to sign a British birth certificate as legal parents, under changes passed by Parliament in 2008. One of the women became pregnant via a sperm donor.

Making homosexual couples the legal parents of children is not in the best interests of children. It represents a move away from the natural procreation of children to the artificial reproduction of children. Children and child-bearing are thus being instrumentalised to suit certain lifestyles. Children are precious and the natural family provides the best protection for their lives and development. British society is heading down a path of social engineering at its peril.

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

SPUC to leaflet GP's surgeries that do chemical abortions

SPUC supporters will distribute leaflets outside GPs’ surgeries where abortions are performed. We are responding to news that the number of such surgeries has tripled following government approval. The family doctors’ surgeries carry out so-called early medical abortions using the RU-486 drug, also known as mifepristone.

Abortion kills children and therefore we must not allow abortion to be normalised in this way. Women deserve to know the truth about the humanity of unborn children and about the physical and psychological damage abortion does to women. SPUC will therefore be leafleting GPs' surgeries nationwide with scientifically-established medical research which explains how abortion kills children and hurts women.

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

Scientists should stop killing and abusing human beings in experiments

SPUC has responded to the news that scientists in Newcastle, England, have created embryos using genetic material from two women and one man in order to address mitochondrial diseases.

Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, told the media this morning:

"Scientists should stop killing and abusing human beings in experiments. None of the 80 or more embryos created by the Newcastle team were allowed to live. Each of those embryos were members of the human family, with a right to life equal to those of the scientists who killed them. Human life begins at conception. Any grounds for denying human rights to human embryos are arbitrary and self-serving.

"Creating embryonic children in the laboratory abuses them, by subjecting them to unnatural processes. As with IVF and cloning, this mitochondrial technique may well lead to developmental abnormalities.

"Scientists should respect human life and pursue ethical alternatives which are much more likely to be successful in the long-term."

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

Book now for the Linacre Centre conference, 16-18 June

The Linacre Centre is a Catholic academic institute that engages with the moral questions arising in clinical practice and biomedical research. It brings to bear on those questions principles of natural law, virtue ethics, and the teaching of the Catholic Church, and seeks to develop the implications of that teaching for emerging fields of practice. The Centre engages in scholarly dialogue with academics and practitioners of other traditions. It contributes to public policy debates as well as to debates and consultations within the Church. It runs educational programmes for, and gives advice to, Catholics and other interested healthcare professionals and biomedical scientists.

The Linacre Centre's next international conference will be held on 16-18 June at Maynooth, Ireland (near Dublin), on the theme of "Fertility, Infertility and Gender". Speakers will include Professor Luke Gormally, Professor David Paton and Dr Phil Boyle.

Further information and a booking form is available on the Linacre Centre's website.

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

Prayer and fasting on 42nd anniversary of Abortion Act, 27 April

From the Good Counsel Network:

On Tuesday 27th April, the 42nd anniversary of the legalisation of abortion, please pray and fast for the end of abortion and euthanasia. Your prayer and fasting is urgently needed. (Monday 26 April is also the feast day of Our Lady of Good Counsel.)

A great prayer for life is urgently needed. Pope John Paul II

Join us each month in prayer and fasting:

• fasting: Fast from all food except bread and water for the day or fast from a particular food or luxury, e.g. chocolate, alcohol, cigarettes, TV. Fast from whatever you can given your state of health etc, but make sure it is something that involves a sacrifice to yourself.
• prayer: We are asking people to say a Rosary (or an extra Rosary if you say it daily already). You could also offer an extra effort such as going to Mass (or an extra Mass) on the day, or going to Adoration. You can even pray before a closed tabernacle if Adoration is not available near you.

And He said to them; This kind (of demon) can go out by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.(Gospel of Mark 9:29)

For information on the day of prayer and fasting contact The Good Counsel Network on 020 7723 1740.

And the people of Ninevah believed in God; they proclaimed a fast and put on sackcloth, from the greatest to the least…God saw their efforts to renounce their evil ways. And God relented about the disaster which He had threatened to bring on them, and He did not bring it.(Jonah 3:5,10)

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

Pro-life campaigners to hold nation-wide street witness

Pro-life campaigners are due to give silent witness to unborn babies killed in the 42 years since the implementation of the Abortion Act, as well as to the hurt caused to women by abortion.

