That’s the message that British MP Ed Balls recently “reassured” the public Catholic schools would be forced to send to the children who attend them. According to the Guardian:
Ed Balls’s controversial amendment to the bill on sex education, allowing faith schools to opt out of new rules on teaching about issues such as homosexuality and contraception, was passed in the Commons yesterday by 268 votes to 177, giving the government a majority of 91.
The amendment, which was passed without debate due to a lack of time at the report stage, allows faith schools to teach personal, social, health and economic (PSHE) lessons “in a way that reflects the school’s religious character”, and has been condemned by teaching unions and the National Secular Society, which said the government had betrayed children in faith schools.
Balls insisted there was “no watering down”. “There’s no opt-out for any faith school from teaching the full, broad, balanced curriculum on sex education,” he said. “Catholic schools can say to their pupils that, as a religion, we believe contraception is wrong, but what they can’t do is say they are not going to teach about contraception.”
This is just jaw-dropping.
So . . . Catholic schools in England get to say that contraception is wrong, but they have to go ahead and teach kids how to procure and use it?
And that’s supposed to be allowing them to present the matter in a way “that reflects the school’s religious character.”
I wonder if Mr. Balls would view this as a legitimate way of acting if the shoe were on the other foot . . . e.g., “As a state-sponsored, secular school, we believe it is wrong to tell people what religion they should be. Now here are some very detailed instructions about how to become a Catholic.”
Of course, the “compromise” that this measure represents is just hypocritical window dressing.
I suppose that it’s possible that, after the next election in England, this could be reversed . . . but I don’t hold a lot of hope for that.
England seems hell-bent on literally being hell-bent in its social policy these days.
And, as always, anything bad that happens in England is a cautionary tale for what could happen in America if we aren’t active and vigorous in opposing it.
Comments
Post a Comment
There’s reason number 79324 to homeschool. The same thing is happening here in the states, too. It’s not a law, but anyone can see that the high school nurse who visits a public school once a week isn’t there for illness—she’s promoting contraceptives.
It looks to me like the UK government is trying to ensure the rights of all children, regardless of which faith is trying to indoctrinate them. The government did give in to pressure from the Catholic church (and other religious groups) to allow the religious schools to put their slant on the way they teach it, but it is an important principle that children should be educated in a reasonably consistent way. What is wrong with giving people of child-producing age the information to help them not to have unwanted children?
Paul- The research consistently shows that when teenagers are given sex education in school, promiscuity goes up and pregnancies go up. Abstinence education has been proven to work with far fewer teens having sex, thus fewer pregancies. Contraceptive education doesn’t work—it actually does the opposite of what it’s intended to do.
“What is wrong with giving people of child-producing age the information to help them not to have unwanted children?”
Because the people calling the shots have a worldview incompatible with the Faith. A rotten tree bears rotten fruit. Hint: secular pluralism is not a neutral position, it indoctrinates just as much as any religion. So imagine a teacher at a Catholic school gets the state-approved ciriculum and says, “Ok kids, here is what our State says about it, and its a load of crap and here is why…” Somehow I don’t think the contraceptive imperialists will stand for that.
Scott W- I agree with you totally that “people calling the shots have a worldview incompatible with the Faith”. It is this that lets me sleep at night. Why should one religious sect hold sway over everyone else’s views? Thank goodness for the constitution.
I also strongly believe that the rights of the child are greater than the rights of parents to inflict their worldview on their kids. I teach my children how to think, not what to think. Abstinence education only tells them what to think without helping them if they choose not to accept the faith position, which is their right.
Suzanne- I dispute your statement about the evidence for abstinence education. This has been debated widely elsewhere though. Of course we can both only use sources that back up our opinion, but I try to look at those that use objective evidence as the basis for their opinions, not those that seek to prove their dogmatic viewpoint is right. View the world with an open mind and your worldview will change.
Paul,
I am sure you are awre of the AIDS/STD situation in Africa. Countries that tried throwing condoms at the issue have actaully seem no change. Countries that have taught abstinence have had significant progress in reducing STDs and unwanted pregnancies as a bonus. Do the research and see the facts for yourself. Even the WHO acknowledged the results. As for not teaching your children what to think….you are neglecting your duties as a paernt. If you don’t teach the what to think when they young and unable to think and reason as an adult you leave them open to be taught anything. Not sure how old you are but I remember some of the stuff I thought as a child and I can’t sawy I want my kids thinking that way as well. Kids need to be taught what is “Truth” otherwise they will have no way to identify what is false. It seems very noble to teach your kids to “think for themselves” and it is SO LONG as they do it reference to what God has taught….and that’s where it is your job to teach them what to think.
Kirsten- I couldn’t disagree with you more. It is not my job to tell my ten and six year olds what to believe about some unprovable theory- I will teach them evidence-based facts about religions and non-religions, but it would be wrong of me to teach my own opinions as fact. If they choose to follow a religion that will be their choice, but I think it morally reprehensible to try to impose my views on them. I allow them to come to their own opinions about which political party, if any, to support- the same applies for religion.
