When I interviewed Bishop Drainey, we had the following exchange...

I explained that most young people in Middlesbrough diocese don't know the Our Father in Latin. "Well," he replied. "I think that's very sad if that's the case. It's part of our heritage and I feel very strongly about that."

[link]

He is going to need to feel very strongly if he is going to do anything about it. He is not up against one or two hippy priests, he's up against a cultural phenomena, as Jeffery Tucker describes in his preface to Msgr Marini's address...

Every Catholic has experienced it at some level, that culture of disdain for the past that has afflicted Catholicisim in the postconciliar period. It happens at our parishes, when a special guest lecturer talks about the supposed horrors Catholic school back in the day, or of how ridiculous it was that the Mass was in Latin, that we attempted to sing chant and did it so poorly, or that we went to confession behind a screen. We read about it in our catechetical materials, that contempt for what has gone before in the great age of ignorance and oppression that was finally swept away in the liberating Age of Aquarius. How unfortunate those people were and how fortunate we are in this enlightened age.

Or so we've been taught. So pervasive has this attitude been that we can speak of self-hating Catholics as a widespread cultural phenomenon. Even in our own parishes, the absence of a positive self identity seems almost required as an ground rule for every conversation. "I don't want to go back to the past of course," we are expected to say before adding any critique of the present. This attitude - this hermeneutic of discontinuity, this positing of a great divide between preconciliar and postconcilar faith - has cut us off in a strange way. Wondering used book stores we find pre-1965 books on the faith and read them like relics. We don't recognize the pictures, understand the words, or even see a familiarity in the disciplines then and now.

link

You don't fight a culture by quietly pottering away in the Cathedral and making sure Masses there contain the occasional bit of Latin. You fight a culture by doing things openly and publicly in such a way that it becomes a widely known fact that, as Bishop Drainey said to me: "It's part and parcel of being a Latin Rite Catholic to at least know the Our Father or to be able to sing the Creed and the basic things [in Latin]."

Ad Limina a bit stressful was it?

[Image Source]

Pope Benedict sums up everything that is wrong with the Catholic Church in England and Wales...

In a social milieu that encourages the expression of a variety of opinions on every question that arises, it 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.

It is the truth revealed through Scripture and Tradition and articulated by the Church’s Magisterium that sets us free.

link

In other words... Goodbye Terry Prendergast?

Lay people don't have any rights, and the clergy can do whatever they like... right?

On the contrary, it is the right of all of Christ’s faithful that the Liturgy, and in particular the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms. Likewise, the Catholic people have the right that the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass should be celebrated for them in an integral manner, according to the entire doctrine of the Church’s Magisterium. Finally, it is the Catholic community’s right that the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist should be carried out for it in such a manner that it truly stands out as a sacrament of unity, to the exclusion of all blemishes and actions that might engender divisions and factions in the Church.

Redemptionis Sacramentum 11

But we don't have a right that Bishop's do anything about anything? Do we?

Christ’s faithful have the right that ecclesiastical authority should fully and efficaciously regulate the Sacred Liturgy lest it should ever seem to be “anyone’s private property, whether of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated”

Redemptionis Sacramentum 18

It is the right of the Christian people themselves that their diocesan Bishop should take care to prevent the occurrence of abuses in ecclesiastical discipline, especially as regards the ministry of the word, the celebration of the sacraments and sacramentals, the worship of God and devotion to the Saints.

Redemptionis Sacramentum 24

Do we have the right to a decent liturgy?

It is the right of the community of Christ’s faithful that especially in the Sunday celebration there should customarily be true and suitable sacred music, and that there should always be an altar, vestments and sacred linens that are dignified, proper, and clean, in accordance with the norms.

Redemptionis Sacramentum 57

All of Christ’s faithful likewise have the right to a celebration of the Eucharist that has been so carefully prepared in all its parts that the word of God is properly and efficaciously proclaimed and explained in it; that the faculty for selecting the liturgical texts and rites is carried out with care according to the norms; and that their faith is duly safeguarded and nourished by the words that are sung in the celebration of the Liturgy.

Redemptionis Sacramentum 58

Any clergy reading?

Have you respected our rights?

Let each one of the sacred ministers ask himself, even with severity, whether he has respected the rights of the lay members of Christ’s faithful, who confidently entrust themselves and their children to him, relying on him to fulfil for the faithful those sacred functions that the Church intends to carry out in celebrating the sacred Liturgy at Christ’s command. For each one should always remember that he is a servant of the Sacred Liturgy.

Redemptionis Sacramentum 186

Because that's as much freedom of choice as you're going to get.

This is the Director of Catholic Education Services favourite quote in the world. It's Ed Balls (Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families) speaking in the Houses of Parliament...

The decision to make sex and relationship education statutory is, I think, supported by all political parties, but it is essential that it is taught in line with the ethos, including the faith, of the school. That is clear in the legislation: it is clear that parents as well as school governors will have a say in how the subject is taught, while there is also a parental opt-out, which will apply to pupils until they are 15. I can thus give the hon. Gentleman the complete assurance that the school will be in charge of how to teach SRE, but the fact of teaching it will be in law and guaranteed to all children.

[link]

So, how does he tally that up with this? Here's Ed Balls again...

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

[link]

Must is a pretty strong word. It sort of contradicts his earlier comments about "the school will be in charge".

Then there's another Ed Balls quote...

You can teach the promotion of marriage, you can teach that you shouldn't have sex outside of marriage, what you can't do is deny young people information about contraception outside of marriage."

[link]

Again... strong language... "What you can't do", sort of contradicts "parents as well as school governors will have a say".

