Shame Catholic schools are abandoning section 28 type policies about homosexuality due to pressure from Humanists

Catholic schools are abandoning sections of their Sex and Relationship Education policies under pressure from the British Humanist Association who have accused them of promoting section 28 type policies about homosexuality.  The British Humanist Association, led by the homosexual Andrew Copson, has complained to the Department of Education who stated:

‘‘What these schools have done by singling out homosexuality is unacceptable. All schools can draw up their own sex education policy but they must ensure they do not discriminate unfairly on grounds of sexual orientation. Our sex and relationship education guidance makes it clear that schools should not promote any sexual orientation. The DfE will be looking into these schools.’

Section 28 was a fantastic law introduced by Margaret Thatcher that sought to protect young people from gay propaganda. Section 28 prohibited local authorities from ‘intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality’ and from promoting the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.’

Sadly, only two Catholic schools were identified by the British Humanist Association of either containing references to section 28 or promoting section 28 type policies on homosexuality. The Tablet reports:

‘Research by the British Humanist Association (BHA) found that 45 schools – including St Ignatius College in Enfield, London, and St Illtyds R.C. High School in Cardiff – referred to section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 within their sex education policies. Both St Ignatius College and St Illtyds’ policies stated that section 28 did not prevent the objective discussion of homosexuality because it did not apply to schools.’

Sadly, the Diocese of Cardiff’s Education Department has immediately crumbled under the pressure from the British Humanist Association and the Department of Education according to The Tablet, ‘Cardiff Archdiocese’s Director of Schools will ask St Illtyds to review its policy to ensure full legal compliance when schools resume in September.’

Protect the Pope comment: Every Catholic school in the UK should, of course, have SRE policies that are based on the Church’s doctrine on sexual ethics and the sacrament of marriage, as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  This, of course, means that all Catholic schools are prohibited by the Church’s doctrine from promoting homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality’ and from promoting the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.’ Though our schools don’t need to refer to section 28, they do need to maintain the prohibitions expressed by section 28, irrespective of the Department of Education’s pressure to enforce legal compliance. This is obvious, but regrettably needs stating based on the track record of our Catholic institutions to compromise and capitulate at the first sign of trouble. Haven’t they got it yet, Catholic schools are in big trouble.

https://humanism.org.uk/2013/08/20/uk-and-welsh-governments-launch-investigation-into-schools-with-section-28-style-policies/

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/latest-news/5597

48 comments to Shame Catholic schools are abandoning section 28 type policies about homosexuality due to pressure from Humanists

  • Rifleman819

    Deacon Nick ,
    Interesting………watch what happens …as I have said , …not only in Catholic schools but in state academies and comprehensives under LEA control where “de facto” they are 90% Muslim in demography…and also those state schools that are explicitly Muslim ……when the young “kuffur” Personal and Social Education teacher is beaten to a pulp on his/her way home for advancing the Section 28 culture.
    Non-religious schools have an explicit duty under DfE remit to teach the Equality agenda.

    So we watch as the school playing fields are turned into battlefields between the StormGruppe Stonewall and the imams.

  • The two Catholic schools mentioned in the BHA list did have have odd references to a piece of legislation that no longer exists: I suspect that it was simply overlooked and the documents hadn’t been updated.

    I hope that the ‘review of policy’ just means that sort of editorial tidying up but I share your fear that (some) Catholic schools will cave in to pressure and promote views of sex that are incompatible with Catholic teaching. Perhaps all schools should simply refer to the Catechism as their policy on this area?

  • Richard Laverick

    While Catholic schools receive Government, State funding, they MUST teach what the state holds to be true, after all in citizenship lessons, they are teaching about being a UK citizen. Therefore they must teach the laws and beliefs of the state. The state believes LGBT+ people are equal. Therefore they must teach that in PSHE.

    If Catholic schools want to teach what they want, I suggest they stop receiving money from the state. After all, you are suggesting the Government is wrong for enforcing these changes, so why accept their money?

