Catholic Education Services, In a recent press release to concerned Catholic parents (parents writing to CES get press releases now, not replies) Oona Stannard wrote...

“I am disappointed that Mr Pope’s appointment to the Catholic Education Service for England and Wales (CESEW) has occasioned some very misleading and diverting correspondence from a small number of people.

If anybody knows about misleading, it's Oona Stannard.

Allow me to illustrate.

Back before the upcoming election when the Children, Schools and Families Bill was being pushed through by the government, CES released the following statement...

Whilst disappointed that legal encumbrances mean that a blanket right of withdrawal can no longer apply, we are pleased that the Government has recognised that the right of withdrawal in formative years is most critical and is therefore providing for the ability of parents to opt-out of SRE up to the age of 15.

[link]

Many of us were later dissapointed to find that "legal encumbrances" meant "legal trends" which really only meant "what the government want to do" but anyway, that's not the issue here.

The issue here is "dissapointed ... that a blanket right of withdrawal can no longer apply".

That is misleading.

How do I know? Because I know what Oona Stannard herself said to the government at the Public Bill Committee to discuss the Children, Schools and Families Bill. I know because it's all published by the government.

What did she say?

The Conservative MP for Bognor Regis asked...

Amendment 63 would change “15” to “16”. Is the Church of England in favour of that amendment and of putting back the age when parents have the right to withdraw their children from SRE lessons until the age of 16? If you were to vote, would you vote in favour of that amendment or against it?

The Church of England Rev answers the question and they all turn to Oona Stannard. This is not a difficult question, not for somebody who is (as we read in the press release above) "dissapointed ... that a blanket right of withdrawal can no longer apply".

We might expect her to make it clear that a blanket right of widthdrawal is desired, but that if that is out of the question, then 16 is clearly preferred to 15.

Oona Stannard said:

This is an incredibly difficult question. If I had the option, I would like to sit on the fence.

Wow. Just... wow.

She goes on to say...

On the other hand, there is my earlier point about the messages that society is giving to young people—that, at 16, they can legally be sexually active, married and so on. Bearing that in mind, we come to the point of thinking that we have to prepare our young people for that scenario; we have the opportunity in our schools to do it with the realism of facts, coupled with ensuring that they know what the Church teaches. So, I would say that, without the right of withdrawal and with all children remaining, they will have a very good education in PSHE.

Does that sound like the words of somebody who is "dissapointed ... that a blanket right of withdrawal can no longer apply"?

The Conservative MP for Bognor Regis pushed his point...

I am still not quite clear. I understand that you believe in exhorting parents to allow their children to attend the lessons until 16, but we have a clear decision to make. There is no sitting on the fence, I am afraid, for us. We have to decide whether to approve this law, removing the right of anyone to withdraw their child, even if it is only one parent who has worries and who, despite all your exhortation, still does not want her child to attend those lessons. We have to decide whether to remove that minority’s right to withdraw their child from those lessons. So, what way would the Catholic Education Service advise me to vote on that amendment? Fifteen or sixteen? I understand your point about how they should attend, the school should do it well, they should have a dialogue with parents, but we have a law to make, one way or the other, and I need your advice, speaking on behalf of the Catholic Education Service, about which way to vote. If I sit on the fence, 15 will become the law.

Oona Stannard replies...

Fences are very uncomfortable place to sit, are they not? At this point in time, I would probably err on saying: allow the right of withdrawal until 16.

This is simply unbelievable. Having tried to sit on the fence, Oona Stannard leans slightly, decides to "probably err" on allowing the right of withdrawal until 16. As a Catholic parent, I feel pretty betrayed by all this.

Compare and contrast:

What Oona Stannard says to Catholic parents...

"disappointed that legal encumbrances mean that a blanket right of withdrawal can no longer apply"

What Oona Stannard says to the Government...

"If I had the option, I would like to sit on the fence."

"I would probably err on saying: allow the right of withdrawal until 16."

Misleading?

Oona Stannard knows all about misleading.

The Catholic Education Services have appointed to the position of deputy director, a man who voted against ammendments to lower the abortion limit to 16 weeks.

People are outraged.

Oona Stannard has released a statement...

“I am disappointed that Mr Pope’s appointment to the Catholic Education Service for England and Wales (CESEW) has occasioned some very misleading and diverting correspondence from a small number of people.

Who do you think you are kidding? "correspondence from a small number of people". You don't issue "statements" to "correspondence from a small number of people", you send replies.

And Misleading? Diverting? Is Ms Stannard accusing us of lying? What is misleading about this man's voting record?

Allow me to provide an example. In February 2009 the parmiament tabled the following early day motion:

That this House supports Contraceptive Awareness Week from 9 to 15 February 2009, organised by the sexual health charity fpa, and its goal to raise awareness of the full range of contraceptive methods available; notes that different contraceptive methods suit different people and their lifestyles and that increasing awareness means people can make informed choices about their contraceptive method; and calls on all hon. Members to mark Contraceptive Awareness Week by contacting contraceptive services in their constituencies to investigate the range of contraceptive methods available and the challenges of delivering high-quality services.

[link]

Greg Pope voted: Yes

That's not ancient history, that's last year. In May 2008 parliament voted on the following ammendment to the abortion act:

‘In section 1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967 (c. 87) (medical termination of pregnancy), for “twenty-fourth week” substitute “sixteenth week”.’.— [Mark Pritchard.]

[link]

In other words, let's lower the legal limit for abortion.

Greg Pope voted: No

Obviously a really good candidate to be deputy of Catholic Education Services.

Oon Stannard continues...

"At a time when as Catholics we particularly need to pull together, the undermining of Mr Pope saddens me. Mr Pope deserves our encouragement and support in his new role undertaken in the service of the Church."