Catholic Education Services quotation of the statement that "the school will be in charge of how to teach SRE" is misleading because it gives the impression that schools will be able to choose what to teach when they will not.

But then we look more closely at the first paragraph and we we discover that Mr Balls makes no assurances whatsoever about what may be taught. Only how.

Presumably parents, governors and schools will have the freedom to choose between a Powerpoint Presentation and a DVD?

"They must be absolutely clear about the importance of civil partnerships"

"what you can't do is deny young people information about contraception"

In short. Catholic Schools are going to have no choice about what to teach at all.

The best game I've played in ages. Simple but clever, retro pixels, short enough to be finished in fifteen minutes. What more could a guy want?

Marvellous.

One of the criticisms I frequently receive as a blogger is that I blog about things but don't do anything about them, or that I blog about things, but don't talk to the people involved directly.

I decided that rather than just ranting about Catholic Education Services, I should write to them...

(When I say "write", I mean "email", it's not 1964 you know)

9th December 2009

Does CES have anything to say in response to the comments from John Smeaton, the director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) who said yesterday that:

The British government's providing access to children with abortion and abortifacients and preparing them for sexual activity is the worst development in Britain since the passing of the Abortion Act. Citizens whose children attend both faith and non-faith schools must resist the wicked government policy which robs our children of their innocence and which kills our grandchildren. The government's proposals for compulsory sex education, if not blocked, will result in a massive promotion of embryo-killing drugs and devices in schools, including Catholic schools.

It is therefore incumbent upon the Catholic Education Service (CES) in England and Wales to reverse its general support for compulsory sex education. The CES should also stop welcoming Connexions into Catholic schools. Connexions is a government agency which is committed to giving schoolchildren, under the age of 16, access to abortion and abortifacients without parental knowledge or permission. Connexions' advisers are trained to tell young people that they can obtain abortion and abortifacients without parental knowledge or consent.

These are strong remarks from the director of a highly respected organisation and as a parent I am deeply concerned,

Regards,

James Preece

A few days later I received a response...

17th December 2009

Dear James,

CESEW has not been copied into SPUC’s communications regarding the recent government proposals relating to Personal, Social, Health and Economic (PSHE) Education. However, you may find the attached document helpful as a means of clarifying what these proposals mean for Catholic schools and colleges.

With best wishes,

[Name]

I tell them that as a parent I am deeply concerned because they have been criticised by one of the worlds most respected pro-life organisations. They respond that "they have not been copied in to SPUC's communications" - not helpful.

As I would learn, this policy of ignoring a question and instead directing somebody to a resource seems to be standard CES policy.

The file they attached file was the CES document setting the record straight and like many parents I was not impressed by the contents.

I was particulaly annoyed by this part of the document...

5) CESEW strongly wishes that the parental right of withdrawal of their children from SRE could have remained throughout statutory years of schooling.

However, we can also see the potential benefits of all young people receiving appropriate SRE, perhaps, most particularly as they approach the age of 16 with all the opportunities and rights offered to young people at that age.

We were also mindful of the legal advice that had been provided to the Department of Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) on this issue. In making their decision to limit the right of parental withdrawal from sex education, DCSF say that they were acknowledging “the trend in the development of English law over many years towards greater autonomy for children when they are of an age to make decisions for themselves”.

I was annoyed because they write as though the whole thing were a done deal. They wish it could have happened - this is not good enough - they should be campaigning hard to ensure that it does happen. Instead they are speaking soothing words in to the ears of Bishops to ensure that nothing is done.

Then they repeat the government lie that this is about "greater autonomy for children". So I responded...

18th December 2009

Hi [Name],

The document refers to "the trend in the development of English law over many years towards greater autonomy for children when they are of an age to make decisions for themselves" - does this mean young people aged fifteen will be able to withdraw themselves from sex education classes?

Many Thanks

James

They replied...

18th December 2009

Dear James,

DCSF ought to be able to answer your query. To contact them, telephone 0870 000 2288 or email info@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk

With best wishes,

[Name]

Again, I ask a question, they ignore the question and direct me somewhere else.

So a Catholic parent emails the Catholic Education Services to ask about the rights of Catholic school children in Catholic schools as described in a Catholic Education Services document and the response is: Ask the government.

Now very annoyed, I responded...

18th December 2009

[Name],

Please don't pass the buck. The CES are acting on DCSF advice and ought to follow it up - it is a contradiction to claim autonomy for children when actually none has been granted and the decision has simply shifted from "the parents decide" to "the government decide".

Either the ability to choose whether a child attends sex education lessons lays with the parent or with the child or with the government. I don't think it's unreasonable for a parent to ask the following questions of CES:

- Who currently has the power to make this decision? The parent, the child or the government?
- Under the new laws, who will have the power to make this decision? The parent, the child or the government?
- Where do CES believe the decision should lie and at what ages?

Many Thanks,

James

I waited. I waited until I had almost forgotten all about it until Eric Hestor wrote in the Herald and reminded me, I emailed again...

2nd February 2010

Hi [Name],

I sent this email to you over a month ago. I repeat my questions now:

Either the ability to choose whether a child attends sex education lessons lays with the parent or with the child or with the government. I don't think it's unreasonable for a parent to ask the following questions of CES:

- Who currently has the power to make this decision? The parent, the child or the government?
- Under the new laws, who will have the power to make this decision? The parent, the child or the government?
- Where do CES believe the decision should lie and at what ages?

Thanks

James Preece

Yesterday for the first time - over two months since I first emailed CES, I finally received an actual direct response to a question...

Sort of.

