If only they'd succeeded...



By what authority does Parliament have to tell the Holy Church how to teach children on matters of faith and morals?

They have no authority whatsoever to do so, since the Authority to teach all nations has been given by Christ to His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

From now on, we Catholics are going to have to either accept the new consensus that the State is God, or defend the Truth. The Gates of Hell, even the Gates of Hell which Gordon Brown is said to have opened upon Alaistair Darling, shall never prevail against the Church built upon the Rock of St Peter!

Comments

Patricius said…
The appeal of liberation theology...!
All of a sudden, its very appealing. Would someone liberate us from this meddlesome Labour Government!? Sorry, evil Labour Government.

What right do they have to tell us what to teach children about sex!?
Mike said…
Now that Ed Balls has made it crystal clear that his amendment is a total sham and that the Catholic Education Service is 100% deluded will Miss Stannard be handing in her resignation as being totally unsuitable as a person to be the Chief Executive of this organisation?
That seems perfectly appropriate.

But would our Bishops see it that way?

Their silence is deafening.

Then, who would replace her? Someone of a similar 'philosophy'?
Anonymous said…
Yeah why not just leave it to priests to teach children about sex, it has never failed in the past. No wait, it has. Badly

dick head
Anonymous...be brave and use your name.
Anonymous said…
Sorry, I wasn't hiding, I just don't have a livejournal account. Name's Patrick Buccleuch, pleased to meet you. I repeat my point, I have two sons and if it's a toss up between Ed Balls and crooked old father O'Shannon in his secluded confessional then I know who I want teaching my kids about sex
The trouble is Nathan, that the State's trampling over human freedoms will not stop here.

First it was the Catholics...etc...then it was Patrick.
Anonymous said…
well, as long as they got to the Catholics first!
Hmmm...You're not really into freedom are you, Patrick.
Anonymous said…
Not as such. What do you advise as a remedy? Perhaps I should join an institution that determines my moral outlook on an ever changing society in reference to some obscurantist writings produced a primitive Near Eastern monastic community many hundreds of years ago. I fully understand that if I ever deign to think about these issues myself, rather than reading from the worn out script advised by a billionaire cartel, I will be thrown out of said institution for being a baddie. Bloody hell, it must be great being so free
Bombadyl said…
@Patrick
I don't think anybody is suggesting that priest be involved in the distribution of sex-ed. The main concern here is that parents should be educating their children on these matters, but the state is taking matters more and more out of their hands...
Anonymous said…
I know, I went too far to push Lawrie's buttons but he is too polite to really go for the throat. Fair play to you sir. Still, I am a parent of two young lads (6 and 8) and I don't see how the state is doing anything at all to prevent me from educating them about sex. As far as I am aware I may tell then what ever I wish - only they will also appoint someone to tell them the essentials in school. Never hurts to hear it twice - particularly as some parents might 'forget'
bombadyl said…
T'is fair enough to say so, if you do agree with what is being taught. However, if you do not, then there are problems.

You may be able to educate your children on the subject as you wish outside of schools, but to what effect, if they have to go through hearing the government's definitive view on things, and then spend all of their day in the company of children who have heard nothing else?

Plus, there is the issue of not having any control over when your child is exposed to this material - I am sure that plenty of parents will agree sex-ed for eight year olds is entirely inappropriate. Again, though the opt-out is a choice for parents at this stage, there is no real opt-out, as children will only receive the material, distorted by immature attitudes to be sure, from their playmates.