Paul, you are intellectually dishonest. Just by the very fact that you teach them anything, like being “open minded”, you are teaching them what to think. You are a secular humanist using relativist dribble to muddle the truth and cloud the minds of others. It’s a wonder you’re able to get out of bed in the morning with thoughts like that. You just don’t like the judgments made about people’s behavior by the Catholic Church. So you’re going to come here and pontificate to all these good people and harass them with exhaustive posts, in a vain attempt to “re-educate” us unreasonable superstitious idiots. I realize you don’t like the fact that people like us exist, but too bad. We have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as well. We have the right of assembly. We have the right to speak and be heard. We have a right to make judgments about what is and isn’t acceptable behavior. We have the same right to try to influence our laws and society as you do. Many of us have come to our place with the Catholic Church based on well reasoned arguments, not just faith alone. So go ahead and say what you want and act like a bully here on these pages. The fact still remains that you’re entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to be correct in this instance. And I for one find it pointless for anyone to even argue with someone who uses relativist ideas as a means of argument anyway. Their intellectual dishonesty prevents any real dialog to take place, and thus prevents common ground to be found. You’d be better off arguing with a rock. So I won’t be following up with you on this. I think until we cure our culture of this plague of relativism, we won’t be able to have a well functioning pluralistic society. Have fun with this one Paul. I’m sure you won’t be able to resist the temptation to keep posting comment after comment to “prove” your point. I say good day to you sir. The author of this column showed the irony of teaching contraception usage with your own twist very well.
Jennifer- thanks for that highly intelligent contribution to this forum. I get the hint though- I am not welcome here. Point made, goodbye.
>> “…to allow the religious schools to put their slant on the way they teach it, but it is an important principle that children should be educated in a reasonably consistent way.”<<
Well, what exactly is wrong with the Catholic schools teaching in a consistently Catholic way?
>>”What is wrong with giving people of child-producing age the information to help them not to have unwanted children?”<<
Well, seeing as abstinence IS the only 100 percent way of NOT having children, why are the children NOT being taught this?
Secularism is not a neutral stance. The appeals to “evidence-based” ideas are nonsense. Secularism preaches it’s own worldview, one that is incompatible with the Catholic Church’s view. To say that the faith schools must teach the secular view is to undermine the very idea that the secular view is neutral.
I believe what the Church teaches about contraceptive, and I know why they are wrong and the research to prove it. What I don´t know is if there is a document or church teaching that says we can´t teach about them or even explain how they are used. I think it is better that Catholic youth learn about them from Catholics who follow the churches teachings and show the negative effects of them than allowing youth to learn about contraceptives from secular source that presents them in a “Safe Sex” light. Yet, I think the real problem is who when and how.
On “Catholic schools in England get to say that contraception is wrong”, Jimmy Akin wrote in 2006, “Contraception is not mentioned at all in the sections [of Church documents] on adultery and fornication and other forms of extra-marital sexuality. This is the pattern in Church documents: They tend to condemn contraception in connection with marital sex, but they don’t mention it when it comes to extra-marital sex.”
Suzanne, the research does NOT “consistently show that when teenagers are given sex education in school, promiscuity goes up and pregnancies go up.” For example, there is a University of Pennsylvania study released earlier this month which found (1) no statistical difference between an abstinence-only program and a comprehensive sex education program, and (2) both the abstinence-only program and the comprehensive sex education program significantly outperformed the control groups which received neither. (The study followed 662 Philadelphia African-American sixth- and seventh-graders for two years. Some were placed in the abstinence program, others in a comprehensive course that included discussion of abstinence and condom use. Another group participated in a program that dealt only with safer sex, and a final group of control subjects did a workshop on nutrition.) By comparison, an abstinence-only program tested recently in Utah could find no significant effects compared with a control group because none of the children in either group said they had had sex. Results can vary depending on the group that is followed, and in particular, the group’s willingness to report the behavior being monitored—a willingness to report that might be influenced by the program itself. All studies which depend on self-reporting by the participants have this confounding factor of how the educational program (whether abstinence-only, comprehensive sex education, “safer sex”, etc.) itself affects the self-reporting.
Pat, I’m sure someone is about to post statistics that contradict the U.Penn. study (actually, I remember reading something about even the U.Penn. study showing a better result with abstinence education in high-risk groups - but someone might post that one soon). Anyhow, the key question is - why does the comprehensive sex education programme not have statistically significantly LOWER pregnancy rates? Also, both groups seemed to have received abstinence education (which, based on my question above, makes all the difference, it would seem) - what are the results when compared to a condoms-only programme?
”What is wrong with giving people of child-producing age the information to help them not to have unwanted children?”
Since when are 5 year-olds considere to be child-producing age?
This bill calls for Sex Ed to be compulsory from the age of 5.
If you look past the headlines you will see that 5 year-olds will not be taught sex education, but will be taught about relationships. Sex education comes much later.
1) Teach that if you don’t want to have a baby, don’t have sex. Plain and simple.
2) Make the manufacture and distribution of condoms illegal.
If I was a married woman and my partner had HIV (say, from a blood transfusion). Would it still be wrong to use a condom?
Yes.
It is also worth noting that condoms are not 100% effective in stopping HIV.
If I was married to someone and I had HIV, the last thing I would want them to do is risk giving it to them. If I loved them, then I would refuse to have sex, even with a condom.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.