Dear James,

The Government’s proposals, as they currently stand in the Children, Schools and Families Bill, give parents the right to withdraw their child from PSHE classes until the child’s 15th birthday. DCSF have informed CESEW that, if the Bill is passed in its current form, children will not be able to withdraw themselves from PSHE classes. For CESEW position statements and briefing papers on PSHE, and SRE in particular, please refer to the dedicated section of our website: www.cesew.org.uk/sre

This should now bring this correspondence to a close.

We keep our website fully up to date on developments regarding our work on SRE – please use this resource in future if you have any further queries.

With best wishes

[Name]

They answer the question and then they say "in future, don't bother us with your questions, read our website".

In terms of my question the contradiction is clear. The CES Setting the record straight document said that CES wished we could still pull our children from sex education classes but we can't because of a "trend" in the law towards "greater autonomy for children". Now CES say there will be no autonomy for children, who "will not be able to withdraw themselves from PSHE classes".

So the decision has not moved from parents to children. The decision has moved from parents to the government.

What bothers me more though is how difficult they make it to get a straight answer to a question. How they wriggle and jiggle to avoid stating directly what they must know to be true...

That their position is untenable.

I've written so extensively about our new parish priest that most of you probably didn't even know we got one. In other words, I haven't written about him at all though all you really need to know is that his liturgical views are pretty standard (and you know how highly I regard standard liturgical practice in this country).

Something he has introduced recently that is very good is the practice of having the altar servers come around to our side of the altar during the Eucharistic prayer. Previously they used to kneel behind the priest so that we could watch them picking their noses or whatever, now they kneel (the feint of heart should look away now) with their backs to us!

The whole thing reminds me a bit of this...

Okay, so our priest is still on his side more like a science lecturer doing a demonstration than someone going up to the altar on our behalf, but I digress.

The fact is that the orientation has shifted, if only slightly. Where previously we saw a big rectangular altar front, we now see people kneeling. Facing East.

I was thinking about this when I stumbled on the following via the excellent LION & the CARDINAL blog.

St John of Damascus writes...

The eyewitnesses and ministers of the word not only handed down the law of the Church in writings, but also in certain unwritten traditions. For whence do we know the holy place of the skull? Whence the memorial of life? Does not a child learn it from his father without anything being written down? It is written that the Lord was crucified in the place of the skull and buried in a tomb, that Joseph had hewn in a rock; but that these are the places now venerated we know from unwritten tradition, and there are many other examples like this. What is the origin of threefold baptism, that is with three immersions? Whence praying facing the East? Whence veneration of the cross? Are they not from unwritten tradition? Therefore the divine apostle says, So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter. Since many things have been handed down in unwritten form in the Church and preserved up to now, why do you split hairs over the images? Manichees composed the Gospel according to Thomas; are you now going to write the Gospel according to Leo? I do not accept any emperor who tyrannically snatches at the priesthood. Have emperors received the authority to bind and loose? ... I am not persuaded that the church should be constituted by imperial canons, but rather by patristic traditions, both written and unwritten. For just as the Gospel was proclaimed in all the world in written form, so in all the world it has been handed down in unwritten form that Christ the incarnate God should be depicted, and the saints, just as the cross is venerated and we stand to pray, facing the East.

[link]

St John of Damascus defends the practice of depicting Christ in works of art by appealing to the certainty with which people pray facing East.

How do we know we are allowed pictures of Jesus? The same way we know to pray facing East.

Oh wait, we don't pray facing East.

Oh wait, we don't have any pictures of Jesus either...

[photo source]

Yeah, Middlesbrough Diocese's brand new church. They spent one and a half million pounds (mostly borrowed money) and they couldn't afford to buy a proper Jesus for the cross behind the altar.

St John of Damascus was obviously wrong then...

The new way...

Chris Harrison uses a database of biblical cross-references to generate this attractice (if not particularly useful) snapshot of the Bible. There are more of Chris' modern visualisations here.

The old way...

Clarence Larkin drew his charts seventy-five years ago. I find them baffling. There are more of Clarence's viualisations here.

Your Friday Fun this week consists of Nursery Rhyme Cupcakes!

View the full set here and if that's a bit childish (pah!) you might prefer the 2009 Edible Book Festival.

While we're on the subject of playing with our food, these are amazing.

Archbishop Nichols is talking about the NHS, but it could be the CES...

"respond with humanity and kindness" "search for the things we can do" "find time for those we serve"

These are splendid sentiments, suitable as a mission statement for any Lourdes pilgrimage. Often they are fulfilled [...] But sometimes they are not, as some will know from personal experience.

Where this happens it is not simply a matter of the attitudes of individual, though of course that is part of the story. It is also about the prevailing culture in an institution...

A culture of true compassion and healing fosters a deep respect and attentive care of the whole person, it promotes genuine care characterised by a sense of humility, a profound respect for others, and a refusal to see them as no more than [a problem] to be tackled and resolved.

[link]

Here is what Catholic Education Services have to say about Connexions...

Since its gradual introduction through countrywide pilots, the work of the Connexions Service is making an increasing impact on young people in Catholic schools and colleges. It is a service to be welcomed.

[link]

Here is the Connexions website...

No problems there then.

So now Archbishop Nichols is talking about government, but he could be talking a about CES...

Archbishop Nichols said: "Many today tell us that there is a crisis of trust in some of the institutions of this country. They point first to the Houses of Parliament and the political process itself. Then they may well include the financial institutions whose crises have brought such hardship and austerity to people all over the world."

The Archbishop of Westminster stressed: "In political terms this means that we have to refashion a project, a vision, to which all can be committed and which can help to overcome some of the corrosive cynicism of today."