    • Rifleman819

      Richard ,
      By your argument …if millions of taxpayers and National Insurance contributors are Catholics…..can they withhold their dues from the NHS because it carries out 200,000 abortions a year then?

    • Nicolas Bellord

      So we have to believe in the truths as set out by the State. This really does sound like 1984. For example do we all have to believe in the 39 articles because the State has decreed that the official religion is the Church of England? Do you believe in the 39 articles? Surely this will be a bit of a problem for our Humanist friends!

    • ms Catholic state

      sorry, but you are forgetting that catholics pay their taxes too. And the wishes of parents must be respected……as they are taxpayers too. No state indoctrination please!

  • Richard Laverick

    If they wanted to yes, but then they’d be out of the NHS completely, so would need private medical insurance.

    • Rifleman819

      Richard,
      So to carry out this argument…….one closes down all Christian schools …absolving the Churches for paying any share in the running costs and the taxpayer then buying any land , property or moveables from Anglican and Catholic dioceses at the going rate.

      Once standard rate of income tax changes to 97% the general public will deeply applaud such a wise State, a State that , as you say, MUST be obeyed.

      • Richard Laverick

        Well a lot of new Catholic schools were built under the PFI scheme, so they are not really owned by the Church at any rate. Those older ones would be due to be replaced (depending on the Government at the time), so that wouldn’t be a problem. A lot of existing schools are owned 90% by the state and 10% by the Church, so buying them out wouldn’t be a problem.

        If the maths was done accurately, it would be one off capital expenditure which I would suggest would be affordable as a one off. It would also then be possible to further amalgamate schools to correct levels and then sell off remaining land.

      • same old, same old

        The Church pays absolutely no share of the running costs.

        • ms Catholic state

          parents pay taxes…..and their views must be respected.

          • Jim

            I agree but how can you assume that church dotrine is more representative of parents views than is state doctrine? The latter at least has some imperfect element of democracy behind it. The former does not.

            It is all very well to say that the views of parents must be respected, but you are not respecting parents views when you assume that they are indentical to your views without any evidence. That is the opposite of respect.

          • same old, same old

            The comment I made was actually in reply to Rifleman who claimed that closing down Catholic schools would be a way of “absolving the Churches for paying any share in the running costs”. Seeing that they don’t pay any then it is no absolution at all.

            And Jim is perfectly correct. We all pay taxes but some people seem to want special preferences for doing so.

        • Nicolas Bellord

          In the past and I think still the Church pays 10% of capital costs. Further there was always an enormous subsidy from the Church in that the religious who taught in them covenanted their salaries entirely to their religious order who ploughed the money back into the school.

          The state exists to serve families not the other way round. In the interests of social equality everyone pays taxes so that everyone can be educated. However it is the parents right to choose what kind of education a child should have. Thus we have diversity in the kinds of schools we have: secular, jewish, catholic, muslim etc. The parents can then choose what kind of school they like.

          It is in the nature of despotic dictatorships to have systems where the state decrees everything. Do we really want that?

  • Joseph Matthew

    So just as every doctor who believes abortion is immoral has a right not to do abortions,the Catholic school has an obligation to teach the Catholic faith.And if a Catholic school promotes the “gay agenda” then it should be closed down.

  • Joe

    This struck me as being a complete non-story. Looking at the spreadsheet that the BHA posted on their websites with their press releases, it looked as if what they had found were examples of redundant references to Section 28 where schools had either neglected to update policies or had done so rather incompetently. Headlines in other newspapers were not as carefully worded as those on the BHA’s releases …

    There is more of an issue about what the relevant government officials will say to schools as they investigate. Will they take to task a school that, with all due cautions to respect the principles of equality legislation and of non-discrimination, gives an appropriate preference to heterosexual marriage in its SRE policy?

  • tro

    The “gay” lobby will most likely succeed eventually in shutting down Catholic schools in the UK.

  • John

    I find it interesting how much these anti-religious and anti-Christian movements such as the BHA and the NSS are driven by the homosexual agenda. That is really what is driving this. The homosexual militants realise that the Catholic Church is one of the biggest obstacles standing in the way of achieving their aim of complete sexual freedom and therefore they will do everything to bring it down. Both organizations are almost entirely negative. They have no positive agenda except the idol of absolute individual autonomy.

