Saturday March 3rd
CATHOLIC TEACHING IN CATHOLIC SCHOOLS BANNED BY THE GOVERNMENT ?
That is the plan outlined in the official Committee Report suggesting the way ahead for the new Sexual Orientation Regulations. Published yesterday.
The Report says:"In our view the Regulations should clearly apply to the curriculum, so that homosexual pupils are not subjected to teaching, as part of their religious education or other curriculum, that their sexual oreintation is sinful or morally wrong".
The Report goes on "We welcome the Government's acceptance that [the Regulations] should apply to all schools....without any exemption for particular types of school such as faith schools." It also notes that the Regulations would apply to both publicly-funded schools and independent schools.
Noting that it might be acceptable to note factual information "in a descriptive way as part of a wide-ranging syllabus about different religions" the Committee affirms that the Government should ban "a curriculum which teaches a particular religion's doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true" because this might "lead to unjustifiable discrimination."
This means that teachers in Catholic schools would not be allowed to affirm that the Catholic teaching is true or that it should be followed.
This means that Catholic schools cannot function.
What should the Bishops of our country do?
In New York, some while back, Cardinal O'Connor threatened to close down Catholic hospitals and other services which were threatened with similar legislation. The authorities saw there'd be a complete collapse of crucial services, and effectively backed down.
Twenty years later in Britain, it seems likely that the media - and of course all official voices - would easily and swiftly convey the message to parents that it was the Church who was wrecking their schools, and most parents would believe this. Anger would be directed against the Church and not against the Government. And there might be those within the Church who, for all sorts of reasons, would be very gleeful about that and certainly would not rally to the support of Catholic schools or Catholic teachings. Be sure they would gain a prominent place in any media discussions.
Our Bishops are going to need courage and wisdom. A first preliminary statement should affirm categorically the right and duty of Catholic schools to give instruction in Catholic doctrine and morals with the clear intention of passing on the teaching of the Catholic Church, and to state that it is the right of all in the Church - and all people of goodwill - to affirm that right and to oppose Government plans to deny it.
Pray.
TODAY
Golden spring day. Ordinary errands a pleasure - to the dry cleaner's, to the shops....even having to get my bike mended (yet another puncture - shard of glass stuck in the tyre, the umpteenth time that's happened).
FOYLE'S WAR
We've been enjoying DVDs of the TV series Foyle's War - about a detective working in a South Coast town in Britain during World War 11. It's interesting in its depiction of a vanished England - manners, morals, speech, values - and also in its exploration of how the massive power of Government authority, neccessary in wartime, can trap innocent people in a web that causes sorrow and injustice when not intending to do so.
13 comments:
Those who write attacking Joanna for her comments on the sexual orientation regulations do their cause no good by the absurdly over-the-top, strident and offensive manner in which they abuse everyone in sight who does not agree with them. How is that going to persuade anyone? It just looks as if you are reacting against someone criticising your own lifestyle. Calm down first and then find out what the real issues are.
The SORs are not chiefly about homosexuality. They are chiefly about attacking the Catholic Church's adoption agencies, schools and employment policy. Para 4 of the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) actually goes so far as to recommend that the government ban religious schools from teaching that their own religion is true. In short, the JCHR is for imposing Secularism on Faith schools and does so - entirely hypocritically - on the basis of freedom from discrimination.
If homosexuals are entitled to freedom from discrimination, then why aren't Catholics also entitled to freedom from discrimination. Catholics are not stopping homosexual adoption - they simply wish not to be forced into putting out their own babies for adoption by homosexuals. To tell them they cannot have that freedom is to invade and destroy their right to freedom of conscience and religious expression. The government are saying to Catholics: "Put your babies out for adoption by homosexual couples or close down your agencies and sack your adoption workers".
That is rank discrimination, oppressive, bigoted, an anti-Catholic hate-crime, illiberal and a complete attack upon freedom of conscience and religious expression.
It is also cowardly since the government knows that Catholics will not adopt the same deeply oppressive measures.
It is also very stupid since everyone knows that Catholic adoption agencies are doing an excellent job in very trying and difficult circumstances.
For Dermot, anonymous, Dawkinson and the rest to join in this attack on the Catholic Church shows that they know virtually nothing about the real issues. What is the matter with you guys? Are you so blinded by your ideology, passions and feelings that you are not even prepared to examine the issues before bursting forth with venom, anger, invective and abuse?
Are you so unreasonable and unjust?
Surely you can do better than that?
It is irrelevant to this discussion whether homosexuality is a birth condition or an acquired one. That does not give you or any government the right to oppress Catholics and deny them their freedom of conscience and religious expression.
Moreover, it is also irrelevant to the moral argument about homosexuality (which is a different argument to the SORs argument).
No proper Catholic is arguing that anyone should be treated badly because of their condition. On the contrary, people suffering are the object of every proper Catholic's compassion, charity and prayer. THAT is what the Church teaches if you guys ever stopped raging and ranting for more than 2 seconds to find it out.
Sodomy, on the other hand, is not a practice that the Church approves. That is because the Church believes that sex is linked to the having of children and is not merely a minor recreational leisure activity.
What person defines himself by his desire to practise sodomy? That is why most people with a tendency to be attracted sexually to the same sex do not define themselves as homosexuals. They define themselves, like most other people, as people. Human beings are more than the sum of their sexual urges.