[link]

Speaking as one of the corrosive cynics, I can easily tell you what will help to overcome some of the corrosive cynicism of today and it's not refashioning a project or a vision.

The only thing that can overcome cynicism is clear, public, moral integrity. Unfortunately, Archbishop Nichols doesn't seem to realise that this begins at home and Archbishop Nichols has one hell of a record in that regard...

• When Archbishop Nichols was Bishop of Birmingham he approved the All That I Am sex education project which includes images of computer generated full frontal nudity for children as young as ten years old.
• When Archbishop Nichols was in charge of Catholic Education Services they welcomed the Connexions agency in to Catholic Schools - an agency who refer under age girls for abortions without parental knowledge.
• Archbishop Nichols didn't seem to bat an eyelid when Terry Prendergast, the Executive Director of Marriage Care said that it makes no difference to children whether parents are married (Archbishop Nichols is president of Marriage Care).

It's no wonder some of us end up a tad cynical about whether Archbishop Nichols is really ever going to do anything about anything.

Archbishop Nichols, if you want to do something about cycism, do your job. Until you do you have no business telling anybody else, even MPs, how to do theirs.

I've been thinking of giving this Twitter thing another go. If you're on twitter, you might want to follow me!

[Image Source]

Pope John Paul II, Ash Wednesday 1996...

Why does the Church place ashes on our foreheads today? Why does she remind us of death? Death which is the effect of sin! Why?

To prepare us for Christ's Passover. For the paschal mystery of the Redeemer of the world.

Paschal mystery means what we profess in the Creed: "On the third day he rose again"!

Yes. Today we need to hear the "you are dust and to dust you will return" of Ash Wednesday, so that the definitive truth of the Gospel, the truth about the Resurrection, will unfold before us: believe in the Gospel.

On the threshold of Lent, it is necessary that this perspective be opened before us, so that we may believe deeply in the Gospel with all the truth of our mortal existence.

We are called to take part in the Resurrection of Christ. For this appeal to resound within us with all its force at the beginning of the Lenten season, let us realize what death means... "You are dust" ... "Repent! ... Believe in the Gospel"!

[link]

Somewhere, in the vast space that lies between telling people "Jesus Loves You" and reading them the entire Catechism there lies an explanation of the Catholic faith which is short enough to memorise and tell people before they get bored but long enough to actually mean something to someone.

Every now and then I go looking for that place, I haven't found it yet but sometimes I feel I am getting closer. Sometimes I feel I am getting further away.

This is my latest attempt. Some people will recognise it because it's been my latest attempt for almost a year. I think I've hit a dead end in terms of trying to fit everything in and making it smaller and smaller. It's still a bit longer than I want, and it's getting cramped. This is probably my last attempt before trying something radical.

Like being nice to people?

Anyway, here it is: What do Catholics believe?

I'm especially interested in comments from people to whom this is news. Of course, I'm interested in comments from anybody!

Is it helpful? Is it rubbish? Is there something heretical buried within? What would you do differently?

I realise this is two days late, but it's too awesome not to blog...

By Butters on B3ta

These photos are amazing...

See more in the Telegraph found via American Papist.

If you prefer your photos of baby animals outside the womb then we also have the birth of a chicken. Finlly, this Giraffe is all finished being born but too cute to pass up (it's also at Chester Zoo so we probably saw it).

I don't know if you've been following the adventures of "Stand Up For Vatican II"? Or should I say "Stand Up 4 Vatican 2" (so trendy). I've not blogged about them (much) because I hate drawing attention to these people who you probably wouldn't have even heard of if I hadn't mentioned it.

In short, they are a group of the usual suspects trying to bring us all back to the 1960's. They are all terribly worried about the new translation and all the other stuff Pope Benedict is encouraging. They held a huuuuge national meeting in London, only 200 people turned up. More people than that visit this blog every day.

An account of that meeting (saying how wonderful it all was) appeared in The Tablet. Somebody else who was there wrote a letter to The Tablet in response but The Tablet wouldn't print it (for some reason). Anyhow, it's found it's way in to my hands so I will print it...

Dear editor,

In his letter (Lack of nurtured Catholics, 6th February 2010) Frank Regan makes a number of claims about the Stand up for Vatican II meeting which don't tally with my memory, or the detailed notes I took of the event.

First, if Frank Regan thinks the meeting he chaired was a "significant experience of an inclusive church", he needs to get out more. In contrast to the multi-ethnic, socially-diverse reality which is the Catholic Church in the Britain, the meeting's attendees were all white, mostly aged over 70 and in the main middle class.

Secondly, when he claims that those present spoke "without rancour, with love for their church" he is being economical with actualité. One of the speakers, Sister Myra Poole, recently publically compared Pope Benedict XVI to BNP leader Nick Griffin. As an active anti-fascist whose great grandfather was murdered by Nazis in Dachau, I find that comparison contemptible. At the meeting she gave a vainglorious speech, much of which involved her praising herself. When she wasn't doing that she was delivered an paranoid Dan Brownesque rant about the supposed influence Opus Dei has at the Vatican, complaining that the Vatican caused a lot of trouble at the World Council of Churches, insisting that "misogyny is so deep in this church" and saying that she should tell her congregation that if they get anything from the Vatican "they should bin it". That's not my definition of speaking without rancour, with love for the Church.

It's true that the laity were spoken of in disparaging terms as "knowing nothing" at the meeting but such sentiments are a function of the fact that groups like Catholics for a Changing Church which organised the meeting have little, if any, grassroots support in British parishes.

