Parents in Austria fined for homeschooling...

Blogged by James Preece on 21st June 2012

The Church says...

The right of parents to choose an education in conformity with their religious faith must be absolutely guaranteed.

[Familiaris Consortio]

Simple, right? It's not the 1600's any more. Nobody is fined for not practicing the official religion these days...

In September 2011, the local authority started to fine us because we refused to send the children to the local State school. Since then, the Cassidy, Huvozic, and Newton family have been fined for every day their children have been absent from the local school. These fines now run into several thousand Euros. The fines have also forced us to incur substantial legal costs in an attempt to defend ourselves. All this appears to us as fundamentally unfair.

The absurdity of the situation is clear from the fact that there are already hundreds of English speaking children in Austria who are permitted by the Ministry of Education to be educated and tested wholly in English at expensive private schools in Vienna. We only ask for the same right as these parents.

[link]

On 8 June 2012 we had a meeting with the local school inspector from Scheibbs. There was no movement on the part of the authorities at all and what appeared to us as a hardening of their position. He told us that if our children are not in school this September (2012) then the likelihood is that the social services will be alterted to our situtation. This appears to us to be a method they are prepared to use to pressure us into sending the children to the local school. The ultimate threat, of course, is that the children shall be taken from us because we are 'mistreating' them by not sending them to the local school.

[link]

All over Europe the rights of parents are being trodden on.

Rate this blogentry: + -

+16

This Item Tagged With:

Reader Comments

New Friend said...

The authority's objection is clearly home schooling. Whether the examination is in German or English seems a side issue and just the excuse for action and not the true reason.
For those who believe in home schooling this is an outrage.
For those, like me, who don't it is a statement of intent from the education authorities which is to their immense credit. As someone who would like home schooling restricted only to those physically unable to attend school I would like to see a similar regime in the UK. Home schooling is designed to satisfy the parents wishes and not the children's needs, especially when done on a religious basis. It needs to be stopped.

Well done the Austrians say I.

berenike said...

The families were told that they could homeschool but that their children were now to be examined in German, on the Austrian syllabus. Since they are taught in English, to a different syllabus, they obviously cannot pass the tests. You are of course right when you say that at the bottom of this is opposition to homeschooling.

mike cliffson said...

NF
do you feel you need to revert and be provocative after being a good way on the side of the angels with downs syndrome kids?
Or because you have no horse in this race?

New Friend said...

Mike

My own kids have long since left school but my grandchildren go, so I suppose you could say I have several horses in the race. I also used to own a nursery so have had some personal experience of parents always being the "primary" educators.

I just feel this is an area of confusion for many Catholics. Of course in most circumstances parents will always be the primary educators, in it's true meaning, which is to be the first and principal educators. Children learn much more than the just the formal subjects taught at school in their home environments, and this is every bit what is meant by education as that found in school.

Home schooling though, seems to me, to go well beyond parents being the "primary" educators. It seeks to become the near exclusive educators, often being associated with a regime which severely restricts other influences. As many home schooling parents do so because of a strong religious belief it is obvious that they do so because of this, and their view that they know what is best for their children. For me this is putting the beliefs of the parents before the needs of the children. I think every child should have the freedom to explore and expand in whatever direction they wish to and not be restricted by any pre-conceived ideas of their parents. Their parents should influence through their behaviour and not through their power.

So I don't believe home schooling to be wise and I think the state has a duty to restrict it's use.

Thanks, by the way, for appreciating my concerns about downs kids. My concerns about home schooling can, at a stretch, be viewed in the same category. I want all kids to be given an equal opportunity.

ORA PRO NOBIS said...

NF,

Once again you put your faith in the state. History dictates that like minded people are OK with this premise right up to the point where the state infringes on their rights.

It is all very well making these sweeping statements as long as you don't complain when it goes wrong for you personally. It is easy being a 'yes man' when things are going your way.

You are not English and so do not understand that we have had two World Wars to put a stop to dictatorships.