    • Richard Laverick

      …or their positive agenda is love. THere is noithing greater than love. Just because you don’t accept homosexual love as being the same, they do, and therefore they see there work as being positive. Just as you see the Church’s work as being positive. That’s what respect is about.

      And homosexual militants? I’m sorry but asking to be treated equally in a school is not being militant, its being human. What is extreme is to say that gay people should not be treated the same because they are inherently evil.

      • Rifleman819

        Richard ,
        Who is saying “that people are inherently evil?”

      • John

        Oh dear: “All we need is love”. The problem is what ‘love’ means and is this sufficient to justify homo-erotic acts. The Catholic Church does not teach that ‘gay people should not be treated the same because they are inherently evil’. It teaches that the meaning of sexual relations is bound up with the reproduction of the species and to bring children into the world. It teaches that this should only happen in the context of heterosexual marriage. All other sexual activity – heterosexual, homosexual, solitary – does not fulfil this condition and is therefore disordered.

        The homosexual movement have misused the concepts of ‘equality’ and ‘non-discrimination’ as part of an agenda that seeks absolute individual autonomy. ‘Love’ has also been debased in this way.

      • ms Catholic state

        We are commanded to love one another……..but sin is to be avoided!

  • Richard Laverick

    The problem is, democracy is the will of the people. The will of the majority is for Section 28 to be removed. If you want a Catholic state with Catholic laws, then you need a Catholic people. Don’t argue with the government, be more worried that the Church is losing, in the UK, its flock its great numbers.

    • Nicolas Bellord

      Richard: You seem to be a disciple of Rousseau who believed that the will of the people is all that matters and anyone who opposes it is an Enemy of the People [moderated comment]. The family consisting of a man and a woman engaged in mutual support and procreation through the use of sex is the basic unit of society bringing up the next generation. The state is necessary to provide support to the family but the family comes first and the right of the parents is to decide how their children should be educated.

      There is more to democracy then just enforcing the will of the majority; a democracy needs to respect the human rights of individuals and families and should not oppress minorities. If a democracy oppresses minorities it is likely to fail; the intolerance of the Republican Government in Spain in the 1930s led to civil war. The same looks like happening in Egypt.

      I wonder whether the love of neighbour, the virtues of moderation and humility, which Christianity teaches are not essential to a successful democracy. I would ask whether the distancing from Christianity that we are experiencing in this country is not being reflected in the increasing intolerance that we see in Parliament leading to the extraordinary statement you have made that we should not only accept the laws passed by Parliament but also the beliefs of Parliament.

  • Nicolas Bellord

    It pays part of the capital costs.

  • Nicolas Bellord

    Richard: Love between two people of the same sex is friendship. If it includes sexual acts that is a misuse of sex and is misguided. Love between a man and a wife can be expressed in sex for the purpose of mutual unity and procreation. That love is different from love of friends. The Catholic Church does not say that people who have temptations towards same-sex sexual acts are inherently evil and indeed it says they should be treated with respect. However any sex outside marriage (which is exclusively between a man and a woman) is wrong or intrinsically evil. It is perfectly proper therefore to teach that such is wrong and promote the idea of sex as being reserved for true marriage. You can check all this in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

  • ms Catholic state

    the bottom line is that homosexual activity is a sin…….and Catholic schools must teach this….and must not contravene it in any way. If head teachers forget this…..and any other catholic sexual doctrine…….clergy and parents must remind them……or they must resign.

  • Joseph Matthew

    I think Richard is confusing love with “lurve”.The founder of a well known religion said that if we love,we need to keep the commandments.

  • Lynda

    Love does not involve sinful thoughts, words or deeds. Love is not a feeling. Love is not egotistical, or about pleasure, comfort or convenience. The Church is made up of individuals, parents and children, who have a right to their schools,hospitals.