That should surely be the last nail in the coffin of Stand Up 4 Vatican 2. They are an irrelevance and a nasty one at that. Can it be true... did a Nun, Sister Myra Poole really compare Pope Benedict to the leader of the BNP?

From Sister Myra Poole SNDdeN

Sir, — I am deeply ashamed and personally dissociate myself from the actions of Pope Benedict XVI, supported by the Archbishop of Westminster, the Rt Revd Vincent Nichols, over the proposal of Personal Ordinates for those An­glicans who convert to Rome on the question of women Bishops.

I know I speak for many others as well. The papacy has shown scant courtesy to the members of its sister Church, and publicly insulted the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The situation of women in the RC Church is dire, but in spite of that we have run Catholic Women’s Ordina­tion for nearly 20 years, and with some considerable success.

Many people may not know that Archbishop Nichols was the Church’s representative on the National Board of Catholic Women (NBCW) in the 1990s, and it was he who suggested the title of a booklet published by the NBWC, Do Not Be Afraid, on the position of women in Church and society. If only he had taken this title to heart, as many of us have done, women would now be in a much better position.

The details of this proposal have yet to unfold; but I think this action could backfire badly on the reputa­tion of the papacy and the RC Church, especially in England. The idea that this Pope is determined to work towards Christian unity is a myth. This proposal did not come from the Council for Christian Unity in Rome, who, I understand, were not in favour of this action, but from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by Cardinal Levada.

The only unity Pope Benedict XVI and his advisers want is the unity with those who are “right-wingers”, to use a political term. If the Pope had to appear on the BBC’s Question Time, he would get an even worse reception than the British National Party leader.

The question now for RCs who have a much greater understanding of what Church should and could be is openly to call these present actions of this papacy to account in the light and spirit of Vatican II. With others, I wait to see how this situation will unravel.

MYRA POOLE
Catholic Women’s Ordination
210 Compass House
Smugglers Way, London SW18

[link]

So there you have it. It's not quite as bad as the Nun who was operating as an escort at an abortion clinic but it's leaning in the same direction. Do the SNDdeN have nothing to say?

While we're on the subject of Stand Up 4 Vatican 2, don't forget to check out Mullier Fortis' post on one of the ways they operate...

I have seen an email from Bernard Wynne calling for members of the group to send letters and petitions to their diocesan bishops, giving suggested wording. Particularly interesting was the instruction to have about 10 names actually on the letter to the bishop, with a statement to indicate that several other people had also appended their names - and to have these extra names recorded separately. This is, I am told, a popular political manoeuvre, as these extra names have not necessarily seen the exact wording of the letter being sent...

[link]

It's all done with mirrors...

A while back we decided to take all the money we would have given to CAFOD and give it to SPUC instead. It's one of the best decisions we have ever made. If you only read one thing this week read John Smeaton's post on government sex education plans.

Then you can read the fall out...

Fr John Boyle - "I'm afraid I've given up on the CES."

Mulier Fortis - "The Catholic Education Service is a complete disgrace" "The complete disaster area which is the Catholic Education Service has got to be sorted out."

Fr Ray Blake - "there seems to be some confusion over the attitude of the heirarchy to this issue" ... "Catholic Education Service spokesperson Oona Stannard gives the impression they support this legislation."

Damian Thompson - "The worse-than-useless Catholic Education Service and its head, Oona Stannard, are in real trouble now."

Fr Tim Finigan - "Catholic Schools: have we reached the end game?"

If anybody has any other good links let me know.

Update: Laurence England has loads.

More Update: Jackie Parkes has even more...

It's becoming quite frequent now that I receive emails from teachers, parents and governors of schools asking about the Catholic view on sex education. I always point them to the same Vatican document: Truth and Meaning in Human Sexuality

It's an easy document to read but I know many people are too busy so I've drawn out some key points. In Catholic Schools in England and Wales these points are violated all the time, not just by rogue teachers but by official diocesan programmes.

43. Sex education, which is a basic right and duty of parents, must always be carried out under their attentive guidance.... No one is capable of giving moral education in this delicate area better than duly prepared parents.

Sex education programmes are not being carried out under the "attentive guidance" of parents and nothing is being done to help them to be "duly prepared". In fact, it is our experience that parents are excluded from even seeing the classroom materials even if they ask (you might like to try).

It is clear from the above that the Catholic Church's view is that parents and not teachers are in the best position to give sex education to their own children..

65. Each child is a unique and unrepeatable person and must receive individualized formation. Since parents know, understand and love each of their children in their uniqueness, they are in the best position to decide what the appropriate time is for providing a variety of information, according to their children's physical and spiritual growth. No one can take this capacity for discernment away from conscientious parents.

Sex education programmes such as All That I Am do not provide "individualized formation". Children are put through lessons, worksheets and DVDs as a class group and parents are not invited to decide when the appropriate time is to provide information to children according to their childs physical and spiritual growth but are excluded.

Sex education in the form of classroom lessons is clearly contradictory to the "individualized formation" by parents that the Church requires.

136. parents must reject secularized and anti-natalist sex education, which puts God at the margin of life and regards the birth of a child as a threat

Many sex education programmes (including All That I Am) are highly secularized and consist of secular content with the occasional bibilically sourced platitude. This is not an attempt to teach an authentic Catholic vision of human seuxality, it is a secular vision dressed up to look holy.

If the programme includes references to contraception (even if it's "just the facts") then the programme implicitly refers to the birth of a child as a threat.

