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.

An interesting development...

When CNA contacted the offices of the Catholic Education Service (CES), it was referred to an amendment to the SRE bill that says religious schools will be allowed to teach the material within a Catholic ethos. However, questions about the requirement to inform students of non-Catholic views on abortion, contraception and homosexuality were not answered.

CES staff also told CNA that Oona Stannard, the group's director, was on “a leave of absence.” Stannard has been quoted as calling the new SRE “a positive step forward.”

[link]

I wonder why?

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.

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.

We are pleased...

Is there anything they wouldn't be pleased about?

You think I'm joking?

Here's an excerpt from the actual Catholic Education Services press release...

CESEW responds to proposals relating to Sex and Relationships Education and parental rights

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.

CESEW will continue to firmly uphold the position that parental rights remain vital, particularly but not exclusively, in those most formative and critical years up until the age of 15.

[link]

I wonder if Archbishop Nichols has anything to say on the matter?

Thought not.

Parents. Betrayed. Again.

I'm sure you are probably familiar by now with the All That I Am sex education resource which was been developed by the Birmingham Diocese Department of Religious Education in partnership with the governments Teenage Pregancy Unit. "All That I Am" provides "sex and relationship education that is authentic to the Church's teaching and acknowledges pupils' stage of physical and sexual development"

Yeah... Right.

Anyway, I thought you might be interested to know that the makers of "All That I Am" have begun work on a sequel... "All That I Am: Eucharist". This is a new programme designed for use in primary schools and parishes during children's preparation for the First Holy Communion. The programme includes of student worksheets, teachers handbook and DVD resources.

A spokesperson from the Archdiocese of Birmingham explains...

"All That I Am: Eucharist" builds on the experience and expertise we gained from the original "All That I Am" series. That series was primarily about sex education and as any Catholic knows, sex finds it ultimate meaning in Marriage. We thought - if this works for one Sacrament, why not do it with another? The Eucharist was the obvious choice..."

The main lesson we learned when making the "All That I Am" series is that you can't underestimate the importance of the biological when studying the sacraments, if you want to talk to kids today about truth and meaning in human sexuality then you can't do it unless they understand the inner workings of the body parts involved. For instance, the concept of chastity must be rooted in an understanding of the way the urethra links the bladder to the penis or else it makes no sense. We are grateful to the governments teenage pregnancy unit for their sound advice in this regard.

"All That I Am: Eucharist" simply takes the principles that worked so well with Marriage and applies them to the Eucharist.

Somebody sent me this copy of a worksheet she somehow got hold of from the new programme...

The diagram contains a technical error, with the liver marked as the rectum and the rectum marked as the liver but the Diocese of Birmingham assure me that this error will only be on worksheets published prior to 2004 and that books published after 2004 are not affected (except for those that are).

But while parents are up in arms over young children being exposed to terms like "anus" and "rectum", a spokesperson from the Archdiocese of Birmingham defended the worksheets saying...

Do you honestly think we could care less what Catholic parents think?

Throughout the writing of the script and teacher-support meterials the Department consulted with primary and secondary aged pupils. We found that when very young children are exposed to a diagram of the inner workings of the digestive system their appreciation of the Eucharist is improved. It makes sense... how can anybody be expected to kneel in adoration before the Blessed Sacrament if they don't have a full understanding of where Jesus goes when we eat him?

Besides which, if we don't expose young people to an anus before their tenth birthday, anything could happen! It is vital that we act now! It must be okay anyway, because we gave Archbishop Vincent Nichols a packet of chocolate digestives and he said they were great. You wouldn't disagree with an archbishop would you?

The programme has been funded by the Government Task Force on Binge Drinking and Jamie Oliver. The DVD resources include video clips which will teach children the dangers of alcohol consumption and the importance of eating the right things. "It fits in very well" another spokesperson said "Jamie comes on screen and explains that bread is good for you, which if you think about it, is authentic Catholic teaching". There are also sections on the dangers of STD's (Sustenance Transmitted Diseases).

Oona Stannard, director of CES (Catholic Education Services) welcomed the new programme saying it would fit in well with recent changes that the government is forcing on schools, saying "We support the principle of stuff being a requirement for every pupil".

The Archdiocese of Birmingham were tight lipped about the future of the "All That I Am", but off the record I spoke to an employee of the diocese who prefers to remain anonymous. She told me a little about where the project is likely to go next... "The government are very keen to teach young children about the new hate-speech laws. Pupils will learn about talking and will need to colour in a diagram of the vocal cords and the tongue, which if you think about it is central to an authentic Catholic understanding of the Sacrament of Confession".