On Saturday 24 April*, SPUC supporters will form a chain, standing at intervals holding placards which bring home the reality of abortion. The event is known as the Pro-life Chains and will be held from 11am till 1pm.**

The 1967 Abortion Act came into effect on 27 April 1968. Since then, more than six million unborn children have been killed through registered abortion in Britain. This figure does not include abortions which may be caused by birth control drugs and devices. Nor does it include the number of embryos destroyed or discarded during and after in vitro fertilisation.
The full list of locations for the event is below.*** Media outlets are welcome to send a reporter and/or photographer to cover the event. Media and supporters interested in the event should contact Tony Mullett, national organiser of the Pro-life Chains, by telephone on (01772) 258580 or by email to tonymullett@spuc.org.uk

* 17 April in Nottingham and 1 May in Ashton-under-Lyne.
** except Nottingham on 17 April, where the event will be held from 10am to 12noon.
*** Chains will take place at the following towns on Saturday 24 April 2010, 11am to 1pm, unless otherwise stated:

• Ashford
• Ashton-under-Lyne  - 1 May
• Balsall Common
• Banff
• Bath
• Bedford
• Bideford
• Birmingham, Edgbaston
• Birmingham, Erdington
• Birmingham, Handsworth
• Blackpool
• Brighton
• Cardiff
• Cheltenham
• Chester
• Chorley
• Coleraine
• Eccles
• Edinburgh
• Enniskillen
• Farnham
• Godalming
• Guildford
• Huddersfield
• Hull
• Leigh
• Leyland
• Lincoln
• Liverpool, Crosby
• Liverpool, Wavertree
• Llanelli
• Loughborough
• Narborough
• Newcastle under Lyme
• Newcastle upon Tyne
• Nottingham -17 April, 10am to 12 noon
• Peterborough
• Plymouth
• Preston
• Sale
• Salisbury
• Sheffield
• Shipley
• Stockton
• Swansea
• Telford
• Torfaen
• Truro
• Uxbridge
• Vale of Glamorgan
• Worthing

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

Don't fall for David Cameron's pitch on abortion time limit

David Cameron, the Conservative party leader, has responded to questions from readers of The Catholic Herald on several pro-life and pro-family issues. Mr Cameron was asked:

"Will you press for a reduction in the month for which abortion is allowed?"

Mr Cameron replied:

"My own view is that we do need to review the abortion limit. I think that the way medical science and technology have developed in the past few decades does mean that an upper limit of 20 or 22 weeks would be sensible. So I supported the two amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill which would have changed this and I’ll continue to support a modest reduction in the abortion limit. But what’s really important here is that Members of Parliament are always allowed a free vote on this issue. This is an issue of conscience, so it would be wrong to put pressure on Parliamentary colleagues when it comes to voting on this."

It should be noted that:

• by "abortion limit", Mr Cameron only means the 24-week limit for abortions done on social grounds. As he made clear in August 2008, he wants abortion up to birth on disabled children to remain available.
• Mr Cameron and Andrew Lansley, the Conservative party health spokesman, have made clear that they support wider access to abortion in various ways. If there is a free vote by MPs, as promised by Mr Cameron, it will provide the pro-abortion lobby with an opportunity to increase the numbers of abortions, as happened under the Conservative administration under Margaret Thatcher.
• Mr Cameron is only endorsing a reduction of two to four weeks (and for social abortions only). This ignores the vast majority (87% or more) of abortions which are performed before 12 weeks. Only one to two per cent of abortions are performed after 20 weeks. There is a serious danger of MPs who back a cosmetic lowering of the upper time-limit for social abortions of voting in favour of wider access to social abortions earlier in pregnancy.

Nadine Dorries, the leading advocate within the Conservative party of reducing the 24-week social abortion limit, has made her pro-abortion position clear:

"I should like to make my personal position clear, because it has been misrepresented in the past few days. I am pro-choice. I support a woman’s right to abortion—to faster, safer and quicker abortion than is available at the moment, particularly in the first trimester. That is my position ... [O]ne of the main problems is that many young women who present at a hospital or at a doctor’s are made to wait two to four weeks before a termination. I want to make my position clear: I am not against abortion per se. Actually, I would go further: I would like the morning-after pill to be available from every school nurse and in every supermarket pharmacy—and it should be free for young girls, and not £25 at the chemist’s, as it is at the moment." (Hansard, 20 May 2008)

"I have no issue with abortion at the right time." [Daily Mail, 6 March 2008]

She introduced a 10-minute rule bill in 2006 which included a provision to fast-track abortion once the final consent had been given. This provision, if the bill had succeeded, could have led to even more resources being spent on killing the unborn.