I believe that you are from the Philippines. I note that your leader is not only President, but also the head of government and Commander in Chief because, it looks like that may not be stable indefinately. Let us hope for your sake that that remains a stable situation. It also looks like certain parts of your country are pushing for federalism. Good look with that if that blows up in your face.

I also note that you have something known as the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao. I would have also thought you would have had more to complain about with that issue. Well, it is closer to home.

In essence I suggest that you worry about problems closer to home. By the look of it they could actually cause you problems in the future.

New Friend said...

Ora Pro Novis

Sorry but you have misunderstood my situation. I am as British as I assume you are. I was born in Croydon and via Devon, Gloucestershire, Warwickshire, Buckinghamshire, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire now live in Cornwall. Except that for 50% of the time I live in another home I own in the Philippines. It is living here, in a Catholic dominated country, which gives me an insight into what some of the beliefs you hold mean when put into practice. The theory and reality are very different.

I would much rather put my "faith" into a democratic government than in a theocracy. There is much more chance of a dictatorship being present in a theocracy than in a modern western democracy like ours and to suggest otherwise is to recant the scare stories so popular here.

As a foreigner I am not permitted to participate in politics here but nevertheless I observe it, without local comment. There is much wrong with it, being as it is dominated by the Catholic Church and rampant corruption. Yes the Muslims of Mindanao want total independance. In some areas they already have autonomy. Some groups are extremely violent and some of my wife's relatives have had to escape to live closer to us, on some land we own, to escape persecution and eventual execution.

Home schooling here is regarded as a failure, and only done by those who cannot afford the very modest fees. Going to to school is much prized by the children and their parents. Kids all wear uniforms which are always ironed and tidy. There is a huge sense of pride involved and I feel quite sure they would regard the home school concept in the UK as being really odd.

Scout said...

NF wrote: "The authority's objection is clearly home schooling."

I've done a little research into this, and it seems the situation is more complicated than this. There are countries, such as Germany, where home-schooling is prohibited or only permitted in rare cases. Austria *does* allow home-schooling provided the children pass a set test every year. If they fail the test, usually the child will be expected to go to school the following year.

This set test is in the Austrian (ie. German) language and follows the Austrian national curriculum. In the case we are dealing with here, this is where the complications set in. The children in this case have previously been educated in English schools in Austria which do not strictly follow the Austrian national curriculum. Now they have have been taken out of their English schools and the parents want to continue to home-educate them in the English system. This is something the Austrian education authorities do not seem to want to allow. Precisely why this is, I do not know.

My personal view, for what it is worth, is that home-schooling *can* provide a child with a good education provided it is rounded and of good quality, and provided the child is given suitable opportunities for socialisation with peers. However, I share NF's concern that *some* parents might want to use home-schooling in order to unhealthily indoctrinate and control their children. The education of children is something which, I believe, both the parents and the wider society (as represented by the democratically-elected government) has a legitimate interest in and ought to have a say over. I want parents to have some choice and some say over educational matters, though as I say, that should be balanced against the rights of society as well.

So should home-schooling be allowed. Usually, yes - although the state has a right to regulate how this is done. In certain cases, the state would be justified in refusing permission to home-educate and insisting the child be educated in school. Is home-schooling a "basic human right"? Hmmm. I'm not convinced. I would prefer governments did allow home-schooling, but can respect the right of a society to determine that it wants all of its children educated in school.

Mark Dobson said...

I think I agree with quite a lot of what you�re saying. A minor quibble:

"I � can respect the right of a society to determine that it wants all of its children educated in school."

The concept of human rights is pretty broadly accepted, but the rights of societies, I should think, is a more controversial area.

I believe I speak with the majority in asserting that human rights must take priority over the rights of societies.

Scout said...

I hear what you're saying. Human or "individual" rights are too often trampled over by governments in the name of "society", and the way the term "society" gets used sometimes seems quite abstract. I don't think there is necessarily always a clash between individual human rights and the "rights" of society. In actual fact, we frequently find that when "society" or the state fails to intervene, then human or individual rights are violated.

