Showing posts with label Sex Ed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sex Ed. Show all posts

Monday, August 17, 2009

Marriage Care caught out again

Archbishop Nichols is the President of Marriage Care. When is he going to do something about it?

Shortly after Marriage Care's Director, Terry Prendergast, gave a talk to a dissident Catholic gay group about how homosexual unions should be recognised by the Church and allowed to adopt children, it has been revealed that Marriage Care's sex education materials are completely amoral.

No surprise there: we pointed this out long ago. But the Catholic Herald had run a story on it, which is good news.

Here it is, in part: The manual, called Foundations for a Good Life, is designed to help to teach pupils at Key Stage 3 and 4 - the last two years of secondary school - and college students about relationships, marriage, the family and sexuality.

The final two modules are aimed at young people over the age of 16 and deals with methods of contraception.

There is no discussion of the morality of the methods with the focus on function and effectiveness. The manual hails condoms as 98 per cent effective in avoiding pregnancy, and the Pill, the coil and hormonal injections as 99 per cent effective, but says that NFP methods are far less reliable.

"If you have a regular menstrual cycle, it [NFP] is 80 to 98 per cent effective, but can be lower if your cycle is irregular," the manual says. "NFP is not often suggested for teenagers who might not be considering committed relationships as yet." The manual was criticised by NFP teachers who insisted that their methods were nearly 100 per cent effective.


The point about the effectiveness of NFT is a side-issue, if a predictable one. The real issue here is that the Marriage Care course, just like the 'All That I Am' course from Birmingham and all the other sex education courses being pushed at children, makes a virtue of the fact that it gives information totally inappropriate to the teaching of children in a whole-class context, and does so without any ethical context. The decision about when and how to have sex is a matter of preserving sexual health - the Church's teaching doesn't come into it.

It is also interesting to note that the claims in these materials for the effectiveness of condoms derive from fantasy - or (in the technical jargon) from 'perfect use'. Use of condoms by teenagers is obviously far from perfect, and effectiveness rates are vastly lower.

...a major study on contraceptive failure reported that in single woman under 18 years of age, using the birth control pill to prevent pregnancy, the first year failure rate was 11%!3 The failure rate of condoms is also seriously higher in the adolescent age group. For example, an article in the journal, Family Planning Perspectives, quotes an annual Practical failure rate of 18.4 percent in teenage girls under 18 years of age who are using condoms to prevent pregnancy. According to these figures, over half of the teenage users will be pregnant within three years. The authors further qualify this failure rate by stating that "these rates are understated because of the substantial under-reporting of abortion among single women; if abortion reporting was complete, failure rates would be 1.4 times as high as they appear here..."4

Read More...

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Sex Ed video from the Archdiocese of Birmingham

Warning: contains nudity.



See Catholic and Loving It for more commentary. If you don't want your 9-year old to see material like this, don't send him or her to a Catholic school where Archbishop Nichols' ideas on sex education have influence.


Don't say you haven't been warned. Wake up!

Now the Government are promoting masturbation for teenagers - yes you read that right. How long before the Catholic Education Service either catches up with that one or realises that the attempt to produce a 'Catholic' sex education is a hopeless one? Here's an image from a leaflet produced by the NHS in Sheffield.

Read More...

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Government sexualisation initiative condemned

Fr Tim Finnigan has posted on the latest Government initiate: to promote masturbation by children. Yes, things have really got that bad. 'An orgasm a day keeps the doctor away', says the leaflet. This has now been roundly condemned by Peter Bradley, Deputy Director of Kidscape, a charity concerned with bullying, including the sexual bullying which, unsurprisingly, is on the rise in schools. His message:


In summary - parts of the leaflet provide young people with ridiculous, irresponsible advice that may lead young people on a potential sexual path of misery and harm. This is a frequent message adults tell us about on reflection in later, more mature years.

Here's part Fr Finnigan's post.

In January, Panorama ran a programme called "Kids behaving badly" on the subject of sexual assaults at school. In a Daily Mail report on the programme, Michelle Elliott of the charity Kidscape is quoted as saying:
Sexual bullying has become much more prevalent. On the Kidscape helpline we used to get maybe one or two calls a year. Now we are getting two or three a week. It’s probably the tip of the iceberg.
I wonder what Kidscape think of the latest initiative from NHS Sheffield which has prepared a leaflet for young people telling them that it is good to have an orgasm a day, and encouraging them to masturbate. (See the promotional article in "Children and Young People Now".) The booklet is, of course, strongly endorsed by the Family Planning Association and the Brook, whose spokesman extols the value of sex education before adolescence. (See also the report from the Christian Institute: Pupils told: regular sex is good for you.)

How long will it be before feminists, child safeguarding agencies and ordinary parents begin to cotton on to the clear and present danger that this kind of explicit sex education presents to their children?

Read More...

Friday, June 05, 2009

Archbishop MacDonald imposes 'All that I Am'

From CFNews: Although the explicit visual material in the 'All That I Am' sex-education programme triggers off alarms on pornography-filtering computer programmes, Archbishop McDonald is permitting the resource for primary and secondary schools to be used in mixed classes the Diocese of Southwark. 'All That I Am' is sponsored, and partly financed, by the government's Teenage Pregnancy Unit. Parents are objecting to the scheme which they call 'institutionalised sex abuse'. The Catholic Church teaches that parents' rights on sex education are 'inalienable'.