138. In some societies professional associations of sex-educators, sex-counsellors and sex-therapists are operating. Because their work is often based on unsound theories, lacking scientific value and closed to an authentic anthropology, and theories that do not recognize the true value of chastity, parents should regard such associations with great caution

The welcoming of the Connexions agency in to our schools is the most obvious betrayal in this area. Connexions advisors provide access to contraception and other, um, services including helping your teenage daughter to kill your unborn grandchild without you ever knowing.

139. Another abuse occurs whenever sex education is given to children by teaching them all the intimate details of genital relationships, even in a graphic way.... In this situation, parents must also reject the promotion of so-called "safe sex" or "safer sex", a dangerous and immoral policy based on the deluded theory that the condom can provide adequate protection

The All That I Am particularly uses graphic images of genialia including grotesque and entirely unnecessary computer generated 3D naked adult bodies which are shown to children as young as nine. These are the sort of images that if you printed them out and showed them to some children in the local park you would be arrested.

This YouTube clip of All That I Am shows the sort of thing being shown to Year 6 (aged 9-10). Don't watch this at work, if people see it over your shoulder they might get the wrong idea...

If you are concerned about sex education in your school, please get in touch. I can put you in touch with some people who might be able to help.

Over the next few days I thought I would share some Lenten ponderies on the incarnation

We first know Jesus as the Son of Man through His teaching ministry. When we say Son of man we mean that he has a human soul, human intellect for example he had to learn to read and write, human will allowing him the choice not to take on the mission God set before him, a human body where he felt physical pain and a human heart that he could feel emotion.

But why is it important that Jesus is fully human?

The message He brings is not an impossible one for humanity. Firstly, we can understand it because He explains and reveals the truths to us in human form, terms and understanding “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathise with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are— yet was without sin.”, which allows us to deepen our understanding of God and His mission, His plan for us. It allows us to have a deeper relationship with God as we are on earth and guides us on our path for perfection. Secondly, He knows and understands our limitations because He is human He knows how to guide us towards the path of righteousness and God, towards the Kingdom of heaven. Thirdly, because He himself is truly human He is the second Adam, He has a choice to conform to God's will and being born without original sin He is able to do so. He as a human can choose to make the sacrifice required and pay the satisfaction needed for us to be saved. He can and does choose to be the ultimate sacrifice, baring all our sins as our representative and be resurrected into eternal life, where Adam failed for all humanity Jesus does not and if we choose to accept it our original sin is removed and we are “washed clean in the blood of the lamb"

Parliament have voted to pass the Children, Schools and Families bill with a majority of 91 votes. (h/t laurence)

This bill will require schools to provide information about contraception and abortion.

A question: If Catholic adoption agencies could no longer operate once the law required them to place children with homosexual couples, will Catholic schools be able to operate once the law requires them to provide information on how to get an abortion?

In my view, it is no longer a question of if, but when, schools such as St Mary's College here in Hull cease to be church schools and become state schools "with a spiritual character".

The truth is, this stuff has been happening under the table now for years now with "school" nurses and Connexions advisors referring girls for abortions while teachers give a nod and a wink in the direction of contraception.

In ten years time my daughters will look at me like some kind of wierd dinosaur when I tell them that our diocese used to run schools. "Don't be silly Dad", they will reply, "they couldn't run a bath".

Update: It begins...

Do you live in or have links with Middlesbrough Diocese?

The time has come to kick things up a notch and I am looking for people who would be willing to act as counter signatories on letters to Bishop Drainey and to Rome. A letter from several people carries more weight than a letter from one.

I'm not asking you to say "I agree with James Preece about everything" because I'm sure you don't. I'm asking you to look at short, clearly worded letters and consider adding your name to them before I post them. You can agree with some letters and not others and I will definitely welcome comments. I guarantee I will not put your name on anything without your explicit consent.

If you would like to be added to my list of people, please send an email to james@lovingit.co.uk (please do so even if I already know you).

I would be especially grateful for some special courage from priests in this matter. Your details will be kept 100% confidential and if you work in the curial office and just want to get a sneaky peak, that's fine too.

I tell my relatives and best friends, ‘If you want your children to fight for their faith, send them to public school. If you want them to lose their faith, send them to Catholic school.’

[link]

I've been sending emails again, this time to our very own Bishop Drainey...

To: bishopsecretary@dioceseofmiddlesborough.co.uk
Subject: The Children, Schools and Families Bill

Hi There,

Does Bishop Drainey have any public comment regarding the Children, Schools and Families bill which was passed in the commons yesterday with a majority of 91?

As Ed Balls said on Radio 4 yesterday:

"A Catholic faith school can say to their pupils we believe as a religion contraception is wrong but what they can't do is therefore say that they are not going to teach them about contraception to children, how to access contraception, or how to use contraception. What this changes is that for the first time these schools cannot just ignore these issues or teach only one side of the argument. They also have to teach that there are different views on homosexuality. They cannot teach homophobia. They must explain civil partnership. They must give a balanced view on abortion, they must give both sides of the argument, they must explain how to access an abortion, the same is true on contraception as well."

Many thanks,

James

I sent that at 8.30 this morning before leaving for work so I was quite impressed when a reply came in at 11 o'clock. Unfortunately, I was not so impressed with the contents...

Bishop Terry has asked me to send you the following response:

“The Bishop and the Schools Service of the Diocese of Middlesbrough welcomes the decision of Parliament yesterday to include amendments to the Children’s Schools and Families Bill that will allow PSHE and SRE to be delivered within the context of the religious character of each school. Catholic schools will continue to respond appropriately to the challenges that face young people as they become aware of the human potential for deep and lasting relationships and of human sexuality. The Act passed yesterday reaffirms the partnership between the State and the Catholic Church in providing schools with a religious character and the responsibility of Catholic schools to ensure that everything that is taught about relationships and sexuality is done so clearly within the context of the Church’s teaching.”