Would you not agree that when it comes to home-schooling, the education authorities have some degree of responsibility to supervise and regulate? Surely a basic level of educational quality needs to be maintained, for example. There other issues as well. For example, I think it is important to make sure home-schooled children don't miss out on socialisation (I'm not saying they necessarily do miss out here, but it can happen). School isn't meant to be just about learning; it is also about becoming equipped to take part in society. There are certain subjects, such as awareness of other cultures and religious groups in society, and sex education, which I believe the state has a legitimate interest in making sure children are given a good grounding.

In the case James mentioned, it seems the parents wanted to home-school their children in a different language and using a different curriculum to other Austrian children. I can understand why the state might be concerned about this. What would your feelings be, for example, if a British Indian family wanted to home-educate their daughter according to an Urdu-based educational curriculum rather than our national curriculum?

I also think NF has a legitimate point about the dangers of over-zealous parents wanting to remove their children from school in order to give them greater control over that child's life experiences. There is a point where over-control becomes indoctrination. Surely the state has a responsibility to lay down guidelines in order to guard against this. What would you think, for example, of a Muslim family who insisted on home-educating their daughter because they want to raise her in a very strict and controlled religious environment and do not want her to integrate with the rest of the community?

Mark Dobson said...

I think the starting point in the cases you're talking about is the right of the child to education, rather than the right of society to educate.

+10

Catherine said...

The Most Reverend Francis A. Chullikatt
Permanent Observer for the Holy See to the UN
"For some time now, my delegation has noticed a disconcerting trend, namely, the desire on the part of some to downplay the role of parents in the upbringing of their children, as if to suggest somehow that it is not the role of parents, but that of the State. In this regard it is important that the natural and thus essential relationship between parents and their children be affirmed and supported, not undermined. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) affirms that �parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children� (Article 26, 3) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) affirms that parents have �the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child� (Article 18, 1). These principles bear particular import regarding all matters pertaining to children, including, for example, with regard to their access to, as well as confidentiality and privacy of, information, education and communication activities and services concerning their health and wellbeing, including in the areas of human love, human sexuality, marriage and the family. It is not surprising that, on many occasions in the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), direct reference is made to the essential role of parents regarding their children and that all policies and programmes regarding children be in line with the CRC (cf., e.g., Principles 10 and 11; 6.7, 6.15, 7.37, and 10.12).
...the State should respect the choices that parents make for their children and avoid attempts at ideological indoctrination. As affirmed in international law, States are called to have respect for the freedom of parents to choose for their children schools, other than those established by the public authorities, to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions which equally applies to their right to make judgments on moral issues regarding their children (cf., e.g., UDHR, Article 26, 3, ICESCR, Article 13, 3, and the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, Article 12, 4). There are about 250,000 Catholic schools around the world. The Catholic school assists parents who have the right and duty to choose schools inclusive of homeschooling, and they must possess the freedom to do so, which in turn, must be respected and facilitated by the State. Parents must cooperate closely with teachers, who, on their part, must collaborate with parents."
for full text of Statement by the Holy See Delegation to the Economic and Social Council 45th session of the Commission on Population and Development
New York, 24 April 2012 go to
http://www.holyseemission.org/statements/statement.aspx?id=380

New Friend said...

Catherine

I wonder if there will every be a time when something written by you will be agreed by me!

I don't think it is possible to argue about the UDHR or the CRC. It is though very possible to argue about the way the Catholic Church decides to interpret what they mean. Your own quote below gives a key to this:-

"...the State should respect the choices that parents make for their children and avoid attempts at ideological indoctrination."

This requires a State to do both things. Respect the choices AND avoid attempts at ideological indoctrination. If home schooling is seen to involve the latter then the State has a duty to intervene. The State has to allow for a variety of schools to be established, so as the choice is respected but must balance that against the other requirement. That some countries have determined that home schooling equals, in many cases, indoctrination is not surprising. I happen to agree with that, although I accept that for now I am in a minority in the UK.

Catherine said...