  • Amanda Peter

    The view expressed by Richard L smacks of terrible intolerance and bigotry .” Catholic schools must teach what the State holds to be true”. No No No!!! Like St Thomas More we will stand up to your cruel intolerance. Your disrespect for our beliefs, our conscience, our desire to love and serve God and obey his Laws and commandments. We will stand up to your complete lack of love and harsh treatment of us who want to be faithful to God. Your attitude has no charity in it what so ever. God help any one who stood up to Hitler and refused to teach what the State ruled when he was in power. Catholics must be respected and their views and faith given utmost respect! It is tyranny to cajole them into teaching something contrary to their conscience and belief. Do we have politicians today in the grip of evil who rule us as tyrants? I shudder at the view of Richard L . Nothing but pure tyranny and this must stop. If these tyrants send us to the gibbet of the Cross like they did with St Thomas More and the English martyrs , like Hitler did too, then we Catholics if we must die and be persecuted at the hands of these tyrants then we will, but all you tyrants our there ranting and raving and kicking at the Catholic Church know this. CHRISTUS VINCIT and we will never surrender the Truth!!!!! It is we who strive to love by following Christ. Disobedience to Christ is not love. Condoning acts of homosexuality is to condone mortal sin, which if not repented for could cost you the eternal loss of your soul. You could finish in hell for all eternity. Who wants to hear on their judgement “Depart from me Ye cursed of my Father. ” Now is the time to turn away from sin and grow in the Love of God.

  • Nicolas Bellord

    But the parents choose the school – Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Secular!

    • same old, same old

      So let’s widen the choice on that basis. Parents should be able to select schools on the basis of their preferred religion (and not the limited menu on offer at the moment). Why not on the basis of political persuasion or favourite football team? And everybody else should pay for this ‘right’.

      You appear to want the right for catholic schools to teach whatever bigotry they want to while preserving the right of Catholic teachers in non-faith schools to do the same. What about the rights of non-catholic teachers in an RC voluntary-aided school – except that I was forgetting that you have discriminatory employment laws.

      I assume that you would also have demanded the right in the past for Catholic schools to be able to teach in geography that the world was flat with four corners, in history that women should not be allowed to vote and in astronomy that the Sun orbited around the Earth.

      • ms Catholic state

        Now Free schools can have an ethos different to that of the common secular state school. In fact….wasn’t Dawkins going to set up an atheist one….but for some reason didn’t go through with it.

        All schools should be run on some clear ethos or other….and parents will then decide which they want. Church schools, for many reasons, are very popular. More Church schools please. And if atheists want….let them get off their easy chairs…and set up their own schools.

      • Nicolas Bellord

        I see no reason for not widening the choice to a reasonable extent. If you think that what Catholics would like to be taught is bigotry then one could equally say the same about other view points; it just does not get us very far though. Certainly in the past I would have been happy for any school to teach the then current scientific view of the world. Until Copernicus the general scientific view was that the sun did orbit the earth as taught by Aristotle and others. You seem to overlook the fact that the scientific community and the Church were to a large extent co-terminous. Remember that the French scientific community continued to reject Newton’s explanation of the solar system in favour of Descartes’s “tourbillons” well into the eighteenth century. No doubt you will be mentioning Galileo who thought that the tides could only be explained by the earth revolving about the sun. He was wrong. Would you have allowed him to teach that error? I think a little humility would permit people to have different views and to allow them to teach whatever they sincerely thought was right.

        • Same old, same old

          What would you define as a ‘reasonable list’? Would it all be based on religious preference or would you allow choice by football team or eye colour?

          And would you have allowed Catholic schools a century ago to teach that women should not be allowed to vote, as was Church doctrine at the time. If the answer is yes then surely you would also argue that they be allowed to teach it today – unless the Church changes its doctrine occasionally.

          Surely it would be fine under this arrangement for a Catholic school to insist that it was wrong to extend the franchise and to ‘redefine’ the notion of suffrage that had stood for centuries. They should also be able to claim that teachers in the non-faith sector should be able to teach this nonsense and face no action if they do.

