NOTICE: CHANGE OF WEB HOST
If you can read this then I have successfully finished moving my blog to my new hosting company. There will almost certainly be bugginess somewhere - please let me know if you see any!
Archbishop Vincent Nichols Approves Full Frontal for Ten Year Olds
Blogged by James Preece on 29th April 2010
Revealed: The real reason Austen Ivereigh doesn't want me in the same room as Archbishop Vincent Nichols.
Somebody told him I was going to wear this...
Now before anybody accuses me of being imprudent, notice that I (unlike the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Birmingham) have seen fit to photoshop in a fig leaf. The original version is, well, not fit for a family blog. In fact, the original version is in full rotating 3D and the camera zooms in on the...
The graphic (and I mean graphic) above is taken directly from the All That I Am Sex Education programme which was produced by the Diocese of Birmingham while Archbishop Nichols was Archbishop there. Despite many letters from concerned parents, he refuses to do anything about it.
This is the title screen on the DVD:
Year 6 (look it up if you don't believe me) means ages 10 to 11. I'm fairly sure the above image wouldn't make it in to a 12 certificate film without the fig leaf.
Go on, somebody tell me that we need to flash 3D animated nudes in front of mixed classes of giggling ten year olds because if we don't do it, they will only see it somewhere else! It's the Catholic way...?
Here are the credits:
For a moment I was almost expecting to see Ed Balls' name there as well.
It's okay though, because the bad guy here is definitely me. What a sicko, putting horrible pictures on the internet next to the poor Archbishop's name.
That's right. I'm the bad guy.
If you want to see it for yourself, the original footage, nudes and all, can be seen here.
Reader Comments
Sean Wright said...
Incidentally, these videos are a fine way to create body dismorphia. How many people are as toned as that computer graphic? Or of the woman?
We can talk about silicone breasts and the 'perfect' bodies in pornography until the cows come home.
If we have to have this kind of thing, can't they be healthy and normal, rather than healthy and abnormally perfect?
+-
+2
Paul Priest said...
I haven't any problems with the sexual biological aspects of this teaching at all; to be frank the whole 'sex stuff' should be something dealt with tactfully and thoughtfully from the earliest age so that it doesn't become an embarassing giggly stage when sats and looming comprehensive school is enough of a problem for kids that age....kids mature emotionally and psychologically at different stages - a parent who knows their kids will know exactly what they need to know and when.
BUT
kids are soooo overwhelmed with sexual imagery and soap storylines and media insensitivity that they have so many aspects of it thrust upon them....
I said I don't have a problem with the sex education....
But I have REAL PROBLEMS with everything else in the video - what the hell is this woman talking about - an exciting journey? an opportunity to draw other people close ? she's off her bloody chump!
The one thing kids at that age need to know about the whole thing is the truth!
And I'm sorry this isn't!
Plus the last thing a self-conscious boy wants at that age is for ANY woman to be referring to his body - couldn't these people have used a bit of common sense ?
If you make it more clinical and medical and academic the kids feel more at ease - all this nampy-pamby starry-eyed
head-shrinking bollocks about it being a wonderful journey in self-understanding is going to make them feel so embarassed and self-conscious and prone to the worst anxieties...
The whole emphasis should have been on what happens , it's perfectly natural , it's nothing to worry about and it's going to have its problems but we all get through it eventually.
Not some new age fantasy which is a downright lie!
I remember in the early 90s having a major set-to with someone who is now a major conference bigwig on education regarding the Confirmation preparation literature - They had little if nothing to do with confirmation or the spirituality or the responsibility on etakes on for the faith - it was all self-analysis and psychological claptrap about scrutinising ones relationships with friends and family and peers - in other words it was a manual on how to analyse everything to the point of nervous breakdown - it was inducing teenage angst.
no teenager's relationships are perfect, every family has its own difficulties and hardships and tensions - school-life can be a minefield and a lonely and hellish place in equal measures - but they have to get through it and most of the time the last thing they need is reflection on the situation - stopping and thinking can stop them going on and getting through it....
These so-called child-experts haven't got a bloody clue.