My goodness me -what an ego!!! do you seriously imagine I write anything here with you in mind? Are you so dillusional in your worldview and paradigm that you imagine I have to even care about having to persuade you and those who think like you? No, you are mistaken. Me and my kind will suffer terribly because of our beliefs and you will simply stand shrug your shoulders and say....'all you had to do was violate your consciences and everything would have been ok and your children would have been happy as quasi wards of the State!'
However, I do believe you beleive your motives are noble....but in the end you will not be on the side of victory.

New Friend said...

Catherine

I did not for one moment imagine that you wrote with me in mind! My comment was much more about how it is that two quite different perspectives of the same situation can regularly occur. Whether you care is much more important because if you don't then your view has no chance of ever becoming accepted. If you are content for you and your kind to exist in your cozy bubble, which by the way I think is dilusional, then sobeit. I am perfectly happy that is the case. However the rest of us, via the state, have an interest in all the children, including yours, and if we see them in danger then we have a duty to protect them. That you might not see that danger is neither here nor there. Victory is not an objective. This isn't a war. Caring for our future citizens is the purpose.

Catholic mother said...

It is strange how people always presume that anyone who looks at things differently is just a narrow-minded religious bigot. That seems tantamount to the approach James mentioned before that the first one to say 'Nazi' has lost the argument (I don't neccessarily agree that is the case).
The Catholic approach often looks at things differently because everyone else has run off to other viewpoints. However it is not just those who profess particular faiths who homeschool because they can see the years of childhood are an important time to learn and the current system and materials used are often rubbish.
Homeschooling takes a lot of effort from the parents and means that a second wage can't easily be brought in. The homeschooled children I know are much more open to learning and interesed in many things, rather than just social messaging networks etc.

+11

Lazarus said...

The only families I know who've homeschooled did so through desperation at their children's failing to thrive in local schools: having been through some tough experience with the education system ourselves (without homeschooling) I can sympathize. (And none of this had anything to do with religion.)

In the end, this about which is the best institution to judge and look after the interests of children. Familiaris consortio makes it clear, rightly, that this is the family, not the state. That certainly doesn't mean that, in the event of abuse or serious neglect, the state doesn't have a role to play. But, on the whole, it should be left to families to sort out patterns of education. (And there's absolutely no reason to assume that homeschooling isn't a perfectly reasonable option.)

mike cliffson said...

One of my reasons for believing in homeschooling is having been in teaching since the late sixties, state teaching since 1975, (admittedly, never in UK state teaching.)
The object is the photo, not the kid, let alone the kid's faith.
The kid is not the aim.The kid's personal fulfillment and learning is not the aim.The increase in national wealth is not the aim. A secondary aim may be morlocks, etc indoctrinasted little monsters, conditioned imbeciles, etc but that is limited and secondary.
The photo is the aim.

Marguerita said...

I am a homeschooler and see nothing at all wrong with homeschooling. If you look up organisations like Education Otherwise or the Home Education Advisory Service, you will see that the most common reason for parents deciding to homeschool in the UK is because their children have suffered severely with bullying at school, and having exhausted every effort through the school and social services, they finally decide to homeschool out of desperation. Often the child needs a period of "unschooling" before they are ready to learn again. This has nothing to do with religious beliefs or objections to what is being taught in schools. The state, apparently, is unable to prevent bullying in its schools.
Also, many homeschooled children do very well in exams etc and go on to university or other qualifications. Socialisation is also often much better for homeschooled children, because instead of being corralled all day with 29 other unsocialised kids like themselves, they actually spend time with people of different age groups and experiences, so often are more rounded and more mature than school educated kids.

New Friend said...

Marguerita

I am sorry to hear about the bullying which is undoubtably a major issue these days. That the school system needs an overhaul is clearly true and we need to get back to insisting on discipline and respect. That though is not a reason to home school. It is a reason to deal with the problem where it occurs, although I can accept the temptation that a parent has to walk away and do their own thing if it is permitted.
I am not so sure that your belief that socialisation is better is correct. That they will not be faced with disruptive kids at school is obviously true but they will as soon as they leave home, and perhaps will be less able to know how to handle them. These are changed times we are living in and you simply cannot be isolated for ever from them.

