Building Blocks are Building Blocks
Blogged by James Preece on 22nd January 2013
If a Catholic were to describe British culture as "hyper-sexualised" they would probably be called reactionary and extremist. Yet these are the words of Dianne Abbot MP. Not my number one favourite MP in the world.
She has this to say about what she calls the "hyper-sexualised British culture"...
We need to talk about how we put families, and not the lowest common denominator of the market, back in control. We’ve got to build a society based on open-minded family values, and not ‘anything goes’ market values.
[link]
Strange that a Labour MP, a member of the party that wants to force your child in to compulsory sex education lessons against the wishes of parents and help your daughter to conceal under age sexual activity - suddenly wants to put families "back in control".
Always remember that when we talk about the family being the basic, fundamental building block of society... we are describing the truth. It's not an ideal. It's not "in an ideal world families would be the building blocks" but rather "families are the building blocks".
Which is why even ideologues who think that with enough borrowed money the state can build a system to replace the family always find themselves falling back on the family anyway.
Because the family is the basic building block.
Reader Comments
+13
Caroline Farrow said...
Yep. Anyone spot the irony in Clare Perry telling parents that children have no automatic right to privacy and secrecy, that they have a responsibility to snoop on their children's Internet and mobile phone activity. At the same time parents have no right to know whether their children are engaging in sexual activity, whether or not they are taking potentially carcinogenic hormones with side effects that they need to be aware of, or whether their children are having internal surgery to remove their unborn child.
It's terrifying. How are we supposed to keep our children safe, if we are deliberately excluded from decisions regarding their health and wellbeing?
+
+16
Catherine said...
"If a Catholic were to describe British culture as "hyper-sexualised" they would probably be called reactionary and extremist"
Edmund Adamus - Director of Pastoral Affairs in Westminster Diocese did in 2010 and was villified by the media and publicly abandoned by his employer and hierarchy to boot.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2010/09/03/edmund-adamus-thinks-our-society-is-hedonistic-anti-life-and-anti-family-%E2%80%93-all-true-so-why-was-he-slapped-down-for-saying-it/
interestingly though - more and more people inluding certain bishops have spoken in similar language since about the culture of death being particularly strangulating in this country and so maybe in the words of Bishop Egan of Portsmouth in describing the recent clergy letter of protest to the Telegraph; Mr. Adamus's original Zenit interview prior to the UK papal visit was perhaps 'dramatic' in its language 'but not exaggerated.'
+
+4
louella said...
Maybe Mr Ademus should ask for an apology. When politicians start preaching what the Church has been teaching all along....then the Church should tell them so. Credit where credit is due.
The Church should stand up for itself....not out of pride...but out of pride in Jesus Christ its founder, who is the Way the Truth and the Life
+
+1
New Friend said...
There is not much in Dianne Abbot's speech to disagree with. Nor that supporting the family is important. However you only quote one part of her speech, and you really need to see it in it's context. She argues against homophobic bullying and hard core internet porn. She argues for better education (presumably sex education) and not less. She asks for parents and teachers to have better tools to control access.
What do you think she means by "open minded" family values, for I suspect it isn't what you wish to see. I suspect Ms Abbot might agree with me.
I believe in a much wider concept of the family than in just the married man/woman/children model favoured by Catholics. I believe that families come in many shapes and sizes, that they don't have to be involve marriage and can be formed by same sex couples or other groupings. It all depends on the love and commitment shared by the participants. In the Catholic Philippines, where family values are admirable, the concept often extends into whole communities who support and nurture one another. Many kids are brought up more by uncles and aunties, grannies and granddads, brothers, sisters or cousins than by their parents. Lots of gays in that mix, some individually, some as couples. It is usual and it works.
So I am not so sure you can read too much support for your position in this speech. Most of us are unhappy with the over sexualisation of society but don't share your approach to improving that. More sex education and not less is required. We can leave how best to do that for now but you can be sure that I do not believe it is best left just to parents. Too many parents fail too badly for that to be the answer.
+
+7
louella said...
I doubt many children agree with you. Children want their mums...and their dads....their beloved siblings (including adopted ones)...and then they want their nans, cousins, grandads etc. Seems like a traditional worldwide type common ordinary family to me.
What on earth could you have in mind?!
+
New Friend said...
Louella
The chocolate box scenario of two loving parents, idealised by Catholics, does not exist in reality for a large number of children. On top of that not every parent is a good one.
We need to protect all children and ensure they get, so far as possible, as equal a chance in society as every other child. That is why the state has a duty to be involved. It has to have an opinion as to what children need to prosper in today's world and then to make sure that all receive it. That opinion will be at odds with the opinions of others, not only yours, but must be the one which succeeds.
+
+12
James said...