There is no reason to believe that the new parliament will be significantly less pro-abortion than the old one. Before the votes on abortion in 2008, advocates of reducing the upper time limit for social abortions had claimed they there had been a sea-change in parliamentary opinion in favour of such a reduction. Yet all the amendments calling for reductions in the upper time limit for social abortions were rejected by large majorities, with the number of MPs voting with the pro-abortion lobby exceeding 390. This sea-change was revealed to be wishful thinking stoked by media hype. With the numbers in parliament stacked against the pro-life movement, it makes no sense at all to add to the calls of the pro-abortion lobby for Parliament to amend the abortion law.

Some observers predict an influx into the new parliament of the so-called Notting Hill Set, socially liberal Tory party candidates with similar views to David Cameron. If so, the result may well be increased pressure to remove restrictions on abortion on demand in early pregnancy and allow nurses to perform certain types of abortion. Most MPs will only accept restrictions on late-term abortions in return for measures making abortion more easily available in other ways. Also, negotiating any lower limit is likely to involve a trade-off with more exceptions being allowed beyond the 24-week limit – up to birth. The number of abortions resulting from these changes would exceed the small number (about 750) of social abortions after 20 or 22 weeks. In any case, those doctors who want to do late abortions can simply get around any lower time-limit, by falsifying gestational age and/or fudging the grounds. As David Steel, the author of the Abortion Act 1967, has said:

"Putting an upper limit on abortions deemed to be done for "social reasons" would have negligible impact on either ease of access for concerned women or current medical practice."

It should also be noted that:

• It was under a Conservative government that parliament voted for abortion up to birth.
• It was also under a Conservative government that the upper limit for abortions was raised for abortions generally. People mistakenly claim that the time limit was reduced from 28 weeks to 24 weeks by the Conservative government’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. However, because of amendments to the law made by the 1990 Act, the previous limit, which was based on the capability of the baby to be born alive – not a fixed number of weeks (28) – was abolished and a 24 week time limit was introduced but only for certain cases. In other cases (including where the abortion is carried out on the grounds of disability) abortions can be and are now carried out right up to the time of birth. Every child who had reached the stage of development of being “capable of being born alive” was protected by the pre-1990 law. Since 1990 that protection has been removed. So the effect of the 1990 Act was to increase the time limit for abortion in most instances and in many cases right up to birth.
• It was pro-lifers who pressed for the 1990 Act to contain provisions relating to abortion, in the hope of being able to insert some restrictions, particularly early time limits. Sadly this tactic backfired, resulting in a less, not more, restrictive abortion law.

Elsewhere in the interview, David Cameron answers questions on sex education. His answers, and the Conservative policy positions on them, are partly good, partly bad and partly mistaken.

SPUC is political, not party political. Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg, the leaders of the other two main parties, share David Cameron's pro-abortion record and position. My critique of David Cameron's answer on abortion is motivated purely by a desire to protect unborn children and their mothers from abortion. The issue of the upper time limit for social abortions is at best a dangerous distraction. At worst, it will entrench discrimination against disabled children and set the scene for an expansion of abortion.

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

Huge pro-life and pro-family victory is won in British Parliament

In a significant victory for the pro-life and pro-family movement, the Government have agreed to delete their clauses on Personal, Social Health and Economic education (PSHE) contained in their Children, Schools and Families Bill.

SPUC had warned that the PSHE clauses in the bill would make sex and relationships education compulsory from 5 to 16 years and that government-backed resources for teaching primary school children, including some produced for Catholic schools, include explicit images of male and female sex organs, lessons on menstruation in mixed classes (boys and girls) and graphic details of sexual intercourse.

SPUC also warned that secondary schools, including faith schools, would face pressure to link sex and relationships education to contraception and abortion services. The government's advisers want confidential health clinics in all secondary schools so they can offer teenagers advice on contraception and abortion without their parents' knowledge. SPUC warned that the impact of this would be to damage teenagers' health, betray parents and destroy unborn lives.

Now that the election has been called, the Government have been forced to negotiate with the Opposition Parties in order to get as much of their legislation through as possible. This is known as the "wash up".