See also Catholic Mom of 10

Read More...

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Thank you James!

Both for the note of thanks on your blog for what we have been doing on this one, and for this brilliant picture:
James's Rule of Thumb:

If it seems inappropriate to put something in a thought bubble above an Archbishop's head, then it's probably inapropriate to show it to little girls without their parents' consent. Got it? Good.


Like James I find it hard to be charitable and optimistic about this situation.

Oh and by the way, this is the famous mis-labelled diagramme which is in the 'All That I Am' book approved by the Archdioces of Birmingham (under Vincent Nichols) and also by the Government's notorious Teenage Pregancy Unity. What sort of sex education did they get, to think that is a urethra?

And perhaps that is the worst thing about modern life - not just tyranny, but the tyranny of half-wits.

Read More...

Monday, May 25, 2009

Nichols: the sex ed scandal that won't go away

The Times and the left-wing press are trying to tar our newly installed Archbishop of Westminster with the Irish sex abuse scandal. This is a pretty low trick: he obviously isn't responsible for those crimes, and has condemned them. But there is something he is fully and completely responsible for, and that is the deliberate sexualisation of children in Catholic schools. I'm glad to say that, as a result of the Government's increasingly totalitarian drive on sex ed, the issue is being raised more and more urgently: see an excellent long post on the Sensible Bond, a letter from Eric Hester in the Catholic Times, and Jackie Parkes (and here).


What the sex education programme Archbishop has endorsed as Chairman of the Catholic Education Service and as Archbishop of Birmingham does can only be described as grooming children for illegal, underage sexual activity - just as the Government wants it to. The Catholic Education Service's defiance of Church teaching on sex education places it completely outside the Catholic debate. What is going on? Do they think that Catholics could volunteer to be death-camp guards if they were a little less brutal to the inmates than the other candidates for the job?

We have no inside information but we can say this. Bishops bear a responsibility for all the souls in their dioceses. Parents bear a responsibility for the souls of their children. Nothing the CES or the Government can say or do can change that. There is plenty of room in hell.

Matthew 18, whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

 7Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

 8Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. 9And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

 10Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

Read More...

Saturday, May 02, 2009

The Catholic Times' Alternative Reality

Comment: the Catholic Times leads with the headline 'Victor for schools on sex-ed in the curriculum'. This is presumably how the Bishops want to spin it: that contrary to the demands of the more demented secularists, sex eductation in Catholic schools, which will deliver everything the Government wants it to deliver, can be taught in the context of a Catholic 'ethos'.


The real story, as we have been reporting, is that the Government is extending the sex ed programme down to the age of four, is demanding that gay marriage be included from the age of eleven, has made sex ed a compulsory part of the National Curriculum, and will be keeping the right of parents to withdraw their children from it 'under review'. (That means you can have the right to withdraw, but if you use it then the Government will take it away.)

And the Catholic response? Oona Stanard is quoted in the Catholic Times as saying 'PHSE is a very important part of a child's education and it should be in the curriculum'. Thanks, Oona.

The only institution in the UK - perhaps in Europe - capable of making a serious stand against sex ed is the Catholic Church. By its teaching on the subject, and by its role in education, it could be a serious obstacle to the Government's agenda. But no: Oona Standard, Archbishop Nichols and the other bishops are happy to give in completely on the issue, in return for this concession: that they be allowed to give the subject some Catholic window dressing, and claim 'victory'.

The Church has taught us, in conformity with common sense, that it is totally wrong to deliver the 'facts' about sex in a classroom setting, it is totally wrong to deliver them before puberty, and in fact it is wrong to 'deliver' them at all: the child must take the lead in asking questions of an adult the child trusts, at the time of his or her own choosing, and in a safe setting. If this is so, adding to the facts about sex some optional flannel about committed relationships makes not the slightest difference.

If this is a victory, I don't want to be around when the Church is defeated.

Read More...

Friday, May 01, 2009

Compulsory sex ed from four years old

Parents must be alert! Note this from the LSN article:
Earlier this week, Children's Secretary Ed Balls said that, starting in 2011, personal, social, health and economic education (PSHE) will become a compulsory subject for all students in British schools from age four through the end of high school. Lessons will include those on "different types of relationships including same sex and civil partnerships" starting at age eleven. Previously schools were obliged only to teach lessons in human reproduction, contraception and puberty in science lessons and could opt out of the PSHE courses.
Even if you can opt out of PSHE classes your children will be getting sex education under the guise of science lessons.

There will be a 'consultation' period, but the policy has already been determined.

From the Telegraph (full article here): Pupils as young as 11 will be taught about homosexuality and civil partnerships in compulsory sex education classes.

All secondary schools - including faith schools - will have to teach children about same-sex relationships as well as traditional families.

Previously, heads could decide to opt out of teaching the controversial subject. Personal, social and health education classes are due to become part of the compulsory national curriculum in primary and secondary schools from September 2011. Family and faith groups yesterday condemned the proposals.

From the first year in primary school, four and five-year-old children will learn about different body parts, with lessons about sex from the age of nine. At Key Stage Three (ages 11 to 14), pupils will learn about contraception, pregnancy, sexual activity and sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV. Schools will also have to teach about ' different types of relationships, including those within families and between older and young people, boys and girls and people of the same sex, including civil partnerships'.