You claim this has nothing to do with religious beliefs or what is taught in schools. Does this mean that you completely follow the national curriculum and make no attempt to indocrinate any kind of religious belief into your children during school hours?

louella said...

Bullying is a terrible problem in secular schools where they have never heard the words....Do unto others what you would be done by.

There are only 2 forms of bullying that will be (severely) dealt with in a secular school....and they are 'gay' and racial bullying, where bizarelly very young children are being given criminal records for such behaviour. All other bullying is dealt with in the most ineffective, soft way. This is carried out for political and perverse ideological reasons....not for the protection of bullied children. Our school systems stink to be honest.

louella said...

Godless Europe is becoming a totalitarian fascist dictatorship...under the guise of democracy. (So what's new you may say. How is it democracy when all the main parties share the same animosity towards the Faith, Family and Freedom. No party supports these. The vice grip of power is tightens when our children do not attend the local brainwashing centres ie secular schools.

Family is the greatest bulwark against an overly domineering centralised authority. That's one reason why they wish to undermine the Family in Europe. Catholicism is the only antidote to such a godless brute system. Hope the Bishops will create a fuss.

Mockery of the Sacraments said...

LOL I'm not sure how our three main parties are responsible for the home schooling rules in Austria. LOL To stand as a Catholic alternative to the big three costs �500 deposit & a dozen signatures. The faithful of the RC could have a candidate up & running in every seat in the Kingdom if they so desired. LOL The RC has taxpayer funded church schools throughout the land. Faithful Catholic parents could ensure that such schools were orthodox in the faith if they so desired. LOL Organised Christianity is a powerful institution but in recent decades a lack of young adults strong in the faith has caused it to wobble.

New Friend said...

louella

Without wishing to hurt your feelings that is just silly. Democracy is the result of the collected views of all the people. No party actually has "animosity" towards any faith. We just don't happen to be a theocracy and long may that be the case because the majority reject such a concept.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with "family" and to claim that only those who hold your views support family values is just plain nonsense. By adopting such a way out position you risk isolating yourself and becoming even less influential than you are now. It is a self defeating strategy.

louella said...

New friend....Democracy is a very blunt tool...and can be easily manipulated whereby the elites of all main parties follow the same agenda, leaving the population powerless.

All 3 parties are anti-family parties. This is clearly anti-Christian. Also Democracy runs on the basis of dividing a nation, not unifying it.

New Friend said...

louella

Where do you get such ideas? We, the people, have the power to elect whatever government we want. You have the opportunity to convince the rest of us to follow your recommendations. It is all there and wide open for you. You just have to do it, so please stop complaining and tackle the task.

The main parties are not anti family. That is quite frankly a stupid idea. Supporting and encouraging families is central to each of the parties. Neither is it "anti-Christian", although I don't believe it is appropriate for any party to be "pro-Christian" either any more than they should be "pro-Muslim". They should be "pro-freedom of choice".

Democracy might well involve divided political opinion but better that every viewpoint has a freedom of expression and an opportunity to participate in the process than a system in which minorities are kept in perpetual darkness. You have a full opportunity to voice your views. That they are not accepted is something you need to reflect upon and not complain about.

louella said...

Really?! Well I've never ever elected a government that I wanted....so what are you talking about?! It's nonsense what you are babbling.

All the main parties undermine the family in every way they can....benefits for co-habitees and single parents that married parents can only dream of...no-fault divorce....a pernicious little evil that recognises no fairness. And did you know that should a man living in council property decide to desert his wife and children...the council will find him another flat for himself...no questions asked. Absolutely evil.

Democracy divides....I prefer some system that unites. And voicing my opinion alone is not satisfactory. I would prefer to have my opinions acted upon...as they are in accordance with Natural law and natural justice...unlike our perverse present system.

New Friend said...

louella

Your first statement is the key to your problem, and the one that you ought to reflect upon. If you have never elected a government you wanted then there is a reason for that and the only reason can be that not enough people agree with you.

What you regard as evil is not a shared perception so why should your minority view prevail?