The Government Minister responsible for the Bill, Baroness Morgan (pictured) has now added her name to motions tabled by Baroness Verma (the Conservative spokesperson on education), Lord Alton of Liverpool - and co-sponsored by Baroness O'Loan - which effectively remove the offensive clauses in the bill.

This means that when the House of Lords passes the Children, Schools and Families Bill tomorrow evening, it will be minus the PSHE provisions. A huge pro-life victory.

Credit is due to all those who lobbied against a bill which SPUC has said would have been the biggest expansion of the culture of death through thousands of state schools in England - promoting abortion provision for children and simultaneously sounding the death knell for parents' right and responsibilities to be the primary educators and protectors of their children.

It seems that the Conservatives stood firm in their opposition to the sex and relationships education clauses in the bill, as did Lord Alton and Baroness O'Loan.

I would also pay tribute to over 100 Catholic headteachers and governors, three Catholic bishops and over three hundred clergy, both Catholic and from other denominations/faiths, who signed a letter to the Sunday Telegraph opposing the bill. The initiative was led by Norman Wells of the Family Education Trust. The massive support the letter received from leading Catholics showed just how out of touch the Catholic Education Service (CES) is with the concerns of the Catholics community in England and Wales. Tragically, as I reported over the weekend, Archbishop Nichols of Westminster said nothing in his Good Friday interview on BBC Radio to distance himself from the general support given by the Catholic Education Service ( acting on behalf of the Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales) to the Government's plans on sex and relationships education. On the contrary. I will write more fully about this, later this week.

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

I offered my Easter Triduum in reparation for archbishop's comments in BBC interview

Happy Easter!

Last Wednesday, I was contacted by the BBC to ask if I would take part in a radio discussion the next morning (Thursday) about Archbishop Vincent Nichols's interview to be broadcast on Good Friday morning on BBC Radio West Midlands. I said I would do so - provided the BBC supplied me with the text of the entire interview, which they would not do.

On Good Friday morning I listened to the Archbishop's interview (and again this morning when the interview was repeated). As a result of what I heard I decided to respond to the call from the National Association Catholic Families to offer up my Easter Triduum for what the archbishop had said and for the policy of some church leaders on the government's plans for sex and relationships education.

Archbishop Nichols's widely reported comments on contraception during the BBC West Midlands interview must be seen in the context of his seriously misleading remarks on the Government's plans for compulsory sex and relationships education in all state schools in England, including in Catholic schools. I will write more fully about this later this week.

Tragically he said nothing during the interview to distance himself from the general support given by the Catholic Education Service, on behalf of the Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales, to the Government's plans. On the contrary. Our children, our unborn grandchildren, our nation's families, Catholic and non-Catholic, are being thrown to wolves. Legislation more completely opposed to the common good of British society would be difficult to devise.

However, I also offered my Easter Triduum in thanksgiving for the three Catholic bishops and over three hundred clergy of various denominations who wrote last week to the Sunday Telegraph as follows:

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

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

I believe that history will judge these bishops' and priests' intervention as a significant moment for the churches.

The BBC reports that Archbishop Nichols is expected to say today: "Talk of sin is not always popular - unless we are talking about other peoples' sins.

"In recent weeks the serious sins committed within the Catholic community have been much talked about.

"For our part, we have been reflecting on them deeply, acknowledging our guilt and our need for forgiveness."

Today and in the decades to come I believe that we must make reparation for the policy of those church leaders in England today who give general support to the British government's plans, through its sex and relationships education policies and legislative plans, to abuse and corrupt our children of all faiths and none.

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

Listen to a beautiful pro-life song from Majella McKendry

Late last year I blogged on the time I prayed with my fellow Catholic po-lifers in the Helpers of God's Precious Infants in Sydney, on the feast of Our Lady of Guadaloupe. I am delighted to read of their recent successful 40 days for life campaign. 

As part of the worldwide 40 Days for Life initiative, the group prayed continuously for 40 days, a total of 960 hours, outside of Sydney's largest abortion clinic.

The procession which began the 40 days of prayer, was led by Bishop Julian Porteous, auxiliary Bishop of Sydney.

One of the remarkable things to emerge from the campaign was the opportunity for the group to record, very professionally, two pro-life songs.  One that I found particularly moving was a cover of Regina Spektor's hit, 'The Call'.  The vocals are supplied by 14 year old Majella McKendry, the daughter of Scott McKendry, the 40 Days for Life Sydney director.  I include the video for the song below.



