“A Catholic faith school can say to their pupils: ‘We believe as a religion contraception is wrong.’ But what they can’t do is therefore say that they are not going to teach contraception to children, how to access contraception, or how to use contraception. What this changes is that for the first time these schools cannot just ignore these issues or teach only one side of the argument.
“They also have to teach that there are different views on homosexuality. They cannot teach homophobia. They must explain civil partnerships. They must give a balanced view on abortion. They must give both sides of the argument. They must explain how to access an abortion. The same is true on contraception as well.”
He added: “To have the support of the Catholic Church and Archbishop Nichol [sic] in these changes is, I think, very, very important, is a huge step forward…Fr Tim Finigan, a parish priest and blogger in Blackfen, Kent, said: ‘Catholic schools cannot give information about how to access the local abortion clinic since this would be formal co-operation in a grave evil.’”
Click here to read the entire article
Tags: archbishop vincent nichols, catholic schools, civil partnerships, contraception, government, sex education
-
I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, but after Catholic Emancipation, were not Catholic Schools funded (including the building of them) independently of government assistance?
Did not the catholics in the population hold dances, fairs, tombola stalls and what ever in order to raise the funds necessary to service the loans with which the schools were built? Also to pay the salaries of staff who taught in those schools?
They were the days when catholics valued the faith, and would go to great lengths to see that resources were available to ensure the continuation and spread of the faith.
While today’s “catholic” schools are receiving state funding they are beholden to their paymasters. Is it really out of the question for them to become independent?
At the same time, does anyone know whether Islamic Faith Schools will also be required to teach their girl pupils where to obtain abortions and if so, how the requirement will be enforced?
-
As I have written before, a Catholic teacher who promotes these evils in any way, commits a grave sin and cuts themselves off the Church.
If any headteacher is unhappy about the law, his reply should be ‘get stuffed’ (or something a bit more pleasant).
If not, they have denied Christ for the sake of a job. Therefore our Lord will be ashamed of them before His Father and His Angels. ‘Depart from me you acursed…’. That is how serious the matter is.
Also, I’m fed up with the government saying that their view on anything is balanced. No it is not. They support the murder of human people. That is not neutral.
-
Here is the relevant section of the proposed Children, Schools and Families Bill –
Section 11
(4) Before section 86 of Education Act 2002 there is inserted—
“85B
Personal, social, health and economic education
(1)
For the purposes of this Part, personal, social, health and economic
education (“PSHE”) shall comprise—
(a) education about alcohol, tobacco and other drugs,(b) education about emotional health and well-being,
(c) sex and relationships education,
(d) education about nutrition and physical activity,
(e) education about personal finance,
(f) education about individual safety, and
(g) careers, business and economic education.
(4)It is the duty of the governing body and head teacher of any school in
which PSHE is provided in pursuance of this Part to secure that the
principles set out in subsections (5) to (7) are complied with.(5)The first principle is that information presented in the course of
providing PSHE should be accurate and balanced.(6)The second principle is that PSHE should be taught in a way that—
(a)is appropriate to the ages of the pupils concerned and to their
religious and cultural backgrounds, and also(b)reflects a reasonable range of religious, cultural and other
perspectives.(7) The third principle is that PSHE should be taught in a way that—
(a) endeavours to promote equality,
(b)encourages acceptance of diversity, and
(c)emphasises the importance of both rights and responsibilities.(8)Subsections (4) to (7) are not to be read as preventing the governing
body or head teacher of a school within subsection (9) from causing or
allowing PSHE to be taught in a way that reflects the school’s religious
character.(9)A school is within this subsection if it is designated as a school having
a religious character by an order made by the Secretary of State under
section 69(3) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.(10)In the exercise of their functions under this Part so far as relating to
PSHE, a local authority, governing body or head teacher shall have
regard to any guidance issued from time to time by the Secretary of
State.”http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/036/10036.i-iii.html
-
The Catholic Herald article is a shoddy piece of journalism – based on rehashing Holy Smoke blogs – simply cobbling together bits of quotations.
Fr Finigan’s comment is absurd. ‘Catholic schools cannot give information about how to access the local abortion clinic since this would be formal co-operation in a grave evil.’” Where is the provision in the proposed Bill for any school to give pupils the address and telephone number of the “local abortion clinic”? (Anyway any child can Google “Abortion” and will find all the local addresses she needs.)
The first thing to note about this Bill is that it will not apply to Scotland as education is a devolved matter.
Subsections (8) and (9) are the brave attempts of the Catholic Education Service to protect Catholic Schools from being required to act contrary to the teaching of the Church.
I say brave attempt because subsections (8) and (9) will, in my view, be ineffective in their aim as long as subsection (10) allows Ed Balls and his heirs and successors to issue guidance to schools about Sex education in schools.
Note (10) says:
“……………..a local authority, governing body or head teacher shall have
regard to any guidance issued from time to time by the Secretary of
State.”That term “shall have regard to” means that Headteachers must follow the Secretary of State’s guidelines – there is no discretion here. The “shall” is a “must”.
I am therefore not surprised that Mr Balls is confident that the amendments will not subvert the government’s intention: the Catholic Education Service have left subsection (10) unaltered and not subject to the amendment of subsection (8) and (9).
-
“3. And first, as regards family life, it is of the highest importance that the offspring of Christian marriages should be thoroughly instructed in the precepts of religion; and that the various studies by which youth is fitted for the world should be joined with that of religion.
To divorce these is to wish that youth should be neutral as regards its duties to God; a system of education in itself fallacious, and particularly fatal in tender years, for it opens the door to atheism, and closes it on religion.
Christian parents must, therefore, be careful that their children receive religious instruction as soon as they are capable of understanding it; and that nothing may, in the schools they attend, blemish their faith or their morals.
Both the Divine and the natural law impose this duty on them, nor can parents on any ground whatever be freed from this obligation.”
NOBILISSIMA
GALLORUM GENS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON THE RELIGIOUS QUESTION IN FRANCEGiven at Rome, at St. Peter’s the 8th day of February, 1884, in the sixth year of Our Pontificate.
-
“23. Again it is the inalienable right as well as the indispensable duty of the Church, to watch over the entire education of her children, in all institutions, public or private, not merely in regard to the religious instruction there given, but in regard to every other branch of learning and every regulation in so far as religion and morality are concerned.[15]
24. Nor should the exercise of this right be considered undue interference, but rather maternal care on the part of the Church in protecting her children from the grave danger of all kinds of doctrinal and moral evil. Moreover this watchfulness of the Church not merely can create no real inconvenience, but must on the contrary confer valuable assistance in the right ordering and well-being of families and of civil society; for it keeps far away from youth the moral poison which at that inexperienced and changeable age more easily penetrates the mind and more rapidly spreads its baneful effects.
For it is true, as Leo XIII has wisely pointed out, that without proper religious and moral instruction “every form of intellectual culture will be injurious; for young people not accustomed to respect God, will be unable to bear the restraint of a virtuous life, and never having learned to deny themselves anything. they will easily be incited to disturb the public order.”[16]
DIVINI ILLIUS MAGISTRI
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI
ON CHRISTIAN EDUCATION
TO THE PATRIARCHS, PRIMATES, ARCHBISHOPS,
BISHOPS, AND OTHER ORDINARIES IN PEACE AND COMMUNION
WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE AND TO ALL THE FAITHFUL OF THE CATHOLIC WORLDGiven at Rome, at St. Peter’s, the thirty-first day of December, in the year 1929, the eighth of Our Pontificate.
(well worth reading)
-
Piece by legislative piece, Satan paints the Church into a smaller and smaller corner…
-
Tomas,
It’s not the Devil who is passing this legislation but politicians who are trying to please the people and win their votes.
We have recently seen in Spain a great liberalisation of their Abortion laws:
http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=12245
as well as “Gay Marriage” — it seems shocking to me that Catholic Spain should be doing such things. (Where is Opus Dei – has she gone off on holiday?)
Perhaps it’s harder for someone living here in the UK truly to see the cumulative effect of the legislation over the last ten years here in the UK but England is again becoming an unfriendly place for Catholics.
-
Concerning the liberalisation of the abortion laws in Spain, I read that the Spanish ‘obispos’ will not take action against King Juan Carlos if he signs it into law. More bishops who are failing to do their duty before God.
Even if no ‘offical’ action is taking, such assent to the law would see him cut off from the Church anyway.
-
Benet
I disagree: the origin of this legislation, as of all atheistic socialism, is satanic. Who is it, do you suppose, that wants to make England “an unfriendly place for Catholics”?
-
Tomas de Torkay, I agree with you about the origin of this legislation.
I wonder if Catholic Schools in today’s climate would consider including matters as modesty, chastity and purity as part of sex education. It seems that the fascination of sexual encounters these topics are completely ignored.