At Key Stage Four (ages 14-16), they will continue to learn about contraception, sexually transmitted diseases and same-sex relationships.


From Life Site News (full article here): LONDON, April 29, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The British government announced this week that it will adopt the recommendations of homosexualist activists and pro-abortion groups to make explicit sex education a compulsory part of the national curriculum for all schools from primary school onward. The plan, however, has angered some of these same groups by allowing "faith schools" to teach traditional Christian sexual morality and allowing parents to remove their children from morally offensive classes.

Earlier this week, Children's Secretary Ed Balls said that, starting in 2011, personal, social, health and economic education (PSHE) will become a compulsory subject for all students in British schools from age four through the end of high school. Lessons will include those on "different types of relationships including same sex and civil partnerships" starting at age eleven. Previously schools were obliged only to teach lessons in human reproduction, contraception and puberty in science lessons and could opt out of the PSHE courses.

But some groups are outraged that the regulations will include an option for Christian schools to apply the "context, values and ethos" of their religion to the lessons and for parents to withdraw their children on religious grounds. Currently, about 0.04 per cent of children are withdrawn from sex education classes by parents and the government said that while the opt-out will remain in place, it will be kept under "constant review."

Read More...

Friday, April 24, 2009

So who really does take sex ed seriously?

When I pointed out that 'most' Catholic bloggers, like the Catholic press and the hierarchy, seem to be largely ignoring the sex ed issue, I was rebuked by Mulier Fortis: 'don't antagonise your friends' she tells me.

I recognise the work Mulier Fortis has put into this issue, her courage and persistence; my remark wasn't directed at her. As for the others, I suggest the Catholic bloggers who do care about this needle them until they start taking notice.

Here's Google's top 25 Catholic websites. The ranking seems a little questionable to me but it is mostly blogs and it's a place to start. Looking at the blogs alone:

The Curt Jester: a search for "sex ed" throws up a number of references. There are numerous references as a side-issue and several posts devoted to the subject: on Bishop O'Donaghue, 'Screw Abstinence', Homosexual Progaganda, for example.


The Hermeneutic of Continuity is brilliant on the issue, so is Creative Minority Report.

Jimmy Akin: a search reveals a lot of references, but they seem to be mostly in the comments on his posts. The same seems to be true of 'Inside Catholic' and What Does the Prayer Really Say?. It is interesting that their readers are more concerned about it that the authors.

The Conversation Diary has fewer references, again many of them are in comments, despite acknowledging its importance in a post on 'How I became pro-life'. There are a handful of references on Pro Ecclesia.


So what's my point? The most read Catholic blogs are, I should say, completely orthodox on the issue, but most of them just don't talk about it very much.

Abortion is a big issue for Catholics because children are being killed under our very noses. Sex education should be a big issue too: not only are children being abused under our noses, but unlike abortion (at least until recently), it is happening to Catholic children in Catholic schools.

This last point makes it a hot potato. That makes it all the more important that we don't drop it.

Congratulations to the Catholic blogs who talk about it persistently - we link to a lot of them on the side-bar, including Mulier Fortis; see also Catholic and Loving It. But few of them are among the most widely read blogs.

Read More...

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Who is taking Sex Education seriously?

Comment.


Sex education is systematically depriving an entire generation of children of their sexual 'boundaries': the instinctive sense of what is private, what is appropriate, what is wrong. Read up on the ideology of sex education, and you will find that this is entirely intentional. But if you think that sexual immodesty and impurity, an incapacity for committed relationships, and the destruction of the only environment capable of bringing up healthy and happy children - a stable family - is getting bad now, just wait another twenty years. In twenty years time the brutalised adolescants of today will be in their mid and late 30s: and many of them will still be incapable of forming stable relationships, understanding sexual fidelity, and so on. 

The seriousness of the situation could hardly be exagerated. But where is the outrage? Where is the organised response?

Parents find opposing sex education frightening, for two reasons.

1.  They have been told that if it is not to be done at school, 'sex education' must happen at home. They find the prospect distasteful. They are right to find it distasteful: sex education, of the kind done in schools, the destruction of privacy and sexual boundaries, should not be done at home either: it is totally wrong. What children need from their parents is the answering of spontaneous questions in a way which respects the degree of maturity the child has attained. Parents should not be frightened of that.

2. They are worried that if they withdraw their children from sex ed classes, they and their children will be seen as prudish, eccentric, irresponsible, and worse. This is, unfortunately, true. 

In fact, it understates the problem. Sex ed is not only delivered in 'sex ed' (PHSE/PSE) classes; it is delivered right accross the range of subjects. It is usually impossible, in practice, to withdraw your children from it entirely. Furthermore, the brutalisation of children in the school creates an environment which is not conduceive to children receiving any kind of education, or developing normal relationships and emotional maturity. This problem points, in the end, to homeschooling as the way to protect one's children, and this is something which frightens parents even more.

Home schooling is not, however, as bad as it sounds, as there are groups and resources out there to help those who go down this path. For those who are reluctant, however, we must ask this: if you don't want to home-school, you had better be prepared to fight your corner in your school.