[name]

I find it hard to believe that Bishop Drainey wrote this. I've interviewed Bishop Drainey, I had a meeting with him long before that, I read all of his pastoral letters and seen him do live question and answer sessions with young people on several occasions. This is not the way he speaks.

This is beurocratic committee speak that somebody has surely written on his behalf and wonder if he has even seen it.

Note the slimy, cretinous language... "within the context of the Church's teaching." Not according to the Church's teaching but in the context of it?

People don't talk that way in real life, not unless they are deliberately trying to be ambiguous. If Bishop Drainey asked me to do something, I doubt he would be happy if I responded "I will act in the context of what you want..."

The other bit that upset me is the fact that I asked if Bishop Drainey had a public comment regarding the bill and they sent me a comment about the ammendment. Another cop out.

This is the equivalent of you saying "James, you've just heard that you have to saw your own leg off, got anything to say about that?" and me saying "I welcome the ammendment saying I can saw my leg off according to the religious character of my school". Actually, I think I might have something to say about the whole leg sawing thing.

So I replied...

"The Bishop and the Schools Service of the Diocese of Middlesbrough welcomes the decision of Parliament yesterday to include amendments to the Children’s Schools and Families Bill that will allow PSHE and SRE to be delivered within the context of the religious character of each school."

That's a response to the ammendment to the bill. Does Bishop Drainey have a public response to the full bill which, as Ed Balls stated means that schools "must explain how to access an abortion"

Thanks,

James

At the very least, if "The Bishop and the Schools Service of the Diocese of Middlesbrough" have any integrity at all, they need to respond to that phrase from the lips of Ed Balls, that Catholic schools "must explain how to access an abortion".

So far I haven't had a reply but it's early days yet. I'll let you know as soon as I do...

Another "round up" style post I'm afraid, there's really very little I can add to the excellent coverage going on across the internet...

As ever, if you read nothing else, read John Smeaton: Faith schools must promote abortion, Ed Balls confirms

Kate points out that the name of Archbishop Nichols has been dragged in to the debate with Ed Balls suggesting that Archbishop Nichols is in favour of the bill. That was two days ago and still no response from the Archbishop. Qui tacet consentire.

Damian Thompson is equally unimpressed... "Bishop Malcolm McMahon, who holds the education brief in the Bishops’ Conference: not available." "Oona Stannard, head of the Catholic Education Service (CES): not available."

Damian also asks "Archbishop Nichols, tell us: will Catholic schools provide abortion information, as the Government insists?" A question all Bishops will need to ask themselves as they are all ultimately responsible for the schools in their own diocese.

Laurence England asks "Where are they now?" (Bishops McMahon and Nichols that is) while I might ask the same of Bishop Drainey.

Jackie Parkes and Richard Marsden have more on Balls radio appearance this morning.

Fr Ray Blake suggests we should direct more of our ire at the Bishops involved... "There has been serious criticism of the Catholic Education Service, at least on the blogosphere and amongst "thinking" Catholics. Really the criticism should be aimed at Bishop McMahon, and his predecessor Archbishop Nichols, who is responsible for the CES."

For a bit of light relief, read the comments on atheist Free Thinker magazine where they are all terribly dissapointed in Ed Balls saying things like "This is no surprise from our corrupt and lying government; they cravenly give in to the demands of the religious zealots just to chase votes.", they really are deluded.

I have saved the gravest of questions until last: Fr Tim Finegan: Can Catholic schools co-operate in killing babies or not? And I agree with Mullier Fortis: "The Bishops have got to decide whether they wish to follow God or Caesar. To be silent any longer is to cooperate in grave evil."

As many blogs have said already: St John Fisher and St Thomas More, pray for us!

By Son of God we mean that Jesus has divine knowledge, He knows the Father's will intimately, He is totally without sin, He is perfect, He is a manifestation of God's love.

But why therefore does Jesus need to be fully God?

Firstly, “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways”, but it is difficult to explain and pass on the will of God as a human messenger as our human minds cannot fully comprehend the great mysteries, the “master plan” that God has for us. It is difficult to see that “It is man himself who must be saved: it is mankind who must be renewed”. So being fully God, Jesus is able to “teach with authority” because He does understand the full will and plan of God and He is able to pass it onto us by human means as described above. Secondly, by being God He can conform Himself to God's will, having that deeper relationship with God and being able to carry out and overcome the challenges before Him as a man that we struggle to achieve being with original sin. Thirdly, being God He is able to pay more satisfaction for our salvation than any price required. By salvation we do not mean “an immanent salvation, meeting material or even spiritual needs, restricted to the framework of temporal existence and completely identified with temporal desires, hopes, affairs and struggles, but a salvation which exceeds all these limits in order to reach fulfilment in a communion with the one and only divine Absolute: a transcendent and eschatological salvation, which indeed has its beginning in this life but which is fulfilled in eternity”. In short if a human was to die on the cross it would not be enough, it is only achievable by God Himself.

Fourthly, God can see the pain and suffering of man and how often man falls away from Him because of this. God loves us so much that because He wants us to have freewill and freedom. He cannot just choose to make everything good without limiting that freedom, so instead He comes to share in that suffering with us. If we look at the temptations of the devil when Jesus is in the desert they are very significant, the turning of stones to bread in Luke 4:3 for example, “Is there anything more opposed to belief in the existence of a good God and a Redeemer of making, than world hunger? Shouldn't it be the first test of the Redeemer, before the world's gaze and on the world's behalf, to give it bread and end all hunger?”. The Pope also reflects on the significance of the third temptation revealing how the qualities of the saviour/messiah were not those expected by the Jews at the time. Therefore “Jesus has to enter into the drama of human existence, for that belongs to the core of his mission; he has to penetrate it completely, down to its uttermost depths, in order to find the “lost sheep”, to bear it on his shoulders and bring it home”.