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=35331If in the legislation that this Government are pushing through parliament includes sex education for children as young as five years of age, makes me wonder if in the first place it is appropriate. Is it a matter of sexuallising young children and depriving them of their innocence?
In any case, are the Roman Catholic Hierarchy shouting from the roof tops about Catholic teaching in such matters? If not, why not?
-
The English & Welsh Hierarchy did not give any support to their own brother, Bishop Patrick O’ Donoghue, Bishop of Lancaster, when in 2007/8 he published “Fit for Mission? – School”, part of a series which Rome highly commended.
Having deserted their own brother bishop when he stood steadfast for and detailed the Catholic School and what it should be, do you think they would really stand up to the government?
Drunken alcoholics stand up better!
-
It makes perfect sense to give school pupils plenty of knowledge about sex, safe sex, contraception and so-on. What are the results of keeping school-kids in the dark? More pregnancies, more STDs, etc etc. The statistics are there to support the introduction of good sex education in schools. The ostrich approach has been tried, and has failed.
-
To understand the Fit for Mission series this article, by its author,may be helpful:
“However, the reality of the Council was very different.
In November 1962, after heated debate about the sources of Revelation, the pre-prepared schema De Fontibus Revelationis was rejected by the Council Fathers, later to be replaced by the wonderful Dogmatic Constitution on Revelation, Dei Verbum.
This willingness not to be constrained by the pre-prepared schema set the precedent for a far-reaching and creative debate among the Council Fathers, lasting three years and producing a body of documents that are a Magna Carta of the Holy Spirit for the modern Church. If we truly lived by the decisions of Vatican II we would know how to balance continuity and change, ressourcement and aggiornamento.
Looking back across the years we are prone to forget, or dismiss as naïve, the sheer energy and hope of the Sixties, a decade that saw the rise of the modern world from the wreckage of the Second World War. It was the age of President John F Kennedy, the first manned space flights, the Third World’s green revolution in agriculture, the civil rights movement, and women’s rights.
The Council Fathers judged rightly that it was time for the Church to find a new language to speak the eternal truths of Faith to modern men and women. I remember the excitement when people heard the Church speaking in a way that was straightforward, biblical, personal, and pastoral.
As I wrote in Fit for Mission? Church: “It was as if we were in Galilee again during those heady days when the apostles walked with the Lord, hearing the liberating truth of His words and seeing His love, bringing miracles to all wounded by sin, sickness and doubt. And the world flocked to Him, knowing that He spoke with power and authority. And the world flocked to Rome – through the media – during the Council knowing that something wonderful was happening, Christ was speaking His words of hope and healing with authority to the peoples of our times.”
I really hope that in 2009 we all return to the documents of the Council, especially the four Constitutions, because they are our direct link to a time in the life of the Church dramatically blessed by the Holy Spirit.”
A Magna Carta of
the Holy Spirit
Bishop Patrick O’Donoghue on why Vatican II still matters
23 January 2009 -
In fact one can read “Fit for Mission – Church” here:
Here is an extract — Fit for Mission aka Enjoy Vatican II – it’s good for you..
“2.1 Are our Hearts and Minds open
to Vatican II?
I know that some, looking back at the Council, have accused the
Council Fathers of naive optimism and idealism concerning ‘the
world, the flesh and the devil’. But you just have to read through
Gaudium et Spes (GS) to see the Council Fatherswise understanding
of the anxiety and delusion in the world (GS 10), the power of sin
(GS 13) and the combat with evil (GS 37). These prove that hope
does not avoid hard truths, but sees them from the perspective of
the Risen Lord (GS 22).
Others seek to dismiss the significance of the Second Vatican
Council by saying it wasn’t a ‘dogmatic council’, compared to the
Council of Trent or Vatican I. Yes, Vatican II was different from all
previous councils in that its documents contain no dogmatic
definitions, disciplinary canons, or anathemas. However, this
criticism ignores the fact that the Council sought to achieve
something unique and irreplaceable in the history of councils – ‘to
show the strength and beauty of the doctrine of the faith.’ (Pope
John Paul II, Fidei Depositum).
Finally, there is a tiny minority who remain distressed by the
Second Vatican Council, as Yves Congar puts it, ‘a sincere and
faithful body of Catholics…attached to one form or another of the
tradition of the Church’ such as the Mass of St Pius V and the
catechism of the Council of Trent. However, I believe that though
these are sacred and valuable expressions of Catholic tradition, they
cannot put the living tradition of the Church into suspended
animation!As well as cherishing all that is true and beautiful of the
past, new ways of expressing the deposit of faith must be found to
enable the Church to speak to the world of today.2.2 The Holy Spirit inspired Vatican II
I am certain that,more often than not, when people criticise or seek
to ignore the Second Vatican Council it is due to a lack of
understanding of the authority of Ecumenical Councils in the life of
the Church.snip..
In the light of this, it seems obvious to me that the decrees of Vatican II and their post-conciliar development
by the Magisterium are not to be treated as just one theological opinion among many, but must be seen as the
‘authentic interpretation of theWord of God…entrusted to the living office of the Church alone’(Dei Verbum 10).
As FrNorman Tanner explains it, the doctrinal decrees of an Ecumenical Council have an ‘absolute and timeless
quality’, which ‘cannot be changed or rejected’, though they are open to further development and clarification
‘with regard to their expression’. (Norman Tanner, The Councils of the Church: A Short History, p.5). -
Lucky,
You are kidding? We’ve had sex education by the bucket load for years and things have got steadily worse. Contraceptives don’t protect from STDs anyway, but the fact is that until young people get the RIGHT message – do what people did for centuries and wait for marriage – then the current chaos will continue.
And before you start telling us about Holland – the reason Holland’s statistics on teenage pregnancies are better than ours has nothing to do with sex education and a lot to do with the fact that parents have to take responsibility (and accommodate) teenage mums. No benefits, no council flat.
The fact is that sexual promiscuity (sex outside marriage) is unhealthy, physically and emotionally as well as spiritually and morally.
The people with their heads in the sand are those who are swallowing wholesale, the lie that young people are going to be sexually active anyway so they must be given “protection”. Those are the real ostriches.
-
Contraceptives don’t protect from STDs anyway
Latex condoms material is an impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD organisms, including the HIV virus.
Also, using condoms correctly has been shown epidemiologically to reduce infection rates significantly, although I feel that that’s merely an additional bonus on top of the primary purpose of a condom, at which they are very effective: preventing unwanted pregnancy. The best way to avoid infection from an STD is to use a condom and also to be sure that you and your partner have been regularly tested for infections.
The fact is that sexual promiscuity (sex outside marriage) is unhealthy, physically and emotionally as well as spiritually and morally.
Regarding physical and emotional health: Please cite some quality evidence to back these claims up.
Regarding spiritual health: As someone who does not believe in the existence of spirits in the first place, I can’t really respond to this claim without turning this into a debate over the basics of religion, which would be off-topic.
Regarding moral health: If informed sex outside marriage causes physical and emotional harm, then it is immoral; if it does not cause harm, then it is not immoral. Therefore, this issue of morality is closely tied with your physical and emotional health claims, for which I don’t think you have any good evidence.
The people with their heads in the sand are those who are swallowing wholesale, the lie that young people are going to be sexually active anyway so they must be given “protection”. Those are the real ostriches.
It has been demonstrated conclusively that abstinence-only sex education is extremely ineffectual. For example, this study of four seperate such programs in the US showed that not one of them had any more effect on reducing STDs or teen pregnancy than doing nothing at all.
Abstinence-only programs are a waste of precious resources and effort.
-
DSimon
As a taxpayer I have the right to health care, education, social welfare support and what ever else my tax contributes to in Government.
I HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF CHOICE. Taking this away from me is dictatorship.
Within my freedom of choice I believe in God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
If my belief and faith requires that I try to follow, and practice, what God reveals to me, that is my choice. You have no right whatever to remove that opportunity from me or my loved ones by setting in place teachings and practices in Faith schools which contrary to my beliefs. My taxes pay for my schools; no-one needs to go to them – people choose to go. Generally, they have a success percentage of 10 -15 better success than non faith schools – see UK government statistics for the last 10 years for the clear evidence of this.
You, nor anyone else has the right to take this treasure away from me.
To answer directly but one of your inaccurate statements:-
Condoms were given out in Africa en-mass to try and stop the spread of aids 20 years ago. The result: the spread of Aids in Africa has grown ever since because this action encourages people in false security and gave them a confidence to continue in sexual activity when only abstinence should have been practiced/preached.
The way of God is the one true way.
-
Well said, Scotus Priest.
DSimon,
As ever I’m having to hurry, so I hope the following answers some, at least of your points above.