The Catholic bishops of England and Wales have decided, in the main, on a policy of appeasement. For the most negligible of concessions they have simply handed the children entrusted to their care over to the sex educators. The man in charge of this policy is Archbishop Vincent Nichols, Chairman of the Catholic Education Service. Now that he has been appointed Archbishop of Westminster, the policy does not seem likely to change any time soon. Even his opposition to the provision of contraception and abortion in Catholic schools has been muted and ineffectual: indeed, the CES officially 'welcomed' the Government's 'Connexions' clinics in Catholic schools.

See Eric Hester on the subject (and here).

The Catholic press, even most Catholic bloggers, are extremely unwilling to tackle the issue. It is the elephant in the room. They don't want to annoy the bishops; they don't want to upset their readers. 

So who is taking the problem of sex ed seriously? Well, if you are worried about it you are not alone. But we need to build a network of mutual support.

There is a petition open calling for a consultation on compulsory sex ed.

There is a newsletter for Catholic homeschoolers, 'Faith in the Home'. Email us and we'll out you in touch. HerculesCAUK@gmail.com

The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC): they have a 'Safe at School' campaign on the subject.

John Smeaton, SPUC's National Director, has an excellent blog.




Catholicmomof10journey: the blogger Jackie Parkes.

Mulier Fortis: the blogger Mac McLernon

Here are two newish websites with an interest in the subject:



We'd be very interested to add to this list.

CFNews draws our attention to this American site: Veil of Innocence

Read More...

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

'All that I Am' condemned

Action: Parents must FIND OUT what is being done in their schools in the name of sex ed/PHSE and PROTECT THEIR CHILDREN. This will mean protests, quite possibly withdrawing children from the school. Yes, that might not be pleasant but we have a responsibility for the children God has entrusted to us and nothing can take that responsibility away. Their souls are at stake; so are their parents'.


Here is a critique of 'All that I Am', a programme of sex education developed for CATHOLIC schools for the diocese of the man who is Chairman of the Catholic Education Service, who has now been named the next Archbishop of Westminster: Vincent Nichols.

For heaven's sake, Catholic 'conservatives', stop rhapsodising about Archbishop Nichols and take a look at what he is imposing on our children. Here's the 'All That I Am' website with more information about the course. We've blogged before on this course, here; this includes the relevant documents from the Vatican.

From 'The Faith, The Family, The Future' (see it in full here): This critique mainly relates to the junior school material, though the KS3&4 material has been reviewed and is referred to below although the principles used in this critique can be applied to any sex-ed programme. It was written by several parents who, faced with the introduction of the programme into their schools, studied all the material (rather than just the promotional DVD) with some doctors and a priest.;-

Introduction
1 It is extremely clear in the teaching of the Catholic Church that the prime educators of children on these matters are parents. There is a lot of evidence that shows that this position is valid and is by far the best way to provide effective values education for children. (BMJ research 19/1/07). Programmes which talk about sex and condoms have either no effect or (according to the literature) make things worse. Children almost always express a preference for their parents to explain these things to them. Outcomes are much more favourable among those for whom their parents are the main sources of information about sexual matters.
2 The proposed school program, as well as the diocesan policy usurps the role of parents by failing to involve them in the process of education. The process merely informs them and does not promote or support the role of parents in delivering this. The proposed school programme is therefore against Catholic teaching.
3 Where parents are not involved in the delivery of the programme, teachers may depart from the material approved and add inappropriate material. We know of a child in year 5 who was told by a school nurse “you don’t need a daddy to have children. For a few hundred pounds you can get a baby by a visit to a laboratory.” (Details of artificial insemination followed.)
With regard to the currently proposed program, “All That I Am”
4 While this program is less visually pornographic than alternatives, we still cannot condone something which is less corrupting.
5 Parts of the program which equate the bits on washing to being rejected because of smell etc to year 5 children are not necessary but also encourages feelings of inadequacy to those who are less than perfect. See DVD.
6 Discussion of periods is appropriate for girls, with their mothers but not in mixed sex classes. Boys should not be troubled with this in Y5. See Teaching Strategies p13
7 Boys and girls should not feel it is appropriate to have open disclosure of these issues and the programme clearly promotes this; this is culturally out of step and is inappropriate behaviour in our society, even for adults. CCC2522
8 “God does not want to hold us back from full self expression” (teachers manual year 6, p38) is an incorrect sentiment. He most certainly does want us to hold back from many ways in which we can express ourselves, primarily those ways which are sinful and which harm others and ourselves.
9 Y5 video and 09.30 has an inappropriate discussion of periods and presentation of female reproductive system in graphic form (needs justifying that this is necessary, or helpfully formative given lack of similar detail to anatomy of other systems at this Key Stage) and naked female form. The showing of naked adult forms and reproductive tracts in class falsely legitimises the sort of pornographic viewing on the Internet to which boys are particularly at risk.
10 In the Yr 5 "handbook" it says that "The onset of physical and emotional changes, such that is experienced in pre-adolescence and puberty, now require children to get information from sources, other than their parents.’’ This anecdotal comment is also often made by government teenage sexual health units with no scientific reference to back it up.
11 Y6;- specific questions as to whom can the child trust can introduce doubts and division into a parental relationship;- a study has shown that if the school introduces sex ed before the parents the children will go to the person who introduced them to the subject. (Who will be there in the future?)
12 Y6 key vocabulary = testicles! Also Ejaculate. We do not agree that this is key vocabulary for understanding human relationships in year 6.
13 We think this is the wrong program for the promotion of values;- How do I take care of myself (Y6 resource sheet 7) in these sheets we find no mention of sin, or values or keeping safe from moral danger etc, respect for others only cleanliness etc. The discussion of positive values like self-control, generosity, purity, good friendships, modesty are lacking.
14 Discussion of “wet dreams” should not be done in groups. Many parents at our schools feel it should be done individually, privately, probably not at year six (and definitely not with girls). (See CCC;2522 Modesty is decency. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet.)
15 There is almost nothing in the Y5 and Y6 curricula about marriage, self-control, chastity and stable relationships.
16 This is not a programme that builds on a child’s understanding or natural interest in procreation, the approach recommended by the Vatican's document "Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality" (TMHS). Adults can interpret a child’s interest with their own adult understanding and thus impose on the child information the child had not sought.
17 This programme should be seen as a whole (we have viewed the material up to year 11 with a group of parents and a priest); it is highly sexual, introduces all areas of sex and related matters, to children at different stages of maturity. Discussion in pairs and as groups is a key part of the teaching strategy. The subject matter presented is often beyond the maturity, intellectual and moral formation of the pupils it is aimed at. It is disingenuous to publicly open up sexual behaviour, before the children are ready for it, and before it is approved, even in our society. Contrast this with the way smoking and alcohol are presented.
19 The KS1&2 material must be seen along with the KS3&4 to allow one to be fully concerned about the whole programme. The producers quote an otherwise largely obscure psychologist whose quoted piece was published after the pilot visual material of the programme was made. He states ‘Can we envisage 9 and 10 year old girls mature enough to start their sexual careers?’ J Coleman. Like other such material in the teachers’ notes, this appears twice in the teachers’ notes for KS3 and KS4.
20 There are scientific errors in the KS1&2 materials and also in KS3&4.