The "chocolate box scenario" of those who engage in heterosexual activity having a duty to act in the best interests of their (possible) childen and the surrounding society is commonly called civilisation.
Our civilisation is very sick, so as you rightly observe, not many people are accepting their responsibilities.
Your utopian dream of nobody in particular being responsible for looking after a given child and parenthood being carried out by those who feel like it until they get bored... that's a nightmare.
The fact that some natural parents fail doesn't change the fact that natural parents do have a duty towards their children including a duty before those children are born to have responsible sex in a permanent stable relationship (e.g. Marriage)
+
New Friend said...
James
I don't diminish the benefit that two loving parents can convey to their children. All I want realised is that this situation does not currently exist for all children, and is unlikely to any time soon.
Where it exists that's great, but where it doesn't we need to do something to ensure that the children still get the best start in life possible, for why should they be penalised?
Just telling parents that they have a duty achieves nothing.Chasing dads to pay the CSA is not either. They have to want to. To achieve that we need to educate the next generations much better. Hence the need for better sex and relationship education.
I don't have a "utopian dream of no-body in particular being responsible". That's just nonsense. I don't desire the current situation, any more than you. I just accept that it exists and that idealistic dreams are not ever going to improve things. I want practical answers to help all our kids.
+
+2
Simon Platt said...
I'm surprised you continue to tolerate him.
+
+1
Simon Platt said...
Oh. That didn't go where I thought it would. I'm sure readers will get the drift.
+
+1
louella said...
Speak for yourself. The ideal family situation of mum, dad and siblings does exist....and is the best environment to bring up children in. It is also what children wish for. The Church promotes this sanctuary for children....and all children deserve it.
But people like you are hell bent on destroying the traditional family. May God forgive you....for you will be held to account for the damage you have done to children.
+
New Friend said...
Louella
I am not hell bent on destroying the traditional family. I am just realistic enough to admit that it doesn't exist for a growing number of children.
Maybe you are prepared to abandon them, but I am not. Tell me how, in a practical, realistic way you would improve the situation? Please don't suggest that everyone converts to Catholicism and adopts it's ways. It is NOT going to happen.
+
+3
louella said...
If children do not come from traditional, complete families....then we must try to ensure that this option is available for them when they grow up, by promoting it every opportunity.
After the past few decades of traditional family destruction by those with evil intent and who care less for the well-being of children...it is the least we can do to make amends for the suffering our evil ideologies have caused children..
+
New Friend said...
Louella
Unrealistic, unachievable and quite dangerous. You dream of a change that will not happen. We need practical answers to real problems and nothing you have said goes an inch towards providing any. You remind me of Nero!
+
+1
Mark Dobson said...
"we must try to ensure that this option is available for them when they grow up, by promoting it"
"Unrealistic, unachievable and quite dangerous."
I would love to know what planet NF is from. On his, the traditional model of the family became traditional despite being unrealistic and unachievable. It also seems to have caused some kind of harm.
Most intriguing.
+
New Friend said...
Mark
Please read the thread! I am NOT saying that the traditional family model is unrealistic and unachievable. It clearly is and is very desirable. I am saying that it is not available to every child and when that situation prevails we have to find other solutions. To rely only on a desire to establish a situation where every child is brought up by two loving parents is what I am saying is unrealistic and unachievable. It is dangerous because of this lack of realism.
+
+6
louella said...
As for sex-education....parents will be the judge of that for their children. Not you...nor Ms Abbot.
Honestly some people get above themselves.
+
New Friend said...
Louella
Not if the collective wisdom of the state determines that leaving it to parents does not work any more. Right now there is an opt out for parents, but I can imagine a time when this might be withdrawn and every child receiving sex and relationship education. It is actually the relationship part of that which, in my view, is really important and in desperate need of improvement.
+
+1
louella said...
The impersonal far-removed uncaring state is no substitute for the widsom love and concern of parents. Only in communist nations is the State thought to know best. But such brute evil states always fail. The family though endures.
And even secular parents are wising up.....and withdrawing their children from sex-ed. And Catholic parents are beginning to lead the way. Parent power all the way.
+
New Friend said...
Louella
No-one argues that the state is a substitute, only that those loving parents are not available to all children. It might be sad, but we must face reality and not close our mind's to it.
+
+2
louella said...
Sad realities are there to be changed. It's called giving Hope...and it is the second Cardinal virtue. (I think that is what they are called)
+
New Friend said...
Louella
Oh, I agree that providing someone with hope is a wonderful thing to do. However, people aren't stupid and can determine between realistic and unrealistic proposals. To offer things which are not available is not offering hope. It is trading in falsehoods.
+
+7
Sarah said...
Great post James :)
+
+2
Natalie said...
Love this post. Thank you for being unequivocal in your stance on family. The role they play may try to be rewritten, but it doesn't change the truth.
+