Awww, poor dear. Saddened.

Not saddened when children as young as nine are shown computer generated images of naked adult men and women. Not saddened when government agencies that promote contraception are welcomed in to Catholic schools.

She's like a naughty little child. Only sorry because she was caught.

This is old news to anybody who reads more than one blog but I discovered yesterday that many people still don't know about this.

The new deputy-director of Catholic Education Services is retiring Labour MP Greg Pope who has voted in favour of abortion.

This sort of thing makes life very difficult of those of us who enjoy the occasional parody - how are people supposed to tell the difference between comedy and reality.

It's worth reproducing his voting record in full:

Abortion
Greg Pope voted for amendments to lower the 24-week time-limit for abortions done on social grounds to 22 weeks or to 20 weeks but voted against amendments to lower the same limit to 16 weeks or to 12 weeks. (20 May 2008).

Abortion and contraception for school-age children
Greg Pope:

• voted against a bill which would have required practitioners providing contraception or abortion services to a child under the age of 16 to inform his or her parent or guardian (14 Mar 2007).
• signed a parliamentary motion praising a condom manufacturer for helping schools host “National Condom Week” (11 May 2004).

Abortion of disabled children
Greg Pope voted against an amendment which would have required doctors to provide pregnant mothers with certain information and an offer of counselling before any abortion of an unborn child on grounds of disability (20 May 2008).

Abortion groups
Greg Pope signed parliamentary motions praising the leading domestic and international pro-abortion organisations:

• All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health (24 May 2005)
• All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Choice and Sexual Health Group (15 Jul 2004)
• Family Planning Association (15 Jul 2004) (9 Feb 2006) (21 Feb 2007) (9 Feb 2009)
• International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) (1 Jul 2004)
• Marie Stopes International (1 Jul 2004)
• United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) (16 Dec 2002) (1 Jul 2004) (9 Jun 2005).

Abortion rights
Greg Pope signed parliamentary motions promoting:

• “reproductive health” (16 Dec 2002)
• “sexual and reproductive health” (24 May 2005) (9 Jun 2005) (20 Oct 2006)
• “sexual and reproductive health and rights” (1 Jul 2004)

According to the British government and to the US administration, these terms include a right to abortion on demand.

Contraception
Mr Pope signed parliamentary motions promoting:

• “Contraceptive Awareness Week” (9 Feb 2006) (21 Feb 2007) (9 Feb 2009)
• “contraceptive choice” (20 Oct 2006)
• “contraceptive needs” (8 Feb 2006)
• “family planning” (16 Dec 2002)
• “National Condom Week” (11 May 2004) (11 May 2004) (9 May 2007)
• a tax reduction on condoms (30 Nov 2005)

Euthanasia
The Mental Capacity Bill (now Act) enshrined euthanasia by neglect into English statute law. Greg Pope:

• voted for the bill at second (11 Oct 2004) and third readings (14 Dec 2004)
• voted against amendments motivated by pro-life concerns (14 Dec 2004) (14 Dec 2004) 5 Apr 2005).

Homosexual* activity
Greg Pope voted to:

• reduce the homosexual age of consent to 16 (to equalise it with the heterosexual age of consent) (21 Feb 1994) (22 Jun 1998) (22 Jun 1998) (25 Jan 1999) (1 Mar 1999) (1 Mar 1999) (28 Feb 2000). He also signed a parliamentary motion in the same vein (24 Mar 2004).
• reduce the homosexual age of consent to 18 (21 Feb 1994)
• allow active homosexuals in the military (9 May 1996). He also signed a parliamentary motion in the same vein (24 Mar 2004).

Homosexual* parenting
Greg Pope:

• voted against amendments which sought to retain the requirement for doctors to consider the child’s need for a father (20 May 2008) or male role model (20 May 2008) before a woman is given fertility treatment.
• voted against amendments restricting adoption to heterosexual couples (20 May 2002) and married couples (4 Nov 2002). He also signed a parliamentary motion in the same vein (24 Mar 2004).

Homosexual* unions
Mr Pope signed parliamentary motions promoting homosexual unions (7 Sep 2004) (13 Oct 2004) (20 Jul 2005).

Marriage
Greg Pope voted against:

• an amendment to reject plans for a no-fault divorce system in England and Wales (24 Apr 1996)
• amendments to extend the cooling-off period for divorce from one year to 18 months or to two years (24 April 1996).

Mr Pope also signed a parliamentary motion arguing that “unmarried couples should receive the same benefits as married couples should one partner die”. (16 April 2002)

Parents’ rights
Greg Pope:

• voted against a bill which would have required practitioners providing contraception or abortion services to a child under the age of 16 to inform his or her parent or guardian (14 Mar 2007)
• voted for the Children, Schools and Families bill at second (11 Jan 2010) and third readings (23 Feb 2010), which would have restricted parents’ rights over their children’s education, especially regarding sexual matters.

Population control

Greg Pope signed parliamentary motions promoting population control (16 Dec 2002) (1 Jul 2004).
Sex education
The Children, Schools and Families bill, as debated by the House of Commons, would have forced all state-funded schools (including faith schools) to provide sex and relationships education, based on anti-life/anti-family principles. Greg Pope voted for the bill at second (11 Jan 2010) and third readings (23 Feb 2010). He also signed a parliamentary motion in the same vein (21 Feb 2007).

* Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, teaches in paragraph 97 of Evangelium Vitae that it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection.

[link]

What else is there to say? In a sane world this would be the final nail in the coffin for CES but we don't live in a sane world and I have a feeling that nothing will be heard from the Bishops.

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...