My bone of contention with +Vin for allowing this is that he's supposed to be the prime teacher of the faith - yet he's allowed this tissue of lies to pass through and inadvertently screw up more lives than the makers could think possible....
+-
+1
Elizabeth said...
I disagree with Mr Priest's comment that it won't become "an embarrassing giggly" issue in year 6, just because you've dealt with it from an early age. There is such a thing as sexual latency in children (which goes on to about age 11/12 - and yes it will vary with the maturity of each child)and it is this very part of their sexually immature nature that makes explicit (even biologically true) sex education inappropriate, and unneccessary to them. Yes parents need to answer questions honestly, but there are ways of saying things to each child, without going in to graphic details, which respects the child's sexual latency - which includes a real desire NOT to know too much! It is also entirely wrong for sex education to be delivered in mixed-sex classrooms (or even, as the Church really says, in classrooms, at all) - every Catholic parent should have the right to deliver it to their child in the privacy of their own home, and it is nonsense to say you can remove your child from the sex-ed lessons, why, so's they can learn it in the playground??
+-
+2
Antonia said...
I totally agree; that is an entirely inappropriate image to be showing Year 6s in any school, but even more scandalous in a Catholic school.
It doesnt fulfil any educational need, and it is damaging to their emotional/psychological/spiritual/moral development, and totally at odds with what the Church says children should be taught in this regard.
(The Pontifical Council for the Family's document "The truth and meaning of human sexuality")
It's things like this that convince me more and more than home education is the only legitimate option to ensure our children remain unscandalised and educated in the faith.
For what it's worth I for one don't see you as "the bad guy"; I entirely agree with the core of almost all of what you say.
However I just take objection to the *tone* of how you say things sometimes (especially regarding personal comments about the bishops.)
Surely if the bishops are letting down the faithful and causing scandal then the facts of the case will speak for themselves (e.g. showing a picture of a naked adult man to Year 6 students. Or the appointment of Mr. Greg Pope to the CESEW. Both of which are examples of actions that should never have been met with Bishop's approval).
I sometimes feel that there is no need for the additonal comments which can at times be rather unkind, disrespectful and mocking in a way I dont think the Christ's ministers should ever be treated (no matter how incompetent/cowardly/spiritually blind we may consider them to be).
But those are just my feelings.
God Bless
Antonia
xxx
+-
+6
epsilon said...
Antonia - you said:
"Surely if the bishops are letting down the faithful and causing scandal then the facts of the case will speak for themselves... "
The facts have been speaking for themselves for the last 40+ years but most of us still haven't woken up - we all owe a debt of gratitude to James for jogging us out of our complacency, and despite all the "it-must-never-happen-again-and-we-have-put-safeguards-in-place-so-it-won't" pronouncements from the likes of Archbishop Nichols, nobody in a position of authority in The Church has responded to James or other concerned catholics with anything more than flippancy and/or buck-passing. Can you not see this??
+-
Elizabeth said...
I agree with what you say, Antonia, about home-education being almost the only option nowadays for keeping your children pure - although the external assaults on their purity eg billboard adverts, magazines and newspapers at toddler's eye level in every supermarket, and petrol station forecourt, make it a hard task. But James is simply making the frustration of so many Catholic parents in this country known - and I think MANY of them have already tried to talk in a polite, genteel, mild-mannered way with the Bishops, to no avail. Not everyone has the saintly quality of being able to remain quiet, and unforthright in desperate circumstances - I notice that there is a picture of St Jerome in the side-bar of this blog. I was mightily relieved to find out that this great Saint was reknowned for his sarcasm - sometimes it is necessary for us to survive. He's also a good Saint to pray to for help with anger, something he had to deal with. So let's pray that between the sarcasm and anger, justly headed towards our ineffectual leadership, we might all pop in a few prayers on their behalf too!
+-
Ttony said...
They can't spell "focusing" either. Good at bad sex education; bad at good English.
+-
epsilon said...
As a 'foreigner' in England, I have nothing but scorn for English educators who can't spell in English!
+-
Mark Dobson said...
New shorter OED:
focus [...] v. Infl. -s-, -ss-.
i.e. it recognises both "focusing" and "focussing"
+-