          • Nicolas Bellord

            SOSO: I would not base it on religious preferences alone. I think the preference would have to be one with sufficiently wide support to justify a viable school. I can quite easily imagine a school that gave emphasis to football; if there was sufficient following for one team – say Manchester United – then I can see no reason for not having a school which had an emphasis on supplying future players for Manchester United. I doubt however if you could find sufficient support for a school founded upon eye colour.

            Perhaps you could give me your source for your assertion that the Church ever held that women should not have the franchise as a matter of settled faith or morals.

            You seem to be very certain as to what is nonsense and what is not and very intolerant of people who might differ in their views from yours. Upon what do you base this certainty that you are always in the right?

          • same old, same old

            I don’t have any certainty that I am always in the right, which is one of the many reasons that I don’t think that my personal beliefs should be taught in school let alone in institutions that have been set up with the sole intent of teaching them. Nor would I want you to pay for my privilege to indoctrinate children.

            On the issue of the Church and its rabid opposition to female suffrage, I can only suggest that you make your own mind up by looking through the journals of the time that are available online – The Boston Globe might be a good start. Then maybe you can inform me whether the Church has altered its teaching on this issue and whether those that supported votes for women at the time were truly guilty of hersey.

          • Nicolas Bellord

            SOSO: I am perplexed by what you say. Just what is it that you would teach in schools? Suppose for instance you have a course covering the 16th century in England. Just what account of the dissolution of the monasteries would you give? There are varying opinions!

            As to the Church having a doctrine about women’s suffrage I have not come across it. What the Boston Globe might have to say is hardly the place to start! Even supposing some local bishop opposed female suffrage you must not confuse that with what the Church teaches as infallible truth. I am not sure that the question of female suffrage would fall into the category of faith and morals which is the only category to which infallibility relates; so even if you can find a Pope who opposed such then I doubt whether it could be regarded as the infallible teaching of the Church.

          • Same old, same old

            I would have no objection to the varying opinions being taught, as long as they were portrayed as being a version or an opinion and not as absolute historical fact. That’s not the case in many faith schools.

            The official line of the Catholic Church when the issue of women’s suffrage was at its height was that men are granted their power by god, and beneath man is woman. Women are only given glory in their subordinate position through man and therefore should not be allowed to have any say in electing people who would have political domain over man.

            This is, of course, absolute nonsense. But the real point is not about whether is was taught as infallible truth (though it was) of whether any Popes supported this outrageous view (though they did).

            The real point is to transport this situation to the present day. To follow the logic that many on this site put forward it would have been perfectly acceptable for a Catholic teacher to expound this rubbish, regardless of whether they were in a Catholic faith school or not. Furthermore, they should not be sacked if they taught it in a non-faith school but anyone who taught to the contrary in a Catholic school could, and should, be sacked.

          • Nicolas Bellord

            SOSO: When one teaches history one can surely state that certain events took place with absolute certainty e.g. the Battle of Hastings took place in 1066. Obviously there are other areas where there is less evidence and one can put forward that evidence and point out what inference can be drawn from that evidence.

            As to what you say about women’s suffrage where is your evidence for what you state? Perhaps point me to the sources. The Church claims infallibility in respect of faith and morals. I do not think the opinions you recount on women’s suffrage would count as such so the Church is not going to have an infallible opinion on that but so what? If a teacher teaches contrary to the infallible teachings of the Church it makes a bit of a nonsense if he does so in a Catholic school so he should be sent elsewhere. I suspect a non-faith school might well object to somebody teaching something to which that school strongly objected and therefore he could be sacked. Suppose someone were to teach that paedophilia was okay I would hope that any school would sack him if he persisted – although who knows what will be acceptable in some schools in the future.

        • ms Catholic state

          These people just want State enforced propaganda (of a non-Christian nature) taught to all children. In other words they are narrow-minded totalitarians. Whereas the Church proclaims that parents are the first educators of their children…..and have the right to teach children according to their own beliefs.

          • same old, same old

            They do have the perfect right to teach them any old nonsense that they want to according to their own beliefs. But we should be like France or the USA – hardly non-religious countries – and enforce a strict separation of church and state. Then we wouldn’t have the obscenity of teachers in ‘faith’ schools facing the sack for talking about things that would be perfectly acceptable in the non-faith sector.