If you do not agree then it's time you grew up, chaps!
Try something radical. Try looking at your fellow man and woman as a human being first and foremost, rather than as a sexual object!
It might be a revelation!
And try to remember, also, that most people currently living were born of 2 parents, one male and one female, that most people currently living were brought up by 2 parents, one male and one female and that we have no statistics or case studies, of any depth or time, to tell us what the effect upon a child or children is to be brought up by homosexual couples.
Consider the truth: for the sake of the selfish wishes of some (actually a very small number) homosexual couples, we are experimenting on the children of the present generation. We cannot predict the outcome.
Is this really a responsible, caring, child-friendly, child-centred way to treat children? Do we really put children first, here? Do we really care about those children upon whom we have decided to conduct this social experiment?
Do we care?
Do YOU care?
Reflect a while before spitting venom and hatred in reply, my friends.
Uncle Jamie.
Uncle Jamie needs to turn that comment into an essay for a periodical, post haste.
I wonder (optimist that I am) if this is not as bad as it appears. If the wording specifies sexual orientation then I don't see a problem ... there is no moral error in homosexual orientation, and no reason for a Catholic school to teach that there is. I can't see anything here that would legally prevent a school teaching that all sexual acts outside marriage are wrong. Or am I missing something?
What I've noticed is that when you discuss somethign with young people, they will rarely tell you that you are wrong. Instead they will say "it is true for you, but other people might think differently".
This isn't confined to moral issues by any means. It also seems to apply to health, where "healthy eating" is seen largely as lifestyle choice, to quasi-scince like astrology, and, maybe with some justification, to aesthetics and choices of art and music. It even applies to technical programming matters.
So saying that homosexuality is an "objective disorder" really grates. Similarly, saying that Catholicism is true in any absolute sense, rather being right for its adherents, strikes the young person as very regressive and intolerant.
Malcolm McLean
The violation of a person’s dignity by refusing goods or services because of their sexuality has an equivalence in law, which is the violation of a person’s dignity by refusing goods or services because of their race or religion. The provision of anti-discrimination legislation in the minority area of sexual orientation does not negate the provision of anti-discrimination legislation in the minority area of religion. Under Human Rights legislation, one has the right to freely practise one’s religion, and therefore exemptions to this law must be permitted. If not, there will emerge a hierarchy of rights in which sexual orientations override all religious rights. How does the Equalities Minister intend to resolve this? What says the new Commission on Equalities and Human Rights?
His Grace has posted on this, noting that David Cameron agrees with Labour on this. Essentially, sexuality trumps religion.
Yet His Grace wonders why, in an ecumenical age, Cardinal Biffi is so intolerant of Christians working towards unity, stating that the Antichrist will be an ecumenist...
Blessings,
+Cranmer
Uncle Jamie, are you sure you're not Dr Foster?
Auntie and Uncle, what a pair you are! Have you any idea how you come across?
Thanks for that Uncle Jamie, can i use some of your arguments when i write to my MP and Bishop?. God Bless, keep up the good work.
Auntie J and Uncle J come across exceptionally well in my view.
Can someone please tell me where all these alleged 'homosexual pupils' are supposed to be whose dignity and human rights are going to be so terribly trashed by Catholic Teaching ??????
This is a humdinger of a 'pup' because these pupils actually do not exist except in the politically driven brain cell of some pagan liberal twit/s that has nothing better to do than invent situations hostile to the Catholic Church.
And anyway, even if one or two pupils with some degree of homosexual tendency did exist in all the schools up and down the country, are the other 99.99999% massive majority of normal children supposed to 'cow-tow' to the religion of Political Correctness at the expense of Catholic Schools and Institutions??? These people would have us teach homosexual practices to ALL the children, no doubt qualifying the approval of dysfunctional sex acts by saying it's all perfectly OK and safe provided you use condoms! Let's see now, I supposed they'll be getting this into Primary Schools at ages 5+ and upwards.
The lunatics are in charge of the asylum folks - no doubt about it. And Tony Bliar is considering becoming a Catholic? I think I'll go to the moon for a short vacation.
Hello! Came across your blog when Googling 'oratory' and 'interviews'. We have a child at a church (of England) school in London where the governors are planning to dilute the admission requirements drastically, to the point where it no longer seems like it will be a Church school. I am wondering how the Catholic schools dealt with this (better than CofE it seems to me). For example it still seems as though the Oratory interviews candidates, whereas our school apparently is not.
Any help or links appreciated.
I did some further research, esp. on the Education Act 2006, which is now law, and see that part 44 outlaws the use of interviews for any purpose (including religious commitment by parents). Apparently a school in Hammersmith fell afoul of this, but the Oratory didn't. I think I'll phone them to see how they managed that trick.
I have not read this blog for a while and caught up the other day.
Uncle Jamie! How wonderful!
Your comments are probably the single most inspiring, refreshing, truthful, intellegent take on all this homo-craziness I have read in a very long time, if ever! THANK YOU! You give me some hope that there are still a few good thinkers out there among us. Thank you both for your efforts for goodness in the world I see falling apart in front of my very eyes! Please keep up the good work. We need you!
George, your comments are great also. I agree with you 100%.
And "Clare" Auntie, and Uncle come across very well..thank you.
Post a Comment