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

SPUC International Student Conference goes from strength to strength

Joe Lee, the SPUC Scotland branch development officer, has sent me a report on SPUC's international student conference, held last month in Clydebank. 

The 160 young delegates left the 3rd International Youth Pro-Life Conference on Sunday 21st March with the hope that a change in our culture towards respecting all human life is a real possibility.

Lucy McCully, event organiser and SPUC Scotland’s Education Officer, said “This year’s conference really has set the benchmark for future youth pro-life conferences, not only in Scotland but world-wide. The event has gone from strength to strength since 2008 and we are sure that it will continue to do so. Planning has already started on the 4th International Youth Pro-Life Conference, scheduled for March 2011.”

The Conference was held at the Beardmore Hotel, Clydebank, last weekend and brought together speakers and young people from all over the world to explore the theme "I exist, therefore I am". Delegates from Scotland, England, Wales, Ireland, the US, Canada, Portugal, Germany, France, Australia and the Congo listened to an in-depth exploration of the concept of personhood in relation to embryo experimentation, abortion and euthanasia.

The two keynote speakers at the conference were the Rev. Arnold Culbreath, director of Protecting Black Life in the US, and Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Rev. Arnold said that “abortion is the leading killer of Black Americans, more than all major diseases, crime and accidents put together,”…[a total of] 37 per cent of all abortions in America are performed on African American women, yet African American women represent only 13 per cent of the population… abortion is literally destroying the African American population.”

In spite of the serious nature of his subject matter, he left the delegates with a sense of hope that the situation can and will change, as more young people educate themselves.

Mr Schadenberg, focused on examples of how euthanasia and assisted suicide are practised in Oregon and Holland. He said that “these laws specialise in using vague language to hide exactly what their intentions are.”

He also addressed the threat of euthanasia in Scotland with regards to Margo MacDonald’s End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill. “This bill is a recipe for the abuse of elderly people,” he said. “We’ve seen it in other countries and it will happen in Scotland too [should] assisted suicide and euthanasia become legal.” He urged all of the young Scottish delegates to write to their MSPs to register their opposition to these proposals.

Another speaker, Mattei Radu, from Philadelphia, USA, offered an excellent analysis of the links between abortion, the holocaust and the slave trade. Mr Radu said, “to claim to uphold the rights of all citizens, yet deny the unborn any legal protection is an act dripping with hypocrisy”.

Sr. Roseann Reddy of the Cardinal Winning Pro-Life Initiative in Glasgow and Eileen Reilly, a consultant obstetrician, were also among the extensive list of speakers that addressed the conference.

Delegates also enjoyed light relief with the Saturday night ‘Salsa Fiesta’ encouraging everyone to dance.

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

We must defend Pope Benedict against his anti-life opponents

Frances Kissling, former president of "Catholics for Choice", a front organisation for the pro-abortion lobby, has just sent the following message to her anti-life colleagues:

"The outrage in various European countries over the sexual abuse of children and its proximity to Pope Benedict present European Progressive Catholics and Secularists with an unprecedented opportunity to push for roll backs in state financial support to Catholic schools, parish priests and other agencies as well as to rescind religious taxation of citizens."

It is clear that Pope Benedict is being defamed by opponents of the sanctity of human life and the dignity of the human person. In a remark which seems directed at this defamation, he said in his Palm Sunday sermon that:

"Jesus leads us ... to the courage that does not let itself be intimidated by the gossip of dominant opinions."

It is therefore incumbent upon pro-lifers of all faiths and none to help defend the good name of Pope Benedict, one of the world's great pro-life leaders and the head of the world's largest pro-life organisation. Below are quotes and sources from some prelates, clergy and other commentators setting the record straight about Pope Benedict and cases of the sexual abuse of children: 

Archbishop Thomas Dolan of New York: 

• "[There is] a well-oiled campaign against Pope Benedict ... peddling falsehoods to destroy the Holy Father’s good name. It needs to be called what it is – scandalous." 
• "There is no evidence at all that Cardinal Ratzinger ever blocked any decision about [Fr Lawrence] Murphy [a priest accused of abusing children]"
• "[T]he false allegations of last week have obscured the good work that the Cardinal Ratzinger did at the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith and as Pope."
• "Cardinal Ratzinger brought about a profound change in how sexual abuse cases were handled ... Since his election, Pope Benedict has repeatedly demonstrated that even high-ranking priests are to be held accountable, and has not minced words about the failures of his brother bishops – both here in the United States and just last week, in his letter to the Catholics of Ireland."