To get your opinions acted upon? Without securing a majority? It sounds to me as if you agree with Michael Voris who advocated a system in which only Catholics can vote! Is that really what you think.

louella said...

Sure....but why don't they agree with me?! Is it because the Truth isn't as attractive as sweet lies. As an analogy �2 + �2 = �4; this is true but it is not as attractive as the lie that �2 + �2 = �40. However eventually all systems will collapse on this lie no matter how attractive it is. This is what is happening in Europe today. And our politicians successfully peddle falsehoods.

I think we will have to wait for meltdown of our present system and the eventual realisation that because something is nice doesn't mean it is true...and that Truth is more precious than niceness. Just hope it doesn't come too late or at too great a price.

Mockery of the Sacraments said...

On a serious note, I would uphold the right of parents to home school their children if they wish. I consider educational choice an important element in a free society.

New Friend said...

M of the S

As one of the most perceptive regular posters I can understand why you believe educational choice to be important.

It is though surely a question of seeking to balance the competing rights and responsibilities of both parents and children.

Home schooling worries me because it seems all to be about the parent's "rights" with little real thought being given to those of their children.

It is a much deeper problem than it appears on the surface and goes right to the heart of how a Catholic parent views their children. They seem immediately to assume they have bred another little Catholic and their duty is to bring them up in the faith. Indeed I think they would be astounded that anyone would even think otherwise. It is a natural conclusion for them. For a Catholic parent it is both a right and a duty to bring their child up in the faith.

I, and I suspect many others, disagree. I think every child should have the freedom to discover things for themselves and allow their natural curiousity to lead them where-ever it takes them. Of course they are going to be influenced by their home life and by their parent's faith but they need to experience other ideas and be allowed to investigate them. They cannot do that properly in the one dimensional environment to be found in a home school. Therefore I do not believe the interests of the child, which ought to be paramount, are being put before those of the parent. This is particularly true when any element of a home schooling situation involves a faith as the basis of the teaching.

Mockery of the Sacraments said...

Thank you for your kind words New Friend, but as you know we disagree here.

I believe in the presumption of innocence. I think that parents ought to be viewed as being the best judges of what is good for their children, & to have the best intentions for their children. Obviously there will be exceptions, I think everyone recognises this, but the state should have to establish that this is the case & not merely assume it.

So if a parent wishes to homeschool their children, they should be allowed to. The grounds for the state to prevent this should be based on some real form of abuse, not merely a distaste for the home school curriculum.

Unless there is some form of abuse going on I'm sure that home schooled children turn out better than many children who attend school, who are placed there simply because they are obliged to be there.

I'm not bothered by the notion of children only being exposed to the faith of their parents. Decades ago organised Christianity played a far more prominent role in British society than it does today. Something happened & from somewhere a generation of men & women raised in a faith environment largely turned their backs on Christianity. This falling away has gained pace over the years. I think that any home schooled child today will realise pretty quickly that not everyone shares their parents' views & will sooner or later be free to examine competing claims.

Remember that all those bought up in an environment of at least nominal Christianity (most adults in the UK today, I'd say) & who have rejected the faith were free to do so. I wish to uphold these freedoms of thought, conscience & expression. The best way I can uphold these most valuable freedoms is to defend them for those with whom I disagree.

New Friend said...

M of the S

Of course I also agree with a presumption of innocence and I don't doubt for a moment that the parents involved genuinely believe that they know what is best for their kids.

Where we part company is whether these genuine beliefs are enough justification to permit home schooling if the judgement of society as a whole is that this is against the interests of the child.

I am not impressed by any argument about what happened in the past. We don't live there any more and as these days are so very different the past is no longer a guide.

I don't doubt that some home school children do very well academically. Any child who receives individual attention tends to do well but that is far from the only measure we should use.