Therefore we maintain the God given right of parents to be the prime educators of their children in this matter, and insist that the school withdraw this education from our children, allowing us to take responsibility for this aspect of their education.

Read More...

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Government: don't tell your children underage sex is wrong

Briefing. Beyond belief.


From SPUC: British government advice reportedly tells parents not to say to their teenage children that having sex is wrong. Ms Beverley Hughes MP, children's minister, says parents should advocate birth control to their sons and daughters, and the government explained that that included 13-year-olds (who are under the age of consent). Such advice is predicted to be in Talking to your Teenager About Sex and Relationships, a pamphlet available from pharmacists from Thursday-week (5 March). Dr Patricia Morgan, the sociologist, says young people do heed their parents when they say they disapprove of underage sex. [Mail, 23 February] John Smeaton of SPUC said: "The government's teenage pregnancy strategy is failing yet here we have ministers telling parents to give value-free sex education and even to go with their under-age daughters to the GP's surgery to get birth control."

Read More...

Saturday, February 07, 2009

Don't give to the Catholic Education Service

Action: there may be a second collection tomorrow for them. For full details see John Smeaton.

Read More...

Monday, February 02, 2009

Parents ignored by government over Sex Ed

Briefing.


From CFNews: Data obtained by Family Education Trust under the Freedom of Information Act reveals that the government-appointed review group on sex and relationship education (SRE) made no attempt to consult parents about what should be taught and when. While the review- group sought the views of young people and teachers first-hand, it did not commission any survey of parental concerns.

Young people and teachers

The Sex Education Forum, in conjunction with the UK Youth Parliament, was commissioned to undertake an online survey to elicit views from young people on what should be covered in SRE at each key stage. This was followed by a two day in-depth consultation with 15 young people looking at how SRE can be improved and 'why young people need SRE'.

Similarly, the review group commissioned the Sex Education Forum, in conjunction with the PSHE Subject Association, to conduct an online survey to obtain the views of both primary and secondary school teachers on 'what inhibits better delivery of SRE'.

...but not parents

However, no similar survey was undertaken to seek the views of parents. Instead, the review group invited two of its members to give a presentation based on previous research and personal experience. Professor Roger Ingham from the Centre for Sexual Health Research at the University of Southampton was asked to undertake a review of existing studies of parents' attitudes to school SRE, and David Kesterson, the manager of the fpa's 'Speakeasy' programme, was asked to report on the key issues parents found it difficult to talk to children about.

Professor Ingham is well known for his opposition to any approach that encourages young people to save sex for marriage. He is fully supportive of initiatives that are 'non-judgmental and respectful of confidentiality', believing that young people should not be denied 'the opportunity to form relationships and express their feelings safely in ways they choose to'. [BMJ, Dec 16, 2000; 321(7275); 1520-1522]

Likewise, it is difficult to have confidence that David Kesterton would be in a position to represent the concerns of thousands of ordinary parents. given the fpa's view that it is 'paternalistic' to hold that parents are best placed to judge what is in the best interests of their children.

The data released under the Freedom of Information Act also revealed that the review group considered five 'options' papers covering the training of teachers, involving outside agencies, providing guidance and support materials, using wider government programmes to improve SRE, and ensuring the involvement of young people in the design of their school's SRE programme.

