Our Bishops Sell Us Down the River...

Yesterday, the Guardian posted this tawdry little attempt to attack Catholic education.

The author, Peter Wilby, makes no attempt whatsoever to hide his utter contempt for the Church. Although he seems unable to find a viable target for his spite, despite his very best efforts.

Indeed, the interviewee, Archbishop Malcolm McMahon is quoted in the interview as saying:
“You do this for a living, do you? You ask questions based on inaccurate information?”
The evident hauteur is all the more amusing as it appears to completely go over Wilby's head.

The other thing clear from the interview is that Archbishop McMahon does not put forward any valid arguments, reasons, or explanation against Wilby's line of questioning. Of course there are excellent answers to his questions, but the Archbishop seems to either be ignorant of them, or above communicating them to a journalist. Of course it would not be beyond the ken of Guardian journalists to edit the interview in a way which shows the worst of what was said, but it is still hugely disappointing that an opportunity to engage with the culture is so obviously missed. Net result? Readers of the Guardian will no doubt be further confirmed in their prejudice, Catholic schools and education are further marginalised and seen as isolationist and in need of "modernising".

Wilby does his level best to stir the lefty hatred:
though discrimination has long been outlawed, the church hierarchy now feels threatened by an increasingly secular society. They defend their schools fiercely.
Oh were only that the truth Peter!

A new document from the Catholic Education Service (CES) shows just how wrong Wilby is in this regard. The hierarchy is in full capitulation to secular society! It is in full appeasement mode! It is DESPERATE to shed any vestige of Catholic truth and seeks only to be accepted.

This atrocious document actually uses papal tweets as a source whilst completely failing to state Catholic teaching on sexuality in order to provide an appropriate context. Surely the document ought to be empowering Catholic teachers to stick to the Catechism rather than pandering to LGBT as a poor oppressed victim group?

All bullying should be zero tolerance so why do we need to pay special attention to particular minority groups? Why single out sexual orientation over poverty, weight, political or religious views or even how cool any individual is perceived to be? Surely a Catholic approach, emphasis individuality and equal dignity deals with these issues in a catechetical way?

What can possibly motivate this direction if it is not pandering to the PC brigade and signalling a full abandonment of Catholic principles?

Please read the document. I'm furious. It's Stonewall propaganda with a Catholic label on it. It is utter tripe.

Most essentially, I feel that our hierarchy don't really believe what they stand for. They almost seem shocked when we, the laity, hold to Christ's teachings or express concern at their next radical step towards appeasement and secularisation. They are constantly on the move, desperately seeking the glory of acceptance from the establishment.

Is it mere coincidence how this document from our bishops appears to mirror this document from the Church of England, three years ago?

Many of us regularly express concern that the Catholic establishment seem to want to follow down the same road as the Anglican Church, despite the fact that, by their own admission, that road is only leading them to assured self-destruction. This document from the CES really does nothing to abate such concerns!

One thing seems abundantly clear: the comments made by Dame Louise Casey last autumn before the select committee about homophobic Catholic schools must be driving this. I would suggest that the CES are bending over backwards to appease and accommodate DfE policy in order to secure the abolition of the 50% cap on admissions for new schools. As long as any new Catholic school is a full vehicle of the state to "queer" the next generation, then Whitehall will be happy and keep the money flowing.

From my experience in education as a parent and a foundation governor, I think most Catholic schools (head teachers and governors) consider that, as 90% of their funding comes from the state, they have no alternative had better do what the state says. My experience is that they have very little idea what Catholic education is or should be, and so it isn't capitulating much to just keep your head down and do your best to accommodate the secular agenda. As for independents, most of their income comes from fee paying secularists and secularised Catholics so they conform in the hope of not losing their income base

This document certainly convinces me of one thing:

The CES is utterly unfit for purpose.


  1. Thanks for sharing this. The level of capitulation and accomodation is often mind-boggling...Still we are called to be saints!

  2. "The CEW is utterly unfit for purpose"

    Let's peel the onion back a bit: the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales are, barring a very small handful, not for for purpose. I share your fury but this is far from surprising. This is the new religion. Solid snd recognisable Catholicism now exists in very small pockets sadly. It might as well have been produced by the CofE.

  3. Sorry, Mark, I tried, I realy did but I just couldn't put myself through reading this crap at this time of day ((9.30 m). Maybe after I've been down the pub and had a go at the Times crossword. Honest, I was struggling when I read the first bit of the Table of Contents "Definitions of homophobic and biphobic bullying.... page 3" page 3! and it wasn't a joke! Has nobody told these people that a "phobia" is an IRRATIONAL fear?

  4. The Catholic Education Service is like the Holy Roman Empire, which, as every schoolboy *used* to know, was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.

  5. May I recommend "The Global Sexual Revolution: Destruction of Freedom in the Name of Freedom" by Gabrielle Kuby which provides a helpful corrective to the all-pervasive BBC Radio 4 outlook. It should, in my opinion, be required reading for all involved in Catholic Education.

  6. I see Fr Bede takes a different view: http://frbederowe.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/wonderfully-refreshing.html?m=1

    1. I'm a bit surprised by such a positive spin on the article. Archbishop McMahon's comment regarding pregnant, unmarried teachers (the children would find it exciting) is clearly problematic, as is his suggestion that sex education should be age-appropriate, a la Justine Greening's plans to introduce sex ed for children as young as four and vis-a-vis Vatican guidelines The Truth &
      Meaning of Human Sexuality
      which plainly teaches that it is wrong to intrude on children's natural innocence, and that sex education should not be introduced at primary school level. It is therefore difficult to understand Archbishop McMahon's reference to "age-appropriate sex education in all our schools". At that age, the only sex education that should be happening is in private between parents and children, mainly the former responding to the latter's questions as they naturally arise.

  7. I think this is a time for practising Catholics to continue to look for alternatives to mainstream Catholic schools. Simply put our 'Catholic' schools are destroying the faith of our young people and actually making them hostile to the faith. Opus Dei, SSPX, schools or homeschooling is the way forward and this document shows exactly why, because we have allowed the spirit and language of the world into our schools.

    1. Hear, hear. In fact I think it's nothing less than an obligation for parents on our time.

    2. Having put five children through Catholic Schools & having been a foundation governor & the link governor for RE in our local boy's secondary school I completely agree Elisabeth. From what I see of our local grammar schools, they at least treat religion with respect. I'm sad to say that it is mocked in our secondary schools by teachers who do not believe it.

  8. Dr. Joseph Shaw has explained in more detail some of the atrocious content of this document which is as far from anything Catholic as I have ever seen. Read his detailed assessment here.

  9. It seems to me that one of the major problems with this document is the assumptions implicit in the language it uses: that is, the language of the LGBT lobbyists. Not only does the document use such language, but it suggests that schools should teach pupils to use it, without any discussion of the implications. As Orwell demonstrated so well, if you control the language people are allowed to use, you control what they are allowed to think. And the language here is not Catholic, but rather, the language of those with an ideological enmity with the Catholic Church.

    1. I knew the language was not Catholic: now revealed to be lifted directly from a number of lgbt propaganda sites. See http://ccfather.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/ces-plagiarism-or-collaboration.html


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Pope Francis: we planned it all before the conclave

A Cardinal writes: “Roma loquitur. Confusio augetur.”

Archbishop McMahon: "No more requests for this faculty will be granted"