Here’s some research on the emotional health side of things…
“Teenagers of both genders who are sexually active are substantially less likely to be happy and more likely to be depressed than are teenagers who are not sexually active.
Teenagers of both genders who are sexually active are substantially more likely to attempt suicide than are teenagers who are not sexually active.”
http://www.heritage.org/research/abstinence/cda0304.cfmCondom unreliability
http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/CondomRatingsNotReliable.htmA previous post of mine on the ‘Condom Con’ thread:
editor on March 25, 2009 at 12:04 am
“I received the following email today from an agnostic, Paul…
PAUL’S EMAIL…
About five years ago I read that a US naval reasearch department, using an electron scanning microscope, proved that the tiny AIDs virus can penetrate the porous latex material that condoms are made of.
If I remember correctly, even the very best quality condoms could only give the user ‘about’ 85% protection from the tiny AIDs virus.
This means that there are 15 chances (or more)out of a 100 that the AIDS virus will penetrate the condom’s latex material – lethal odds!
So lets have three very loud cheers for Pope Benedict for telling the truth and lets place a large condom on the heads of all those bottom of the class – dunce journalists.
SEE: http://www.williamgairdner.com/condomania/Regards, Paul (Agnostic)
PS. Please make this information widely available to all.Previous thread on ‘the Condom Con’…
http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/?p=884And finally, for now…
Guess who agrees with the Pope about condoms? http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92702
Hope this will do for starters, DSimon!
-
DSimon wrote: – “It has been demonstrated conclusively that abstinence-only sex education is extremely ineffectual.”
You just know that the father of all lies is behind this — SATAN.
Abstinence works 100% of the time!
The Godless always propose that abstinence does not work. Well, I’ve got news for them, it works 100% of the time. What they really mean is that, it is THEY, who were not able to abstain from sex until married. They want to judge everyone based on their miserable godless lives.
And the godless only pick out the studies that show that abstinence does not work. They conveniently omit the multitude of studies that have found that ABSTINENCE DEFINITELY DOES WORK.
Of course the Godless and those such as Planned Parenthood would love for everyone to think that abstinence does not work. How else would they make any money? PP also gets their orders from Satan- himself.
-
You can’t receive a sexually transmitted disease if you abstain from sex (unless you’re raped)…therefore 100% efficacy. However that is too much of a sacrifice for our intemperate world.
-
http://www.lifenews.com/nat3919.html
Only Abstinence Education Offers 100 Percent Guarantee for Safe Sex
It’s been discovered. Nobody thought having “safe sex” was possible in every case. Each year 2.6 million teenagers become sexually active—a rate of 7000/day. With high school, nearly half report having engaged in sexual activity and 1/3 are currently active (Kim/Rector//Heritage Foundation).
As it turns out, teen sexual activity is extremely costly for teens and for society as a whole. From 1985-1990 alone, the federal government spent $120 billion on teenage childbearing.
Teens who engage in sexual activity risk all kinds of costly and detrimental outcomes not limited to STD infections, emotional and psychological harm, lower educational attainment, and unmarried childbearing. All of these have direct impact on Medicare, Medicaid, government spending—-and the budget.
It is known that STDs (Sexually Transmitted Diseases) infect — about 12 million Americans per year, with 65,000 plagued with an incurable form (CDC). STDs are a direct cause of infertility in both men and women .
Nearly half of all pregnancies as well as 1 million teen pregnancies (95%) are unintended (CDC), and there are approximately 40,000 new HIV infections per year. An estimated 1.3 million babies die every year through abortion, and 84% of all US abortions are performed on unmarried women (US Dept of Commerce; GPO/1998). Teens who have babies out of wedlock are more likely to end up at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. All of these numbers have huge economic implications for the country.
But society has found something that works 100% of the time. They found something on which you can completely depend—much better than condoms which may work part of the time. And that’s if you use them right.
The answer is easy, even though many don’t want to hear it— “abstinence until marriage”. It breaks the unwritten rule of sex on demand. It clearly illuminates the slavery to our desires so many of us face. And it emblazons the oft repeated saying, “Why buy the cow, if the milk is free?”
Self-control is like an immune system. People who abhor sexual-control think they are breaking free, but in reality are breaking down. Control yourself and you will not be repressed—you will be free.
Our children are not animals incapable of controlling themselves and “will do it anyway”. Yet “comprehensive” sex-ed teaches them that they’re just that.But recently, a new study by the research firm Mathematica found that in the five programs that they studied, abstinence-instructed kids showed no statistical change in sexual behavior.
But what was actually learned was this study looked at only five programs out of more than 900 in place. It was also determined this program targeted children 9 to 11 who were not evaluated until four years later. Abstinence Education: Assessing the Evidence (Kim/ Rector) found 16 of the 21 studies completed so far reported positive results, while 5 studies did not report any significant positive results.
Zogby (5/8/07) found that 83% of parents think it is important for their child to wait until marriage to have sex. The Journal of Adolescent and Family Health concluded that a 66% decrease in teen pregnancy was due to teens choosing abstinence. The CDC showed a 53% decrease. But abstinence programs federally funded over the last 11 years still have many critics.
But several dozen Congressional abortion advocates have signed a letter to the House Appropriations Committee asking to cut all funds for abstinence education (Ertelt/LifeNews). According to the CDC, there has been a 13% decrease in the % of teens who have ever had sex between 1991 and 2005. Some 17 states have rejected this funding.
It’s interesting to note that our government has spent $12 on the comprehensive sex-ed/Planned Parenthood approach for every $1 spent on true abstinence projects. PP would love to zero-fund its competitors, especially since abstinent kids don’t spend any time in their clinics.
As parents, our offspring are worth everything. We want to keep them from developing STDs, AIDS, HIV, going through abortions, lower educational development, slavery, you name it. We have “abstinence until marriage” which guarantees freedom from the above. And we know simple abstinence education gives significantly better chances from those pitfalls.
Now what would make a parent shy away from 100% chance of surviving an experience with some of the worst occurrences that exist?
-
Here’s a petition to the bishops that folks might like to sign:
http://www.petitiononline.com/cs001/petition.html -
Clare – That is a very important petition! Thank you.
-
I don’t know if it has been mentioned on here before but I read in a newspaper’s columnist article that sex education was first introduced in schools in 1919 by Hungarian communists in order to wipe out traditional Christian morality. I believe we have the same aim here.
Also, it was with great sadness that I saw a clip of a woman’s video blog who is undergoing an abortion. She describes in detail how this child is being murdered without the slightess feeling of regret. At first I was angry but it soon turned to sadness and upset.
This is what our ‘neutral’ schools are trying to teach. Even if we are all ‘required’ to teach their doctrine (just like Catholic adoption agencies will ‘have to’), we should simply ignore them What can they do to us? Throw us in prison, they did that to the Apostles, throw wild accusations at us, they did that to our Lord, deny us jobs, the secular forces have been doing that since the beginning. Kill us? Why, that’s the quickest way to Heaven. -
N O T I C E . . .
I think this is the obvious thread to post a short report on the Parents’ Support Group meeting held on Saturday in the Woodside Halls, Glasgow.
Catholic Truth hosted the meeting, but it was really organised and (beautifully) presented by some of our parent readers. They have now established an independent Parents’ Group which, we hope and pray, will support those good parents trying to raise their children as Catholics despite, sadly, Catholic schools.
Around 20 attended – including a young married couple expecting their first baby! – which made it a very cosy group where everyone felt able to ask questions. Parents who already home-school spoke of their journey towards their decision and others who are thinking of doing so listened attentively; questions and answers were interesting and a table set with various home-schooling programmes and resources, proved to be a magnet.
One home-schooling parent had a mixed experience, so she shared her thoughts: homeschooling her son was successful, not so much for her daughter. Another mother of 12, with experience of home-schooling in the USA, urged the newly formed group to seek government funding. Homeschooling is much more common in America and it is funded by the government, she told us. Parental experiences of contact with their child’s school(s), was very interesting. One mother said she felt that she got into a battle every time she visited the school. It was clear that raising children with Catholic beliefs and values is no easy task when the parents’ have to contradict and correct what their children are learning or imbibing at school. It was made clear that, for parents who are unable to opt for home-schooling, this kind of battle is inevitable if children are to be protected.
Two home-schooled pupils addressed the group – at a moment’s notice. One 13 year old girl who has just completed her first year of home-schooling said she felt she was learning much more than she did at primary since the one-to-one contact with a teaching adult suits her and she has thrived, achieving excellent academic results. The other girl (18 ) said her experience had been good but she had grown into it. She hadn’t been so keen in the early years (I was a bit distracted with chasing toddlers at this stage so if I’ve remembered any of this wrongly, please correct me, O ye others who attended!)
