If like me you were wondering exactly what Catholic Education Services and the Bishop's Conference are playing at, if you've ever thought "what are they thinking??!?" then this letter should hopefully explain all.

Not that it will make you feel any happier...

Dear Mrs [name removed on request],

Thank you for your email of 22 February 2010.

The Children Schools and Families Bill which is presently passing through Parliament has been amended in important ways by the patient and thorough work done by the CES. As a result, the policy for Sex and Relationships Education in a Catholic School will be determined by the governing body. This means that the religious character of the school will be reflected in the delivery of the subject to the pupils. Furthermore, parents will have the right to withdraw their children from SRE lessons up to the age of 15 years.

In the face of a Government with a very large parliamentary majority, the CES considers that it gets the best results for the Catholic community by negotiation. I believe that this is the responsible stance for the CES to take and has protected the rights of Catholic parents and families. To oppose the Bill outright would have put Catholic Schools in a position where they would have lost out on the concessions gained by the CES.

Yours sincerely,

Rt Rev Malcolm McMahon OP

Bishop of Nottingham

Message sent on behalf of Bishop McMahon

Catherine Campbell

Bishop's Secretary

So there we have it. CES have chosen not to oppose the bill because they consider they will get the best results by negotiation.

I'm pretty sure that doesn't make any sense at all.

How do you negotiate over a bill you do not oppose? What do you say? "I have no opposition to this but I need a concession because..." Because what? Because you feel like it?

Is Bishop Mc Mahon, or his secretary, or the CES, or whoever it was in the maze of Bishop's Conference beurocracy that penned this letter... Are they saying that they do oppose the Bill but have decided to be silent as part of a deal? It rather sounds like it. If that is the case then it also sounds like an admission that they have knowingly kept silent about serious problems with government legislation, that they have intentionally not publicly taught that which should have been publicly taught.

It would mean that when Ed Balls (a senior government minister) said of Catholic Schools "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." the resulting silence was not an accident.

It would mean that when Ed Balls went on to say "To have the support of the Catholic Church and Archbishop Nichols in these changes is, I think, very, very important" the resulting silence from Archbishop Nichols himself was not an accident.

Hey guys, if we oppose King Henry VIII he might chop our heads off, better to negotiate some concessions... wot?

"If the Church were to accommodate herself to the world in any way that would entail a turning away from the Cross, this would not lead to a renewal of the Church, but only to her death."

[Joseph Ratzinger]

And it worked so well for the adoption agencies...

In a shock move this morning (not that it suprised me very much) the Catholic Bishops Conference announced that since they have a Bishop of the Forces they might as well have a Bishop of the Schools as well.

Like the Bishop of the Forces, the Rt Rev Stannard has a diocese with no geographical boundaries but is Bishop (and indeed Pope) of anywhere that happens to be a school.

Ed Balls is thrilled.

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.

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]

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!

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...

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...

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.

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.

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.