In any case, the child will be subject to the government's point of view, whether their parents want it or not. The question we should be asking is, shouldn't parents have the final say?
Anonymous said…
Yes, but I wonder if you don't end up creating the phantom of an all powerful state here which is, in all probability, not how a child experiences things. I know that my kids often jumble up the messages they receive at school (at least I hope so, otherwise they have some pretty far out teachers), and take them with a pinch of salt. I also note that they have a particularly 'mature' attitude to sex, certainly they know more than I did at their age. But then, I realise that we live in a different world. I can't isolate them from society, which is, after all, a far more sexualised place than it was in my day. To be honest, I don't really want to. I think it would be sad if I lost touch with the world my children live in: part of being a responsible parent is being able to respond to the world your children inhabit. I can't say I am comfortable with the sexualised world we live in, but I am more comfortable with the idea of trusting them to deal with it as good Christians than I am with simply refusing them access to it, keeping them away from their peer group, insisting that they never watch TV, go to the cinema, use the internet etc (all of which will surely lead them to an encounter with a world that would have been unfamiliar to me, and unthinkable to my father). Besides, what's the big fuss over - all the sex ed teacher is going to say is 'sex causes pregnancy, don't have sex if you don't want to get pregnant/ homosexuality isn't a species of pathological behavious/ safe sex is a good idea' and so on. Presuming this is the case (as is highly likely), then I'm glad my children will be hearing it, and I hope they pay attention. Better that than they end up having kids in their late teens/ early 20s before they have managed to settle into the right career or a life they are happy with and then end up scraping together a living for the rest of their lives, struggling with bills etc (as was common in my day)
bombadyl said…
I certainly agree that sex-ed now is necessary, and as it stands, probably can only be provided through schools. I still maintain that the ideal is to have children taught by their parents on this matter. However the governments attitude towards pushing sex-ed in, along with the confidential provision of contraception, and advice on seeking abortions, through schools, has removed so much of parental responsibility in the issue that I doubt it would be practical to have a 180 degree turn, even if people motivated themselves to carry one out.

However, again, you do dodge the issue slightly. You have established that you are fine with your children taking up what the government has provided. The point is that there are in existence people who don't like the government's ideas on the matter. However, the government's take on the issue through the new legislation is effectively 'we don't care what you want your children to hear or not, we are right, full-stop'. Fair enough if the government wants to change the opinions of the parents on the matter, so that they are happy with their children receiving the program in question. However, the teaching on material directly against parents wishes is another matter entirely.

Supposing that the sympathies of the government lay elsewhere, and they forced your children to learn creationism (for example), as they themselves were convinced of its explanation of things. Would you not object?
Anonymous said…
Not especially, if creationism was a generally accepted model within the scientific community then I would expect my children to learn it. Of course moral issues pertaining to sexuality are of a different nature; consensus of many will never translate into a right/wrong decision for those who object. I should also clarify that I do not like an awful lot of what the government plans to teach my children regarding sex, and I have taken it upon myself to explain the relevant issues to them (or at least to make it clear that marriage and emotional fulfillment should be their aim - hopefully many many years from now). That said, I don't want my children to marry young as I did. I am a religious man, but I am circumspect with regard to these things. The age at which one deems it appropriate to marry/the conduct that is deemed appropriate for youth is not some eternal standard, it changes constantly. I married young, had kids young, took a job I wasn't particularly happy with to provide for them, and now I feel that it would be immoral for me to advise my children do the same. I love them enough to want them to enjoy a free and happy life. Now while I tell them marriage is the right way to go, as I believe it is, I must also say that, if they fall in love in late adolescence, and wish, as is natural, to consumate that relationship, it would be absurd of me to expect that they would not do so simply on my command (or on anyone else's command). School sex ed won't change their hormones. If they want to wait until marriage then so be it, I can trust them, and it may be the case. If they don't, and if they are in love, what can I do?? Should I throw them out of my home? What would I gain? I don't want my children to feel alienated from me. I know this is off topic, but may I ask if you have children? If you do you will understand the dilemma a parent faces. There is a fine line between having your children's best interests at heart and simply having your own best interests at heart. To be honest, the older I get, aand the more I watch my children grow and interact witht he world, the more I realise that my version of morality is, in effect, quite selfish. I no longer wish to impose it on them. The government can say what they like and I, for my part, will certainly say what I like. But the real choice lies with them (the children). It is up to neither us nor the government to determine their world. That would simply be selfish and small minded