  • John

    The same old, the same old nonsense trotted out by people who are deeply ignorant and prejudiced! The Catholic Church does not teach bigotry. It teaches about the inherent dignity of every human being but also that that dignity derives from our Creator. The kind of dumbed down, shallow teaching that derives from atheistic humanism cannot uphold the dignity of human persons despite their use of the word ‘humanism’.

    Since you clearly don’t read many books, I would recommend you watch Kenneth Clark’s TV series ‘Civilisation’ to grasp what the Catholic Church has given to the world. Clark, who converted to Catholicism, said that it was the pinnacle of civilisation. If you are able to read something other than the Sun, you might also try Christopher Dawson’s books on Religion and Civilisation.

    Please don’t try to portray Catholic as ignorant and fundamentalist.

  • Nicolas Bellord

    Deacon Nick: I note you moderated my comment where I said about an Enemy of the People deserving death. This was not my idea but Rousseau’s. There is a tendency amongst some commentators who reject religion and the natural law to put the State above all else and this is very much what Rousseau taught. Remember his ideas laid the basis for the French Revolution and the Terror and subsequent totalitarian aberrations. His exact words can the found in Chapter V of his “Contrat Social”:

    “D’ailleurs, tout malfaiteur, attaquant le droit social, devient par ses forfaits rebelle et traitre a la patrie. … Or, comme il s’est reconnu tel, tout au moins par son sejour, il en doit etre retranche par l’exil comme infracteur du pacte, ou par la mort comme ennemi publique car un tel ennemi n’est pas une personne morale, c’est un homme alors que le droit de la guerre est de tuer le vaincu.” [My emphasis]

    So it is exile or death for anyone who attacks social law and he can be killed because the laws of war authorise the killing of the defeated i.e. according to Rousseau you take no prisoners.

  • Francis

    How anyone on here, and claiming to be Christian, could support the squalid, homophobically-inspired piece of legislation known as Section 28, is beyond me!! Even the party who brought it on to the statute book disowned and apologised for it. People who supported Section 28 are no better than the homophobic playground bully. The Catholic Church would be well rid of people like you, claiming to support Pope Francis but I suspect he would disown much of what you say, as would Jesus Christ!

  • fd

    Today RaiNews24 touched a new record low: last December when the false news was given that the Pope had said that “same sex marriage was a threat against peace” the then RaiNews24 editor Corradino Mineo had even commented the news,warning the Pope about the “danger of fundamentalism”.
    At the time there was no correction of the news by the Rai channel.
    This morning RaiNews24 announced with joy that the Pope had called by phone a french “young homosexual”.The Rainews newsreader also said that “this news would be much discussed in the future”. Ten minutes later SKYITALIA news channel SkyTg24, which had never given this news,said that the Vatican had said that there has been NO call at all by the Pope to a young homosexual,unlike some “news source” had said. So RaiNews24 has cut a threefold poor figure. First: they have given a false piece of news saying that this news would be much discussed in the future and the news has been DENIED first by the Vatican and second by their main competitor channel five minutes later. Third: they have also denied their own news this time. So, what an embarassement for RaiNews24 !

  • Francis

    Faith schools = lazy parents. It is the responsibility of every Catholic parent to bring up their children in the Catholic faith, with the assistance of their local parish priest. It is NOT the responsibility of the state or general taxpayer to help them achieve that end. Faith schools should be entirely self-sufficent.

    • Nicolas Bellord

      Francis: I am puzzled by your comment. Of course it is the parents who should decide how their children should be educated and the parents are the first educators. However the state in the interests of giving everyone a fair opportunity for schooling taxes us all, including Catholics, and therefore Catholics are entitled to look to the state to provide education for them and to claim that that education is in a Catholic context. I do not know where you live but in England there are varying versions of our history. There is the Protestant view and the Catholic view. In the past the Protestant view has been exclusively taught in non-Catholic schools. Catholic parents are entitled to have their children taught a different view. There are other aspects including ethos.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>