There was a lengthy social break for tea/coffee, sandwiches and biscuits, (juice, sweets and fruit for the children) which, I think, everyone enjoyed.
Two parents (two separate families) had travelled from Aberdeen, some who attended came from Paisley Diocese, others from Glasgow, one from the Diocese of Dunkeld and one from the Diocese of Motherwell. The general consensus was that the day had been most fruitful. A couple of teachers explained the difficulties for teachers trying to impart orthodox teaching these days and some examples were given of the dire state of Catholic schools in Scotland at the present time.
There will be regular meetings of the Parents Group, with offspring in attendance, on Friday mornings at 10.30 am, so if anyone is interested in attending, telephone Margaret on 07508 870 618.
Thanks to all who helped organise this meeting. It was wonderful to listen to young parents so concerned to educate their children properly in everything, especially the Faith. It was, without doubt, a landmark meeting and we are confident that great things – and many graces – will spring from it.
END OF REPORTClare, many thanks for posting that link to the online petition to the English Bishops – what a terrific idea. I’ve just signed and copied the following two comments, which underline our parents’ fears, expressed at the meeting on Saturday, as reported above:
(1) Sacred Heart High School in Hammersmith taught the girls in my daughters’ PSHE class to put a condom on a life-size model of a penis. How is this compatible with Catholic doctrine? Please look into the provision of sexuality education that actively supports Catholic teaching, such as TeenStar. If you fail in this duty, what kind of shepherds are you?
Editor: unfortunately, Teenstar is not to be recommended either. How’s about teaching God’s law on marriage and family life? It’s beautiful, it’s simple and it leaves nobody in any doubt that sex is a gift from God to be used solely in marriage.(2) This bill is like asking Jewish schools to teach that eating pork is not sinful and then adding insult to injury by asking them to provide students with a list of shops where they can buy pork. It is humiliating and despicable and must be stopped.
As a couple of other signatories wrote: has it come to this, that we need to petition the Bishops to teach the Faith! Shocking.
One of the parents who attended the meeting on Saturday, has set up a petition for government funding for homeschooling.
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/homeed/petition.html -
Stuart
Yes, sex education is high atop the list of priorities when communists take over a free, civilized country, whose freedom was presumably based on Judeo-Christian morality.
-
“Homeschooling is much more common in America and it is funded by the government, she told us.”
Editor- As you are aware, I’m in America and I have NEVER heard this before in regards to government funding for homeschooling.– I’m glad your homeschooling Support Group symposium was a success.
-
“Yes, sex education is high atop the list of priorities when communists take over a free, civilized country, whose freedom was presumably based on Judeo-Christian morality”.
Oh, TdT, you’re really having a lend, now, aren’t you? It’s the fault of the Communists! Hahahahahaha!
Editor: well, Lucky, just whose fault do YOU think it is, that we have rocketing STD infection rates and more teenage pregnancies than anywhere else in Europe. Obviously not the Pope’s! -
Editor – you disappoint me. You cite the Heritage Foundation – as far right-wing a ‘think thank’ as you’d ever hope to get; an organisation that forces the facts to fit with its insane ideology. Secondly, you cite the Illinois Right-to-Life Association, who, we might presume, already has an anti-abortion, anti sexual activity agenda? Please, cite some references I can rely on. If you want to trot out some ‘evidence’ that sex outside of marriage is harmful, you’ll need to do a lot better than consult a bunch of right-wing conservative loonies.
The fact remains that good education in sex and sexuality by qualified teachers results in less teenage pregnancy and less STD infection.
Editor: I know that any sources which don’t cite the “evidence” you want, will be mocked by you. Their data is sound, however, whether or not you like it. After all, you (I imagine) will accept wholesale the data on climate change from the University of East Anglia! As for your final sentence – if the qualified teachers preaching sex education in recent years are so good, why do we have the highest teen pregnancy rate in Europe and rocketing STDs?
-
L**cky
If you are interested in facts, rather than ignorant cliches, I suggest you do a little research on The Frankfurt School and their promotion of sex education. Here is an article to start you off:
http://catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_882.shtml
though I’m sure you will scoff at it with your customary arrogance, since it appears on a Catholic website.
-
The concession won by the CES was that they would be able to teach sex according to the catholic ethos. But they were required also to be non-judgemental and claim their view was the only one. They have to give the pupils advice on contraception and where to obtain contraceptives. They were not to be judgemental on abortion that their view was the only one. This was the agreement Ed Balls made with the Catholic Education Service. This was the view he expressed on the Today programme on 23 February. Despite this any concession was bitterly resented and BBC News 24 spent the day inviting people to comment who were against the Ed Balls concession refusing to believe the Catholic Church would have given in so easily. There was no speaker from Faith schools allowed to give their view. It was unbalanced and biased and I spent the day complaining about this. I have no objection to homosexuality being taught, to contraception being taught, but there are good reasons to support neither and all I was asking was the right for faith schools to tell the truth to pupils – something very new indeed even in present catholic schools. Were we to start talking about these issues objectively the young people would see why the Church is so right about sex before marriage. On a Sunday morning programme The Big Questions the Catholic Education Service joined the debate. All they had to say was that their approach in schools had been approved by Government officials, indeed praised. The gentleman representing them spoke about relationships but not marriage which is surely what sex is all about from a catholic perspective. He was passive, he was useless, but he had the support of Archbishop Nichols. Benet to do kid yourself. This government cannot yet close faith schools but what they are doing is throwing as much red tape at the Churches to make it awkward for them to function.
-
There’s quite a debate going on in the comment section of Fr Raymond Blake’s blog about the Petition to the Bishops of England & Wales on the School
http://marymagdalen.blogspot.com/2010/02/why-i-will-not-sign-this-petition.html
The text of the Petition is:
“To: Bishops of England and Wales
We, the undersigned, call upon the Bishops of England and Wales and the Catholic Education Service (CES)
to fulfil their duty as guardians of our Catholic Faith and unequivocally reject recent Government measures forcing Catholic schools to teach what is explicitly condemned by the Church, viz: presenting active homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle, and providing information on the nature – and provision – of contraception and abortion services. Compliance on the part of the Bishops and the CES in such measures would effectively render our schools no longer Catholic in any meaningful sense, and would place the faith and moral life of our children in jeopardy. As Catholic parents, teachers and pastors, we earnestly beg of you, our Shepherds in Christ, that you do not allow this to happen.”
and it can be found here:
http://www.petitiononline.com/cs001/petition-sign.html
to date 829 have signed it.
-
Another blogger priest, Father John Boyle disagrees with Fr Blake and cites Canon Law to help his argument:
http://caritasveritas.blogspot.com/2010/03/it-is-not-disloyal-to-sign-this.html –
All a fuss about nothing ?
-
Benet,
Clare posted that petition link as well but thanks anyway. Does no harm to remind everyone.
There’s another petition link, which I have now added to the report on the parents/homeschooling meeting, see notice above, so I hope you will all sign that as well.
-
Dsimons the latest study from the United States carried out by a Government agency showed that of two groups one using contraception and the other not using contraception of the non-contraceptive group there was one-third less pregnancies. You did not iknow this. Of course you did not only anti life views are published widely for the likes of yourself.
-
May I also ask if you know why Aids fell in Uganda and why it never reached epidemic proportions in the Philippines. Of course you know nothing of this since you approach contraception as an ideology not as something good or bad.
-
I don’t know why we keep trying to gain concessions. We should just stand up and say we refuse to do anything that they want us to teach. As I have said previously on this thread, there is nothing they can do to us that has not been done to Christians before. Our obedience to God is our first duty.
The problem with the Second Vatican Council was that it opened the Church up to the world, to other faiths, and none, which resulted in a loss of a distintive Catholic identity. This then leads to a belief that anything is up for grabs. It’s not. As soon as we attempt to enter into a dialogue with the world, we end up losing. We proclaim Truth, and any diminuation of that Truth is error. -
Jkearney,
Do you have a link to a source for the US study you mention?
Thanks.
-
Stuart,
I think one problem may be that Catholic schools do not have many faithful Catholic teachers.
-
Benet – thank you for posting the link to the Magdalen site run by Fr Ray Blake: I visited this site a few minutes ago and read the following statement from him, with utter disbelief. Here’s why he cannot sign the petition against the bishops supporting the Government sex education programme:
“As a priest I cannot sign, because it implies criticism of the Bishops who reign by the God’s Grace, who stand in the place of Christ as Apostles. It is by them the sheep and lambs are fed, it is through them that the Catholic faith is passed on. I cannot believe they will give stones instead of bread, scorpions instead of an eggs, a serpents instead of a fish.”
That a Catholic priest should be so totally ignorant of our DUTY to criticise/correct the bishops as they co-operate with the Government in corrupting children, is just too incredible for words. And that he cannot believe what we have been witnessing now for decades (that the bishops would give us stones instead of bread etc) just makes the mind boggle.