But apart from one brief reference in the paper on guidance and support materials, parents were again conspicuous by their absence. [FYC]

Read More...

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Gay sex in school for 5-yr-olds

Briefing: this is no joke. Parents have got to find our what is happening in their schools and remove their children if necessary. In this context to do nothing is to consent.


From CFNews: Children as young as five in the United Kingdom should be taught to understand the pleasures of gay sex, according to leaders of a taxpayer-funded education project.

Heads of the project have set themselves a goal of 'creating primary classrooms where queer sexualities are affirmed and celebrated'.

The ambition was revealed in documents prepared for the No Outsiders project run by researchers from universities and backed with £600,000 of public money provided by the Economic and Social Research Council.

The stated purpose of the project - which is operating in 14 primary schools - is to stop bullying and prejudice aimed at homosexuals.

A document prepared for an Exeter University seminar and couched in convoluted academic jargon says: 'The team is concerned to interrogate the desexualisation of children's bodies, the negation of pleasure and desire in educational contexts, and the tendency to shy away from discussion of (sexual) bodily activity in No Outsiders project work.

'The danger of accusations of the corruption of innocent children has led team members to make repeated claims that this project is not about sex or desire - and that it is therefore not about bodies.

'Yet, at a very significant level, that is exactly what it is about and to deny this may have significant negative implications for children and young people.'

No Outsiders is led by researchers from Sunderland University and also involves academics at the Institute of Education and Exeter University. Books, puppet shows and plays are used to teach children about same-sex relationships.

During the project, the seminar paper says, its members have 'challenged each other to go beyond imagined possibilities into queer practice'.

The seminar will 'question the taken-for-granted of the supposedly sexless, bodiless and desire-less primary classroom' and examine 'the place of the research team members' own bodies, desires and pleasures in this research'.

The discussions provoked a furious reaction from critics of the homosexual rights agenda. Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute said: 'When an adult who is working in a primary school suggests that children should explore their sexuality, that should result in a complaint to the police.'

Patricia Morgan, author of studies of family life and gay adoption, said: 'The proposal is that primary school classrooms should be turned into gay saunas. This is about homosexual practice in junior schools. The idiots who repealed Section 28 should consider that this is where it has got them.'

Project leader Dr Elizabeth Atkinson said the seminar had no connection with No Outsiders work in classrooms. 'The seminar is part of a long-standing academic debate and has nothing to do with schools,' she said. 'It has no connection with sex education.'

Section 28, the law which banned the promotion of homosexuality in state schools, was repealed five years ago. Current guidance on sex education says it should not promote sexual orientation or sexual activity. [MailOnline]

Read More...

Friday, January 23, 2009

The CES and Sex Education

Briefing.


H-T Catholic Mom of 10: From Mr Eric Hester

SIR - You report (January 16) (Catholic Herald Letters to the Editor ) that the National Association of Catholic Families has written an open letter to the Catholic Education Service (CES) about that body's support for the Government's plan to introduce compulsory sex education for all children in schools from the age of four as part of the National Curriculum.

The Government's proposal has been rightly described by Gerald Warner of the Daily Telegraph as "child abuse".

Those who think that what the Government has in mind is something mild that can be incorporated into Catholic teaching about chastity should realise that the material that is already used and recommended is obscenity of the worst kind. Those with strong stomachs can see for themselves by looking at the websites of the Government-recommended agencies, such as the Terence Higgins Trust, the Teenage Pregnancy Unit, Marie Stopes International, the Family Planning Association, and Connexions.

The Government proposals are opposed by almost everyone, including the association that represents headteachers and the National Union of Teachers, as well as, according to opinion polls, 75 per cent of parents.

It is therefore astonishing that the CES is supporting the Government rather than Catholic parents. Catholic teaching could not be clearer on two important points: that the rights of parents are "inalienable" and that there should be no sex education at all in what John Paul II called the "years of innocence" -_that is, before puberty.

Yours faithfully,
Eric Hester
Bolton, Lancs

Read More...

Monday, January 12, 2009

NACF Open letter on Sex Ed in Catholic school

Action: parent must find out what is going on in their schools and write to the head teacher as suggested below. See our general briefing on sex education in Catholic schools here. The picture shows Oona Stanard and Archbishop Nichols (Chief Executive and Chairman of the Catholic Education Service, respectively) cosying up to Ed Balls, the Government Education minister.


John Smeaton of SPUC comments: Britain is facing a crisis in which an ideology of evil, including the promotion of abortion and other anti-life practices, and false concepts of human sexuality, directly threatens the common good. In light of this crisis, the CES policy, on behalf of the Catholic bishops of England and Wales, is, to put it politely, inexplicable.

From the National Association of Catholic Families, to Oona Stannard, Chief Executive of the Catholic Education Service (an organ of the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales)

Ms.Oona Stannard 
Chief Executive 
The Catholic Education Service 
39 Eccleston Square 
London SW1V IBX 
general@cesew.org.uk

09.01.09

Last week's Government statistics and BBC Panorama programme, Kids behaving Badly (5th January 2009) * demonstrated the crisis of premature sexualisation of little children in our schools.