Archbishop Thomas Collins of Toronto:

"[W]e all need in a particular way to give thanks to God for the leadership of Joseph Ratzinger, as Cardinal and Pope, who has acted decisively, fairly, consistently, and courageously to purify the priesthood and to make the Church a safe place for everyone. Anyone with any knowledge of this terrible reality realizes that Pope Benedict has led the way in confronting this evil."

Archbishop Jerome Listecki of Milwaukee:

"I believe, and history will confirm that his actions in responding to this crisis, swiftly and decisively and his compassionate response to victims/survivors, speak for themselves. The Holy Father has been firm in his commitment to combat clergy sexual abuse; root it out of the Church; reach out to those who have been harmed; and hold perpetrators accountable. He has been a leader, meeting with victims/survivors and chastising bishops for their lack of judgment and leadership."

Fr Timothy Finigan of the Association of Priests for the Gospel of Life:

• "[T]he Pastoral Letter of the Holy Father Pope Benedict to the Catholics of Ireland ... is a noble and powerful response."
• "Pope Benedict has long been known as tough on the "filth" of clergy sexual abuse and, as Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith, introduced procedures to ensure that offenders were dismissed from the clerical state."
• "[The BBC is] essentially using the plight of abused children and scandalised Catholics to further their secularist, anti-Catholic agenda while distracting everyone from benefiting from the wise pastoral advice of the Pope."
• "The mainstream media are clearly gearing up for an all-out attack on the Holy Father when he visits Britain in September."

Sean Murphy, published on the website of the Catholic Education Research Center
and
Bill Donohue, Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, "Going for the Vatican Jugular" 

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

English bishops' election questionnaire does not challenge candidates

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

The questionnaire says [my emphases in bold]:

"Here are some issues and questions which may help inform your decision on who to vote for. They are open questions with no single ‘right’ answer."

The questionnaire also says:

"Firstly in valuing life. That means opposing abortion and euthanasia, and life-cramping poverty, and the neglect of the elderly."

The questionnaire then suggests asking the candidate:

"What does respect for life mean to you? Do all lives have the same value? Older people and the infirm … the severely disabled … the unborn?"

This questionnaire falls seriously short from a pro-life perspective. To suggest that there is "no single 'right' answer" to questions on pro-life matters is to suggest that candidates don't have a duty to uphold the right to life by voting against anti-life laws.

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

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

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

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

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

Landmark letter against government sex ed bill published in Sunday Telegraph

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

The letter reads:

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

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

"A state which seeks to centralise responsibilities which are properly fulfilled by families is acting in an unjust manner and undermines the basis of a free society."

The letter, led by Norman Wells of the Family Education Trust, has been signed by several Catholic bishops and over three hundred clergy, both Catholic and from other denominations/faiths. Among them are:

• Rt Rev Brian Noble, Catholic bishop of Shrewsbury
• Rt Rev Mark Davies, co-adjutor bishop of Shrewsbury
• Rt Rev Patrick O'Donoghue, bishop emeritus of Lancaster
• Monsignor G M Dasey, vicar-general, Middlesborough diocese
• Canon T A McBride, episcopal vicar for formation and cathedral dean, Salford diocese
• Canon A T Hayes, diocesan safeguarding officer, Lancaster diocese
• Canon Jeremy Garrett, rector, St John’s Seminary, Wonersh, Southwark archdiocese
• Fr John Fordham, vice-provost, London Oratory
• Fr Leo Chamberlain, former headmaster, Ampleforth
• Dom Antony Sutch, former headmaster, Downside

The more than 100 Catholic headteachers and governors among the signatories include:

• Dr Andy Stone, Headteacher, Holy Family Technology College, Walthamstow
• Mrs Michelle O’Sullivan, Chairman of Governors, St Alphonsus School, Manchester
• Eric Hester, former headmaster, chief examiner and chief inspector

The SPUC website has a selected list of signatories. If you know any of the signatories, perhaps you could contact them to congratulate them for standing up against the government's sex ed agenda?

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

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