Is he being serious?
-
Nestorius was the a patriarch. Should we not have criticised him? Photius? Sergius?
Arius was a priest, so was Luther, should we have refrained from criticising because they were ordained? -
Well, at least we can be sure of one thing, that Fr Ray Blake is not a parent or he’d know that you fight tooth and nail to protect your children, no matter who it is causing them harm.
It’s that kind of mentality that has led to the child abuse cases in America and Ireland being swept under the carpet. I am disgusted that this priest or any priest is so ignorant that he thinks deferring to bishops is more important than child safety. Bottom line is we should all either refuse to use Catholic schools or keep complaining so we are the proverbial thorn in the flesh.
-
Our Lady of Fatima prophecied that many of the Bishops would lead the flock to hell (or words to that effect)Was she lying? I dont think so. The bishop I know is certainly leading the fock to the Luther fold.
Lets pray the rosary for him before its too late.! -
Sorry its late. I meant flock.
-
I think the quote from Father Blake is called in the trade laying it on with a trowel:
“As a priest I cannot sign, because it implies criticism of the Bishops who reign by the God’s Grace, who stand in the place of Christ as Apostles. It is by them the sheep and lambs are fed, it is through them that the Catholic faith is passed on. I cannot believe they will give stones instead of bread, scorpions instead of an eggs, a serpents instead of a fish.”
He writes a blog, that sparks 101 comments, and further blogs on Fr Boyle’s site, about why he will not sign the petition.
I am sure his intention was to get people going about this matter – and he has. Well done I say.
-
As I mentioned in my earlier comment
http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/?p=3890#comment-24816
I do not think the CES amendment is good or will be effective. The petition as it is worded is vague and does not set out what the petitioners think the Bishops need to do.
-
Working backwards chronologically through comments that seem to be directed at me:
Jkearney: I second Benet’s request that you provide a link to this study you mention, as well as to your source of data on Uganda. It’s basic etiquette to provide a link whenever you cite a source or reference evidence on the Internet.
Miles Cristi Sum’s 2nd comment: And speaking of Internet etiquette, copying and pasting entire articles into comments is also generally frowned up. This isn’t my site, so of course it’s up to the moderators if you’re permitted to do this… but it it were my site, I’d be deleting your comment and asking you to repost it with just a link and your commentary explaining its relevance.
Assuming your it was directed at me (I don’t know, since you didn’t say), the single part of your info-dump relevant to what I was saying appears to be a study rebutting the Mathematica study I cited. If you want to bring that rebuttal study into the conversation, please link it directly. That way, everybody can easily follow along with discussion of that study, rather than everybody (including me!) having to redo the work you did of digging it up.
Miles Cristi Sum’s 1st comment:
Abstinence works 100% of the time!
I never claimed it didn’t, and I object to this obvious attempt at strawmanning my argument! I’m challenging the effectiveness of abstinence-only education, not abstinence itself. I don’t think the evidence shows that telling teenagers to be abstinent works.
And the godless only pick out the studies that show that abstinence does not work. They conveniently omit the multitude of studies that have found that ABSTINENCE DEFINITELY DOES WORK.
I feel like a broken record here, but here it is again: If you want me or anybody to look at a study, please link it! The Internet makes it incredibly easy to show other people where you’re getting your information from. Add a link and let your audience see your sources for themselves with but a single click.
They want to judge everyone based on their miserable godless lives.
This is just plain rude. Is it your intention to insult me? If so, why should I bother continuing to converse with you?
Scotus Priest:
I HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF CHOICE. Taking this away from me is dictatorship.
I’d prefer to keep the conversation focused on what the factual effects of abstinence-only education and contraceptive use and such are, rather than political issues such as who has responsibility for determining basic educational requirements.
Political choices need to be informed by the facts, so let’s get that in order first.
Condoms were given out in Africa en-mass to try and stop the spread of aids 20 years ago. The result: the spread of Aids in Africa has grown ever since because this action encourages people in false security and gave them a confidence to continue in sexual activity when only abstinence should have been practiced/preached.
One last time for the road: Please link studies if you want your audience to look at them.
[ I will respond to editor's comment shortly, it'll take me a little time to carefully look through the information she linked.
] -
Louise, I agree with you about praying for that priest and the bishops.
Benet, I don’t believe that Fr Ray Blake is trying to work people up, if you mean to sign the petition, because most people will take him at face value and lots won’t sign because of him. Anyway, it means he is lying if he says what you and editor have quoted, but doesn’t really mean it.
-
Benet, I forgot to say that I’ve read your comment about the journalists getting it wrong on this but if you heard Ed Balls on the Today programme, he made it clear that Catholic schools were being expected to teach supportively about civil partnerships etc. It is neither here nor there whether or not a child can google “abortion” and get the address of a clinic. You can google “mosques” and get the address of the nearest mosque but you don’t want the Catholic schools taking them to the mosque (I know they do but I’m making the point, just, that it doesn’t mean Catholic schools should give information just because it is available online.)
I agree with Fr Finegan that for Catholic schools to give that kind of information out, is to formally cooperate with evil. I am surprised that you disagree with Father on this.
-
(Could a site moderator please turn on the “Preview Comment” WordPress feature? It would make it so much easier to proofread my comments, particularly when looking for HTML tag mistakes.)
Editor: I’ve not been able to work out how to do this but it is on my list of urgent things to do, so bear with me!
-
Rebel,
Yes you are right Ed Balls did actually say on the “Today” Programme that Catholic Schools would have to teach pupils how to access an abortion.
I listened to the BBC’s i-player version of the programme later so I would like to strike my comment about Fr Finigan. I was being over-legalistic demanding that the claim be on the face of the Bill.
-
DSimon- In regards to the Mathematica study that you cited, don’t you think that I understand that liberals will never include any study that proves that abstinence works? They will pick and choose.
There is only one sure way to halt the spread of STDs and cut down on teen pregnancies and that is to STOP handing out condoms completely and tell the students that they just give a false sense of security — that they are not the answer because for the past 10 years, students have had condom educations until they were coming out of their ears. IT DOES NOT WORK.
You tell the children that the only thing is abstinence until marriage. And if they want to kill themselves to pick a better way — that’s quick. Maybe standing in front of a train, or jumping off the tallest building. Tell them AIDS is a slow, miserable death. That’s it, they’ll get the message and fast. But, those exact words. You scare the heck out of them by telling them the truth. Believe me, it WILL WORK. Schools routinely teach kids not to smoke or abuse drugs, period. They do not teach them how to do it “safely.” Why use that rejected approach when it comes to sex?
NO CONDOM EDUCATION AT ALL — ONLY ABSTINENCE.
-
In reference to my above post:– It is the parents who should be teaching their children abstinence, not the schools. When I mentioned students, I was referring to those that are home schooled.
-
Editor:
Regarding emotional health and teen sexual activity:
IANAS (I Am Not A Statistician), but the Heritage study you linked seems valid in its methodology to me: it indeed indicates that emotional health is higher among non-sexually-active teenagers than sexually-active teenagers. Furthermore, it investigates and rules out the potential confounding factors of age, race, and family income.
To verify this, I found a study from the journal Pediatrics (link to reviewed WebMD summary, original study isn’t available for free unfortunately) that concludes basically the same thing. Rather than using existing data, this study directly administered regular polls, which allowed it to correct the Heritage study’s most major problem: figuring out which of the depression or the sexual activity came first.
However, there are some limitations shared between both studies:
Limitation A: Neither set of data differentiates between consensual sex between teenagers and sex between an adult and a teenager. Non-consensual sex is much more likely to be emotionally traumatic than consensual sex, so that could definitely skew the data.
Limitation B: Neither study makes any attempt to see if there’s any relationship between the student’s personal beliefs and their emotional response to having or not having sex.
Limitation C: There’s a more general problem that you run into with any study done via poll: the subject can lie about or refuse to answer any question, and there’s no way to figure out what hidden correlations that’s introducing. For example, it’s quite possible that teenagers who are having sex but not having emotional problems are more likely to refuse to answer the poll question about sex and thus be excluded from the analysis set. Is this happening? No way to tell from this data, but it seems plausible to me; sex is both a very personal and very politicized topic, so any poll respondent might very plausibly lie about it or refuse to answer about it.
However, limitation C at least is unavoidable. The only way to directly gather information on sexual activity would be 24/7 observation, which would clearly be immoral. Until limitations A and B are addressed by a new study, I provisionally conclude that the correlative link between teen sexual activity and somewhat greater chance of emotional problems is valid. This seems particularly true for girls, who in both studies experienced this correlation much more strongly than boys.