In your capacity as Chief Executive of the Catholic Education Service (CES) you have given an interview in which you are reported to have said that the CES has welcomed Government plans to make Sex and Relationship Education (SRE) compulsory in all primary and secondary schools. ** This policy, we know, will corrupt innocent children and at the beginning of this new school term we publicly express our opposition to it based on the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church.

The NACF: We as Catholic parents who accept Catholic teaching on the natural inalienable rights and duties of parents, categorically reject, without reservation, your current position and that of your Board. With respect, neither you nor it has any credible standing on this matter. Parents do so as primary educators of their own children.

The fecundity of conjugal love cannot be reduced solely to the procreation of children, but must extend to their moral education and their spiritual formation. 'The role of parents in education is of such importance that it is almost impossible to provide an adequate substitute.' ' The right and the duty of parents to educate their children is primordial and inalienable.' (our emphasis) The Catechism of the Catholic Church 2221

You speak about how you think compulsory sex education would work in Catholic primary schools and are reported to have said: 'You would expect that young children would need to learn about body parts, that simple sort of biology'.

The NACF: The CES arrogantly and undemocratically attempts to usurp our rights and challenge our moral authority as primary educators and protectors of our children. 

[S]ince parents have conferred life on their children, they have a most solemn obligation to educate their offspring. Hence, parents must be acknowledged as the first and foremost educators of their children. Their role as educators is so decisive that scarcely anything can compensate for their failure in it.' (our emphasis) The Documents of the Second Vatican Council

The right and duty of parents to give education is essential, since it is connected with the transmission of human life;
 it is original and primary with regard to the educational role of others, on account of the uniqueness of the loving relationship between parents and children; ...and it is irreplaceable and inalienable, and therefore incapable of being entirely delegated to others or usurped by others.'(our emphasis) Apostolic Exhortation of Pope John Paul II N 36. Familiaris Consortio


In your statement of 23 October 2008 you say that there is much in the Government commissioned review of SRE which the CES can support and that important reassurances are contained in the Government response.

The NACF: As the CES already works with Connexions in Catholic schools and it allows the operation of nurse clinics in some schools we fully believe that the CES broadly supports Government policy. We reject the so-called, 'important reassurances' because on the basis of the following quotation we would be disingenuous to do otherwise.

But Miss Stannard also said that it was unlikely that compulsory SRE would withhold 'the facts about contraception,(our emphasis) because if you withhold facts you leave young people more open to exploitation by others who will notnecessarily have their best interests at heart'. (Catholic Herald 31/10/2008)

You said: 'Indeed we would all abhor early sexualisation.' (our emphasis) (cf 'to learn about body parts' . . . 'amongst their friends and peers' . . . ' 'the facts about contraception, because if you withhold facts you leave young people more open to exploitation by others who will not necessarily have their best interests at heart'.)

The NACF: On this one point we agree and it is for this reason that we are utterly opposed to your policy which will prematurely sexualize our children. It is the parents who love their children, have their hearts broken when their children are corrupted and it is they who have to try to pick up the pieces. At the same time it is the parents who are held responsible for the consequences of the damaging actions of others in the pay of the Parental State. We emphatically request that the governing body of the CES now unambiguously follows the teaching of the Catholic Church world- wide and thus reject its own local hybridization with this State's ill concealed and discredited birth control policies. We for our part trust the guidance to our families given under the authority of Pope John Paul II:

Nonetheless, in the context of moral and sexual information, various problems can arise in this stage of childhood. In some societies today, there are planned and determined attempts to impose premature sex information on children . . . Such information tends to shatter their emotional and educational development and to disturb the natural serenity of this period of life. Parents should politely but firmly exclude any attempts to violate children's innocence because such attempts compromise the spiritual, moral and emotional development of growing persons who have a right to their innocence.(our emphasis) The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality 83.


You said 'The statutory rights of parents to withdraw their children from sex education remain but it is our hope that parents will not find the need to exercise this right as children are likely to benefit from experiencing SRE amongst their friends and peers'. '

The NACF'S response is to strongly recommend that parents send this letter to schools.


The Head teacher,

 

Dear ,

We wish to inform you that we formally withdraw our daughter/son.......from all of the sex and relationship classes with immediate effect. We also wish to be given details of content and adequate notice prior to any similar material being dealt with in other parts of the curriculum in any other lesson. We are taking this action as we feel strongly that sex education and the morals and values implicit in this remain within the inalienable moral responsibility of us, as parents, as the primary and natural educators and protectors of our children. Yours etc.

 

With kind regards,

Yours sincerely,

 

Thomas Ward, President of the National Association of Catholic Families

Tim Matthews Editor CF News, National Association of Catholic Families

Jane and Orlando Villalobos, Birmingham

Maria and Bob Haynes, Chester

Christine and Nigel Hudson, Plymouth

Mary Middlewick, Truro

Valeria Findlay-Wilson, Dorset

Clare and Martin O'Toole, Devon

James and Teresa Shingler, Staffordshire

David & Shauna Katrcyz, Oldham

Jane Deegan

Matthew and Alexandra Mc Cowen, Manchester

James and Teresa Shingler, Staffordshire


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 


*    www.bbc.co.uk/go/homepage/d/int/tv/bbcone/5/-/programmes/b00gkl8z

** Catholic Herald. Bishops' agency backs sex education for Catholic primary school children. By Anna Arco 31 October 20 

Read More...