You seem to agree that a child seen to suffer abuse should not be home schooled. I would though argue that to deny them attendance at school is itself a form of abuse. My primary concern is to ensure that the rights of the child are ALWAYS put before those of the parents. When it is only the parents who take the decision this is a very difficult thing for them to honestly and objectively determine. At the very least the child's interests should be represented independently and the decision whether to permit home schooling, or not, taken by a responsible authority separate to the parents. The parents would have to demonstrate why the child would be better served through home schooling, and not just that they prefer it themselves. My guess would be that in most cases they would fail.

I fully accept that my own views are currently in the minority and therefore home schooling is permitted. I want to see that changed and realise that people like me must first win the argument.

Mockery of the Sacraments said...

I don't see why people should be obliged to obtain state permission to educate their own children. I can see that the state might have a duty to step in where there is clear evidence of abuse, but otherwise we should let parents get on with parenting their own children. Most parents will make decisions about some aspect of their children's upbringing that I would disagree with, but that is their call. I'm not sold on the view that a state committee will always be honest or competent. I fear an overbearing state more than I fear bad parents. Public sector failure is always more costly than private sector failure.

New Friend said...

M of the S

We are clearly not going to agree on this. I think it will be interesting to see which way the UK develops in this regard for there is an obvious difference of approach between what happens in, say, Germany and in the USA where the growth of home schooling is for me a really worrying trend which I don't want to see repeated. I think we will just have to wait and see.

Salisbury John said...

NF says "I think every child should have the freedom to discover things for themselves and allow their natural curiousity to lead them where-ever it takes them."

O really? try telling that to the parents of the 9 year old girl brutally raped by a 12 year old boy recently in Britain because of the hardcore pornography he'd been viewing and decided to act out. An extreme case perhaps? ...not for long with the ratio of 5-14 year olds viewing porn on the increase daily!

New Friend said...

John

Permitting hardcore pornography to be viewed by anyone, let alone a child, is illegal. Controlling such activities might be difficult but should not ever be confused with the need to allow children the freedom to go where-ever their curiosity leads them. I believe in freedom under the law, not freedom without any restrictions.

Sarah said...

"allow children the freedom to go where-ever their curiosity leads them" - how completely reckless.

New Friend said...

Sarah

Without anyone watching over them and ensuring that they are safe of course it would be reckless. No caring parent allows that to happen. Some though don't write an agenda but allow the child to explore on their own, whilst making suggestions in answer to questions. Genuine curiosity is a much better avenue for learning than any enforced regime.

Chrysostom said...

I do not want to make a comment about the point of this blog which has become rather obscure. I simply note that the one who calls himself "New friend" had made, if I count correctly, ten comments. With a "new friend" like this who needs enemies?

Our Lady Help of Christians - pray for us.
St Athanasius - pray for us
All Ye English Martyrs - pray for us.
St. Charles Lwanga and Companion Martyrs of Uganda, who died resisting homosexuality - pray for us.
St John the Baptist - pray for us.

New Friend said...

Chrysostom

Trust me you have plenty of enemies and need all the friends you can get, even if you don't appreciate them. Just remember a true friend is not a sycophant but one who tells you unpleasant truths from time to time. With your second to last tag line you seem to need that more than most.

Living where I do I spend a great deal of time with Catholic folk. All day yesterday I was with such a group, including two priests, working on a project to assist a number of very poor farmers. They definitely regard me as a true friend. We share a common cause, enjoy a lot of laughs, and a few beers too. We have our differences but not in what we want to achieve, which is to try to help.

Chrysostom said...

11 Comments.

Scout said...

Chrysostom, I'd like to question your misleading description of St. Charles Lwanga and his companions as having "died resisting homosexuality". According to accounts, Lwanga was executed by the Ugandan King following serious religious/political differences, culminating in Lwanga standing up to the King for wanting to have sexual relationships with his (male) Christian pages. What happened here is an attempt by a powerful person to coerce his subordinates into a sexual relationship. We are dealing with sexual coercion, and to call it "homosexuality" instead would be like calling a man raping a woman "heterosexuality".

St. Maria Goretti's case is not dissimilar to Lwanga's. She was murdered after refusing to have sex with someone who wanted to coerce her into sexual intercourse. Would anyone be silly enough to describe her as having "died resisting heterosexuality"?