So, if we assume this correlation is valid, now there’s a new major question: what causes teenagers who are having sex to be more likely to have emotional problems? In particular, why are girls so much more affected than boys?. I have some ideas about this, but I’d like to first ask editor (and of course, anybody else who wants to respond) what they think the causes might be.
Regarding the Illinois Right to Life article on condom reliability:
The Illinois Right to Life article you linked points out that in typical use, condoms fail 15 out of 100 times under typical use per year, but 2 out of 100 times if used absolutely correctly. As far as I’m concerned, this is an argument for educating people on how to use condoms correctly, not against. Also, unfortunately the link within that article to the actual Consumer Report source is broken, so I can’t evaluate it back any further (such as, for example, to find out what precisely is meant by “typical use”).
Also, as far as I can tell their probability calculations are totally bogus: 15%-per-year failure rate does NOT imply a 100% failure rate after five years, but a 56% failure rate after five years (1.0 – 0.85^5, or in other words, unity minus the chance of no failures for five years straight). At a 2%-per-year failure rate, the 5 year failure rate would be about 10% (1.0 – 0.98^5).
Also, this is arguing against a strawman of my point, as I said earlier that condom use must be combined with regular STD testing, and that the most effective use of condoms is to prevent unwanted pregnancy.
Regarding the William Gairdner article you linked to:
The linked article compares the size of the HIV virus (0.1 microns) to the size of pores found in latex condoms (5 microns), and concludes that the virus could therefore slip easily through the pores. However, this conclusion is premature: things can work differently than intuitively expected at such a small scale, and it may not be possible for a very very small object to fall through a larger but still very very small hole, as it would be for a medium sized object to fall through a slightly larger hole.
How do we really determine if HIV can go through latex? The most obvious way is to just try putting HIV through some latex, and see if it goes through. Well, that was tried, and HIV actually cannot go through latex.
Besides this, Gairdner also has a bunch of unsourced comments from a scientist he interviewed, which I’m not going to bother responding to because the reasoning behind his conclusions is left totally unspecified. For example, statements like “[...]Roland says a closer reading of Carey’s data actually yields a 78% HIV-leakage rate[...]” are thrown out with no link or cite to Carey’s data, no explanation of how Carey read the data wrong, and not even a hint of an explanation as to why Roland’s conclusion is more correct.
Regarding the WorldNetDaily article:
The primary claim being made is that promotion of condom usage in Africa is increasing, rather than decreasing, HIV infection rates. This isn’t cited to any source; apparently WorldNetDaily expects their audience to believe any claim made by a person with letters after their name.
However, the conclusion made in that article is contradicted by the actual studies.
Here’s a specific case study: In Nairobi, prostitutes who were given health education about condoms were 3 times less likely to become HIV infected than those who had not received health education about condoms, even though their reported condom usage rates were far below 100% (both groups were given free access to condoms). This does not address the concern about whether or not condom distribution programs might increase sexual activity, since prostitutes are likely going to be as highly sexually active either way. However, it does show that even in the worst possible situation (incomplete usage of condoms among people with very high sexual activity in countries with high HIV infection prevalence) HIV infection rates can still be majorly reduced by comprehensive sexual health education that includes condom distribution and information.
Regarding that general claim that sexual education which includes condom distribution has increased HIV infection rates: This wide-ranging DCPP study disagrees.
-
(Oh wow, I had no idea my comment had gotten that long! My apologies.)
-
In regards to the Mathematica study that you cited, don’t you think that I understand that liberals will never include any study that proves that abstinence works?
Show me one of these studies that I so egregiously failed to include.
-
News just in on BBC website — from the Lords
“Church gay ceremonies ban lifted
Civil partnerships were legalised in England and Wales in 2004
Peers have voted to lift the ban on same sex couples holding civil partnership ceremonies inside churches.
The House of Lords agreed an amendment to the Equality Bill which would allow, but not compel, religious organisations to host the occasions.
Gay rights campaigners celebrated the change, but opponents said it could be impractical and undermine marriage.
Peers voted by a majority of 74 in favour of the amendment, which was not backed by the government.
It is yet to be approved by the Commons, but it is thought to be unlikely that MPs would make any significant changes.”Page last updated at 10:09 GMT, Wednesday, 3 March 2010
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8546827.stm
Editor: I’ve posted a new thread on this topic so please post all comments on the subject, on the “Lords Lift Ban….” thread. Thanks. -
This is sort of related to this topic: the new UK Human Rights Commission has determined that “Skirts in School Uniforms “Discriminate” against Transsexuals.”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/mar/10030104.html
I was tempted to email this Commission, cc’ing Archbishop Nichols, to tell them that their inverted, perverted thinking is clear evidence of satanism, and that they should avail themselves of the services of an exorcist.
-
I have been searching the internet to see if there is an article or government document stating that Sex Education is currently being taught in Catholic Primary schools in Scotland. Can anyone confirm if they know for a fact that Sex Education is being taught in Scottish Catholic Primary schools – This is for research purposes. Thanks.
-
Tomas,
Thanks for that Lifesite link – scanning the other articles led me to an article about a new Sex-Ed curriculum being introduced to schools in the Province of Ontario.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/mar/10030216.html
The Ontario Government’s document in 2.5MB and so long I was not able to find the source of the Lifesite article’s allegations. But I trust they are accurate.
-
Well Lucky,
can I put you straight on at least one thing for now. As a counsellor for a pregnancy care organisation I heard the facts about so called contraception from the poor girls and woman who trusted in so called safe-sex. Believe you me theres no such thing. At least 99% of those who were pregnant (and didn’t want to be) had used some form of contraception. They had been informed about and issued with, pills , injections, condoms etc from so called well informed doctors and agents of this myth of safe sex. The results of which have lead to broken relationships because the fathers didnt want to know, and heartbreak and health problems for girls who choose abortion. not to mention the distress of would be grandparents. need I go on? I could write a sries of essays on the subject but am sure its all been said before and the results are all around in society. -
DSimon,
you wrote a lot in that post above and I just don’t have time to digest it all right now but I will respond to this question from you:
“…what causes teenagers who are having sex to be more likely to have emotional problems? In particular, why are girls so much more affected than boys?. I have some ideas about this, but I’d like to first ask editor …”
I’m no expert, DSimon, but I’ve talked to a lot of teenagers and many of them were experts – believe me!
Two things have always stayed with me (and I appreciate that what I am saying is anecdotal but, as you admitted, I believe, yourself, this is an area of life where it is virtually impossible to get accurate and reliable statistical data.)
Firstly, of all the teenage mothers I’ve met, I’ve never met one who was happy with her situation. When asked if they wished they’d waited for marriage (and I never allowed for any other scenario) the response was always “yes”. When I took that beyond the “baby” issue, that is, asked if that reply applied to sexual activity per se, even if no baby was likely to result, the answer was the same. Never have I met a teenager who did not regret having been sexually active. Indeed, a couple of years ago, Panorama conducted interviews with pupils still at school, on the subject of sex education, and every single one of them said they didn’t get enough sex-education. When they interviewed ex-pupils, late teens and early twenties, every single one of them said they felt they had got the wrong (safe-sex) message and wished they had postponed sex.
So, my students’ replies to me (that they wish they’d waited) had nothing to do with them telling me what they thought I wanted to hear – I always began such conversations, anyway, by admitting to being “old fashioned” about these things, so – I said – speak your mind, don’t tell me what you think I want to hear…I’m just curious to know if MY ideas on this are wrong, that being sexually active so young and outside marriage really is “OK” …” No student ever told me she was glad she had been sexually active. Never. Now, I’m not claiming to have had these conversations with countless students – not at all. But where the subject arose, I found students were either concerned about pressure to become sexually active or regretted having been so.
Another teacher once told me that she’d been approached by a student who was very upset and it transpired that she had become sexually active and was now worried that she might be pregnant. She was very distressed. My colleague calmed her and asked her – to her evident surprise – if she’d “enjoyed the experience”. The girl looked surprised, as if she hadn’t really thought about this before, and then burst out crying saying “no! I didn’t!”
The teacher was highly amused at this. I felt incredibly sad about it and it is in this story, really, which has stayed with me since I first heard it over 20 years ago, that the answer to your question lies.
I think that the reason for the emotional upset in girls, especially, is because they know they have given away something utterly precious, something intended for a soul-mate, not for a casual or short-term “relationship”. That “soul-mate” thing, is very deep inside a girl’s psyche. When the beauty of the intimate relationship between a lifelong spouse in marriage is properly taught and understood, it frees girls from the pressure of having to conform to the changed mores of our permissive and promiscuous times. In previous generations, it was the street girls, the prostitutes who suffered the emotional breakdowns and physical ill health. Now every young girl in the land is at risk of the same adverse health effects. So, for what it’s worth, DSimon, that’s my gut feeling about the reason for the emotional disturbance in sexually active girls.