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Teenage pregnancies come to suburbia

Briefing. Another great success for sex education. We're not joking: it is embedding a radical, anti-marriage sexual revolution accross society. Whereas in the past social conservatives could appeal to a shared understanding of marriage and family, these developments are being used by the government to argue that 'non-traditional families' are so numerous that they must simply be accepted as part of society. When they are the majority, they will be above criticism: they will simply be 'normal'.


From the BBC: Despite a Government campaign to cut teen pregnancy and birth rates, two out of three parliamentary constituencies have seen an increase in children born to mothers under 18, the numbers of which have almost tripled in some suburban areas.

In the two thirds of the worst affected areas, which the Government has targeted with increased sex education and contraception classes for children, teenage maternity is also still on the rise.
Experts blamed the increases on young women who see the morning-after pill as a contraceptive or want to have children young to copy their favourite celebrity mother. An aversion to abortion among affluent families may also be a factor, they said.

In December, official figures revealed a 2.7 per cent increase in teenage pregnancies in England and Wales last year - ensuring Britain's place at the top of the Europe's under-18 pregnancy league. The latest figures, obtained by the Conservatives. break down the number of teenagers giving birth by parliamentary seats and show that 42,300 babies were born to mothers under the age of 20 in 2006. Surprisingly, many with the highest rates are affluent suburbs, often presided over by Conservative MPs.

The seat with the biggest increase of teenagers giving birth - from 16 in 2002 to 44 in 2006 - was Rushcliffe, Nottingham, where the MP is former Conservative Health Secretary Ken Clarke. In Pudsey, West Yorkshire, the number rose from 26 to 60 and in Epsom and Ewell, in leafy Surrey, it rose from 15 to 32.

Conservative children spokesman Tim Loughton said that the situation was getting worse despite the Government's "smoke and mirrors" tactics to disguise it. "Most of the areas that are already experiencing the biggest problems are seeing the number of teenage pregnancies rise," he said.

Former Conservative frontbencher Ann Widdecombe added: "Girls are increasingly sexually active and nobody is willing to tell them that they should not be. We are all afraid of being judgemental."

Read More...

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Reenage pregnancies and abortions

Briefing.


From SPUC: At least 20 girls aged under 16 in Britain get pregnant every day and most abort the child. The government has spent millions of pounds on trying to cut teenage pregnancy yet its own figures show no decrease. Professor David Paton, an economist at Nottingham University Business School, noted that the abortion rate among under 16s had increased in recent years. Areas which the government had commended for providing birth control to children had some of the worst teenage pregnancy rates. Family Focus called for: "... realistic education and empower[ing] youngsters to know how dangerous and foolish underage sex is." [Telegraph, 31 December] The government said it would halve under-18 pregnancies between 1998 and 2010. In 2004 it missed its target for that year. A children's ministry spokesperson said: "[I]t is vital for young people to be armed with the information that will lead them to make good choices in resisting pressure to engage in sexual activity." [Daily Express, 31 December]

Read More...

Monday, December 22, 2008

Channel 4 unrepentant about morning Sex Ed show

Briefing.


From the Daily Mail: Channel 4 has been hit with a string of complaints over a 'disgusting' sex education series screened at a time when young children could be watching.

KNTV Sex, described by the channel as the 'alternative guide to sex education,' goes out at 11am on weekdays. Aimed at 14 to 19-year-olds, it covers issues such as masturbation, sexually-transmitted diseases, fetishes, bisexuality and homosexuality.

It was among the most controversial programmes on Channel 4 last month, attracting 100 complaints from viewers. One said: 'I cannot believe that C4 would put such a disturbing programme on the air at 11am. The programme is not teaching anything except that sex is something amazing that you should do - it's absolutely disgusting.'

John Beyer of TV pressure group Mediawatch UK said: 'I think there are questions of compliance and how this show works with the broadcasting codes and the protection of children. Ofcom needs to look at this.

'The trouble is that Channel 4 just do what they want to do.'

Norman Wells of Family and Youth Concern said: 'Once again Channel 4 is seeking to push back the boundaries of what constitutes acceptable material for daytime television. The last thing children and young people need is another TV series that trivialises and cheapens sex and divorces it from any moral context.'

The complaints come not long after a row over another pre-watershed sex education series on Channel 4.

The Sex Education Show, which was screened at 8pm, sparked more than 200 complaints and led to accusations that the broadcaster was 'peddling obscenity' before the 9pm watershed.

KNTV Sex combines animation and comedy clips taken from TV shows.

It is presented by the animated characters Kierky and Nietzsche, two teenagers from the fictional country of Slabovia, which is described as the 'last communist state in Europe'.

Topics covered on the show include Operation Penis and 'amazing sex facts'.

A Channel 4 spokesman said last night it 'takes a new approach to dealing with important issues around sex and relationships education for a teenage audience'.

He added: 'This series is based on information and advice from both sexual health charities and teachers. There is no explicit imagery and the content is suitable for the morning schedule.' [Mail]

Read More...

Pope Leo XIII's Prayer to St Michael

Holy Michael, Archangel, defend us in the day of battle. Be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God, thrust down to Hell Satan, and all wicked spirits who wander through the world for the ruin of souls. Amen