Joanna Bogle (the lady who writes nice books about the lives of nuns and how to bake cakes for feast days) writes...

The Catholic Education Service has completely messed up on this one, and heads will have to roll. Not much can be salvaged, and it's time for an admission of mistakes and a chance for a fresh start at the CES.

They were given an excellent opportunity - invited in right at the start of the Govt's discussions, given a place on the planning committee etc. They should have made the Catholic position clear, offered statistics and information showing - which is now readily acknowledged - that current fashionable forms of sex-ed, used for the past two decades, have resulted in steadily rising rates of teenage pregnancy, abortion, and STDs, discussed some radically alternative ideas complete with plenty of back-up material (lots available both here and in the USA, Australia,etc. If then they were outnumbered and the same old ghastly rubbish-ideas were adopted, they should have produced a minority report and resigned - killing two birds with one stone by producing some sound ideas for the future while possibly helping to squelch the Govt scheme. But no. They just sat and nodded the whole project through on the Govt's terms and are now revealed as essentially part of the Govt bureaucracy and unconnected with the reality of the Church and the Christian vision of life and love.

...

Verdict from Catholic laity and clergy: NO CONFIDENCE in the CES in its present form. Time for a complete overhaul. Over to you, dear Bishops - and with the words of the Holy Father ringing in your ears, please take courage and take the action needed.

[link]

For your Friday Fun this week I though you might enjoy these atheist cartoons about Catholic Education.

Har har. Of course if the artist had actually seen a Catholic School recently they would have drawn an ageing feminist asking "learners" (that's what we have to call them these days) to put their brain in the recycle bin and do some colouring in before watching a DVD.

The next cartoon makes me think maybe the atheists are on to something after all...

When it comes to sacrificing children, there's nobody better than Catholic Education Services.

Cartoons were found here and here.

If Jesus has managed to achieve all this then where does that leave us?

It is Christ's humanity that has made it possible for us to join to Him with our sacrifice, just because Jesus has carried out the tough part it is no bed of roses for us. The only way we can participate is if we truly follow Christ for, “Whoever follows after Christ, the perfect man, becomes himself more of a man.” The whole of man both body and soul is sanctified because the Word of the Father was 'assumed' through the incarnation of His Son and by the Paschal Mystery, and through this the whole of God's creation, which was put under the charge of man is also sanctified. Therefore because “Salvation is known only to God, it will be through more than simply their supernatural elevation brought about by Christ's union with humanity. It will be through their “being made partners... in the paschal mystery””. If we truly desire to be reconciled with God in the fullest sense of the Trinity we will follow Christ. For through him we “have access to the Father by one Spirit.”. Therefore though He is only one person of the Trinity, Christ is the source, content and objective of catechesis in light of the whole Trinity.

It is therefore important that we make Christ the centre of our Christian living, we must strive to live our lives as Christ with that self-sacrificing love he gave for us on the Cross. We can achieve this through the grace that God gives us and by our receiving of the Holy Eucharist in mass, the cleaning of our souls in confession and the deepening of our prayer lives to say the least. We are given a fresh life through baptism, but this is not enough we still bear the burdens of sin and must redeem ourselves to God in our daily lives always striving always to follow the path Christ lay before us.

It is also important to note that because Christ died for the salvation of all “Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and his Church, but seeks truth and does the will of God in accordance to his understanding of it, can be saved” through the baptism of desire.

We Catholic bloggers are (as you know) terribly boring conservative types who hate fun. That's why when I saw a skateboard for less than £10 I couldn't help myself.

We took the girls to the park today and while Ella pushed the swings I had a go at riding through a giant puddle...

This is the part where my foot got wet...

I bet they are loving it in the curial office!

If you would like to see some actual religious skateboarding, this is Friar Gabriel...

More photos of my fun here.

A letter was read at Mass this morning in the three diocese of Hallam, Leeds and Middlesbrough. As I listened at Mass this morning (we live in Middlesbrough diocese) it began like this...

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

You will realize that during the course of the last few years Catholic Care has been making strenuous efforts to secure its rights as an adoption agency...

My heart sank. More bad news. The adoption agency is obviously closing because of the recent "equality" legislation.

It continued...

...

Since 2007 Catholic Care has been involved in a legal battle to stay open as a Catholic adoption agency and to operate according to our beliefs in marriage and family life. Precisely because we wish to do everything possible to remain open the next stage in this legal process will take place in the High Court this week.

...

Above all, we seek your prayers especially as the High Court case begins on Wednesday. May Our Lady of Perpetual Succour, patroness of our three dioceses, intercede for us to the Lord that the good work Catholic Care has undertaken for so long may continue.

Devotedly,

+Rawsthorne +Roche +Drainey

Finally! A bit of good news. Somebody is actually fighting to be Catholic.

As Joe points out, this fight is almost certainly grounded in lay support. If Bishops Rawsthorne, Roche and Drainey had faced the situation Bishop O'Donoghue faced in Lancaster I highly doubt this fight would have continued.

In other words, don't be impressed with the Bishops. Be impressed with the trustees at Catholic Care. If the Bishops had done their job in the first place, Catholic Care wouldn't have to fight this fight at all.

Did I mention Catholic schools recently?