Boys? I can’t pretend to having had too many conversations with lads on the topic, but I did have the pleasure of teaching a totally brilliant group of teenage boys and girls in Years 10 & 11, not so long ago. The GCSE course included a unit on Christian Marriage and we had some very good discussions on the topics of sex outside marriage, contraception, condoms etc. as well as the theology of Christian marriage services.
On one occasion, after the lesson, two of the boys waited behind to ask me if I really believed all that I had said about these topics. I was not promoting the safe-sex message! I asked them what kind of girl they wanted to marry (they’d both said, as most young people do, that they would like to marry, but not necessarily the girl they’re having a sexual relationship with! Work that out!). Answer: neither lad wanted to marry a girl who had been sexually active.
So, my best guess about the boys is that they, too, recognise something unique, something very deeply meaningful about sexual intimacy that goes beyond the physical experience and I’d wager a few rosaries that the reason sexually active boys experience emotional upset is because they, too, know, deep in their souls, that they’ve “lied” with their bodies: they’ve used what used to be called “the marriage act” for a passing pleasure and passing pleasures can leave us feeling empty and unhappy.
I’m not sure if this is clear – I didn’t mean to write so much and I can just hear you saying “Well, for someone who is a self-confessed NON expert, she does go on a bit!”
-
Editor,
I agree wholeheartedly about your ideas re boys and girls recognition of loss of innocence through too early physical relationships. many of the good pro-life programmes taught in schools by e.g. LIFE include discussions on premarital abstinence and the dangers of the opposite.
Their counselling does also include helping young people to think about why they want a relationship and what qualities they look for in the boy or girl of their choice.If all the information about these matters were aimed at preparing schoolchildren to make the correct choices we would not see them co-habiting and seeking relationships before knowing all the pitfalls.
It is a fact that as soon as contraception is mentioned as an option then they begin to think it is ok indulge in early relations.Unfortunately some of these latter programmes are encouraged and so we have girls at school being given the injections etc. or seeking out morning after pills and abortions.
-
Torkay and Benet,
Two chilling Lifesitenews articles. The report on the banning of skirts to avoid discriminating against “transgender” people is nothing short of hilarious. Or would be, if it were not so serious. Crackers. The link to the Lifesitenews report on the Ontario sex-education curriculum posted by Benet, is deeply worrying. God help young people in schools today.
Louise,
It’s good to know that the pro-life groups like LIFE are giving young people information about the dangers of sexual activity, but – and please correct me if I’m wrong on this – I have been led to believe that LIFE tend to use the “non-judgemental” humanistic counselling method so don’t actually say that sex outside marriage is far from being a good thing or that it is immoral. I know they are a non-denominational group, but wouldn’t it be wonderful to establish a thoroughly Catholic pro-life group where a solid and clear message would be communicated.
I don’t buy into the myth that it is counterproductive to tell young people they shouldn’t engage in sexual activity. The popular put-down is “no use preaching at them” to which I reply: “Why not? We tell them they mustn’t steal or smoke or take drugs. So, why not, having warned them of the physical and emotional (not to mention moral) dangers of promiscuity, tell them they must not indulge in pre-marital sex? We say, after all, no ciggies – it is damaging to your lungs; no drugs – they will ruin your brain; so why not, no sex outside marriage – it will result in STDs and emotional upset – and that’s before we talk about how to get yourself into Hell in one, easy, promiscuous life!”
I know, too, Louise, how true your closing statement is. In one (Catholic) school in which I taught, the school counsellor was known to take girls to a nearby clinic to be “doctored”. Shocking.
-
As a counsellor I could not tell young people what to do (it is difficult to tell youngsters what to do at any age these days) One can speak out about the teachings of the church and tell them right from wrong in a Catholic school but one has to address the problems indirectly with non-catholics. I have to say one of the best schools I went into (going back a bit) had an Anglican school. There, the kids were well informed and only one gym-slip pregnancy in 3 years. This was well before the morning after pill though.l
I did get the chance to tell them the truth and consequences of pre-marital sex. The sixth formers already new all and more about these issues, or thought they did. I think that they were very happy to hear the alternative and could relax in knowing they were right in resisting peer pressure which is much worse nowadays.
There is a programme in the UK from the US, called Teenstar. They claim to have researched finding to prove that they do influence behaviour in teens for the good. http://www.teenstar.org
-
[...][W]hat I am saying is anecdotal but, as you admitted, I believe, yourself, this is an area of life where it is virtually impossible to get accurate and reliable statistical data.
Not quite. I said that there are major problems with gathering direct, reliably accurate data about teenagers and sexual activity; for one thing, those giant petrie dishes are really expensive! And it’s so hard to fit a teenager into a microscope slide.
However, that doesn’t mean that we’re only left with anecdote. Survey data has its problems, but it’s still far more reliable than anecdotal data, because it follows what statistical guidelines are still appropriate (such as the issue of gathering a sufficiently random and representative sample), and it helps to reduce observer and context bias.
Knowing that there’s a particular answer you want to hear will influence what anybody will say to you, no matter how much you explain that what you’re really interested in is their honest feelings.
No student ever told me she was glad she had been sexually active. Never.
Well, let me counter that with two points, one anecdotal and one not.
Anecdote: I started being sexually active at the age of 20, and I don’t regret it at all. If anything, I regret not having started a little earlier; in retrospect, I think I was mature enough for sex at around 18 or 19, but I didn’t think so at the time.
Real data: The Pediatrics study I mentioned earlier points out that, among their sample, positive effects were more common than negative effects. From that study: “Overall, the teens reported positive consequences[...]“. This doesn’t mean that concern about the negative effects is unwarranted. However, it contradicts your idea that teenagers are generally unable to be happy and emotionally healthy in non-marital sexual relationships.
Another teacher once told me that she’d been approached by a student who was very upset and it transpired that she had become sexually active and was now worried that she might be pregnant. She was very distressed. My colleague calmed her and asked her – to her evident surprise – if she’d “enjoyed the experience”.
It sounds to me like this teacher is a jerk! What an incredibly rude and insensitive question to ask at a time like that to someone in such a fragile state.
I think that the reason for the emotional upset in girls, especially, is because they know they have given away something utterly precious, something intended for a soul-mate, not for a casual or short-term “relationship”. That “soul-mate” thing, is very deep inside a girl’s psyche.
Well, this is just anecdote vs. anecdote now, but anyways: the majority of the women I know closely have had sexual relationships outside of marriage, and they don’t seem at all emotionally damaged by it. The same is true of the men.
Here is what I think lies at the real cause for why girls tend to be more emotionally upset by pre-marital sex than boys: culture tends to be much more persistent in telling them that it’s something they should be ashamed of!
Look even at the language you used in your comment, where describe how if a girl’s virginity is lost it could make her unmarriageable, and that she had given away “something precious”, with the implication that she was at fault for doing so and should be ashamed of it. Boys are simply not told these kinds of things with such frequency or intensity, and so these feelings of shame are not as intensely evoked in them!
You cannot point to how teenage boys and girls feel a certain way as evidence for those feelings being somehow intrinsic or natural; culture is very influential in determining how teenagers feel about sex, whether positively or negatively.
Let me be clear on my position: Sexual relationships, and in fact strong romantic relationships even without sex, can be very emotional and traumatizing, and a certain amount of mental maturity is required to handle them in a healthy way. Young teenagers (below the age of about 16, in my (anecdotal…) experience) are insufficiently mature to handle it.
If I had a teenage child, I’d tell them I think they should wait until they were old enough (probably at least 17) before they should even consider having sex with anyone. I’d tell them that they should definitely not do anything unless they’re absolutely positive they’re comfortable with it, that they always have the right to refuse anybody, and that anyone who tells them they “have” to do anything sexual is not their friend. I’d tell them that they definitely have to take precautions against pregnancy and STD infection if they have sex, and to be aware of the fact that having sex at all makes those things possible even with protection.
-
DSimon,
When I read editor’s post I wondered why she had bothered to write such a long explanation when all she really needed to say what “look around you”. There is no need for statistics or for anecdotes, in my view. All around us we have young people with a trail of broken relationships even before they’ve left school, half the time. That cannot possibly be healthy.
Children no longer have a childhood and young people don’t have youth, they just have one relationship after another and one thing the statistics do show is that people are no longer able to form lasting relationships or marriages.
One thing though – I’m wondering how you would tell your young person (if you had a teenage child) what steps to take to guard against an STD infection that would be 100% reliable – I’m sure you know that it would be a funny parent who would want any less than 100% protection against what can end up being a deadly infection.
-
Rebel:
[...]one thing the statistics do show is that people are no longer able to form lasting relationships or marriages.
Link, please.
I’m sure you know that it would be a funny parent who would want any less than 100% protection against what can end up being a deadly infection.
Are you saying that it would also be a funny parent who lets their teenager cross the street alone? That’s certainly not 100% safe; car crashes can be quite deadly!
-
Dsimon,
a few points:
1) I am guessing that you live in the USA (since you use some of the lingo we associate with Americans) so I can’t speak from experience of the culture in the USA because I’ve only spent a week there. But the culture here is not one of ‘conservative Christianity’ – far from it. We have had, since the 60’s, a highly permissive sexually “liberated” culture, so no teenager I’ve ever spoken to, would have the kind of reservations about speaking his or her mind that you appear to presume. The conversations I recounted above, all took place in non-denominational schools, not Catholic schools. None of my students knew I was a Catholic. That’s why – as I said above – I made a point of saying I held “old fashioned” views on this and thought marriage was the only place for sexual activity. This, in the context of explaining traditional Christian teaching on the subject. You may not have noticed, but youngsters today are not shy of saying what they think, not at all.
2) I agree with you about the teacher who asked the girl about enjoyment (also I ought to clarify that, although I described her as a “colleague” she actually taught in a different school). I think it was a completely inappropriate question to ask. I can only assume that she was trying to make the girl feel at ease and open up – but you’re right – it was wrong. It made me feel uncomfortable just hearing about it, so I’m sure the girl, on reflection, must have felt the same way. Anyway, the point that I took out of it was that the girl hadn’t really wanted to be sexually active but felt pressured into it. I only know what I recounted above, so I have no insights into that particular case, but it supports what is my own gut feeling, that young girls are feeling pressured into early sexual activity – and that is very bad.
3) We agree that a certain mental maturity, as you put it, is required and that minors (a major target of the sex education industry) are not in possession of that level of mental maturity, so that is something.
What I do wonder about, though, DSimon, is your apparent satisfaction with the current culture in the west, where promiscuity is now the norm. Are you not concerned about the demise of the family unit? About the fact that some girls have children with different fathers, and in some cases don’t even know the identity of some of the fathers?
Because to say, as the sex industry does, that the key thing is that nobody is forced into a sexual relationship and that as long as it is a “stable” (no definition ever offered) relationship, then that is OK. This mentality has proved to be disastrous in social terms, with the above scenarios now being commonplace.
As for your reply to rebel –
(a) politicians over here (not sure about the USA) are on record plenty, concerned about our “broken society” (Google will give you plenty of links, e.g. to David Cameron, leader of the opposition Conservative Party on this) which is the manifestation all around us, of the inability of people in the UK (and west in general, I’m sure) to form lasting relationships and lifelong marriages.
(b) A wee bit disingenuous, DSimon – it is possible for parents to educate their children to cross the road safely, and be 100% safe it they stick to the rules of the road. It is impossible – as any condom manufacturer will tell you – to be 100% safe against sexually transmitted diseases unless you wait for marriage and remain faithful within marriage. They’ve even had to put a notice on the condom packets to that effect for fear of litigation.
Pop stars and film stars and celebrities of every kind – as well as young people in general – who have lived promiscuous lives and been applauded for it, are taking drugs and alcohol to drive out the emptiness they feel after a life of (im)pure hedonism. It has nothing to do with thinking society or the culture disapproves – that is manifestly not the case. They are deeply unhappy and turning to drink and drugs because they know that something is not right.
As rebel rightly said, the evidence is all around us. Sexual “liberation” has not brought happiness. It has not brought peace and stability to our society – rather the reverse.
Your own admission that you regret not starting sexual activity earlier and your insistence that there are people who are happy in their (non-marital) sexual activity is not evidence that sexual activity outside marriage or in youth is healthy. Not at all.
There are people, remember, who are happy living a life of criminality. For some that is all they have ever known. Ask any prison warder. We had a “Prison Day” in one of the schools in which I taught in England, where part of the school was set up like a prison and the pupils were put through the ropes from arrival at reception until locked up in a cell… It was a very interesting day. What I will never forget though, was (voluntarily) being locked up in a very small cell and wondering why anyone would ever commit a second crime. But the officers assured me that there are people who actually want to be in there. It’s security for them. Incredible.
So, that there are people who indulge willingly and do not regret their sexual promiscuity, does not alter the fact that God did not mean us to behave in that way.
And there will be a day of reckoning, DSimon! Maybe that’s why Our Lord has sent you to us! Prepare!
Now, excuse me while I remove this sandwich board – it’s very heavy and I need to prepare myself – to go pubbing and clubbing!
-
We have had, since the 60’s, a highly permissive sexually “liberated” culture, so no teenager I’ve ever spoken to, would have the kind of reservations about speaking his or her mind that you appear to presume.
It’s not a matter of them being wary of violating cultural norms but a matter of them not wishing to disappoint or dismay the person asking them the questions, you. Being sexually liberated doesn’t imply being a jerk!
That’s why non-personal surveys generally provide more accurate results than personal surveys; there’s nobody to be disappointed by a “wrong” answer.
Are you not concerned about [...] the fact that some girls have children with different fathers, and in some cases don’t even know the identity of some of the fathers?
I am. Another way to restate this problem is that we must help people to avoid having children unless they’re sure that they are prepared to raise those children; do you agree?
I think the evidence shows that the best known way to solve this problem is to provide comprehensive sexual education and contraception.
This mentality has proved to be disastrous in social terms, with the above scenarios now being commonplace.
However, the previous solution to this problem was to enforce immediate marriage between couples who unintentionally had a child! This didn’t work very well either; couples that aren’t genuinely interested in raising the child don’t do a good job.
-
DSimon,
These same teenagers were not in the least concerned about disappointing me with their views on evolution! Nor did they hesitate to assert their doubts about the existence of God. They were almost every last one of them “pro-choice” (i.e. pro-abortion) and contraception? They told me that they were handed over “no questions asked”. So, I think you must allow for the fact that there just might be a connection between sexual activity in the young and a deep sense of wrongdoing, even if they cannot explain it as such.
Linking the failure of the sex education approach to the “alternative” of immediate marriages for those who had children out of wedlock, is to create a false dichotomy. The key is to re-educate young people about the right use of sexual activity and then deal with minority cases in whatever way is deemed appropriate. I met a mother of 4 who had a “shotgun” wedding at nineteen. She was happily married and, as I say, went on to have another three children. “Shotgun” weddings are a much better option than half a dozen children fathered by half a dozen different men.
-
I met a mother of 4 who had a “shotgun” wedding at nineteen. She was happily married and, as I say, went on to have another three children.
It’s certainly not impossible that shotgun weddings can turn out well. However, are you really implying that that’s what typically happens?
“Shotgun” weddings are a much better option than half a dozen children fathered by half a dozen different men.
Perhaps, but the best option of all is the one where children aren’t conceived in the first place unless both people are sure they want to be parents. Correct use of contraception virtually guarantees this!
If man is using a condom and the woman is using some form of chemical birth control such as an IUD or regular birth control pills, then the chances of an unintentional conception are minuscule. Furthermore, one major feature of condoms is that, in the event they do fail, it’s generally a visible failure: upon realising that a condom has slipped or ruptured, the couple can go out the next day and get emergency contraception as a safeguard against the possibility that both regular forms of contraception happened to fail simultaneously.
As a matter of practical reality, distinct from all issues as to whether or not pre-marital sex is somehow intrinsically wrong, culturally imposed abstinence cannot match that success rate. The fact that “shotgun weddings” are a commonly seen occurrence even in very sexually strict cultures indicates this.
-
What I will never forget though, was (voluntarily) being locked up in a very small cell and wondering why anyone would ever commit a second crime. But the officers assured me that there are people who actually want to be in there. It’s security for them.
I don’t think I follow this analogy. The reason some criminals prefer the safety of jail is because it genuinely is safer for them: on the outside, they may have nowhere to stay but on the street, and no steady source of food. Or, they may have enemies on the outside out for their head, whereas you couldn’t ask for a more secure place from external criminals than behind numerous armed guards.
But, what does this have to do with people being comfortable with pre-marital sex? I get that you’re saying that people can become comfortable with anything, but the same argument can be used to point out that people can become uncomfortable with anything. You insist that for people to wait until marriage for sex is somehow intrinsically expected, but you haven’t given any evidence that rules out the very plausible influence of culture.
And there will be a day of reckoning, DSimon! Maybe that’s why Our Lord has sent you to us! Prepare!
I’m not sure to whose benefit you’re saying this, since you can’t possibly expect me to get much out of statements like this.
-
DSimon, says
“If man is using a condom and the woman is using some form of chemical birth control such as an IUD or regular birth control pills, then the chances of an unintentional conception are minuscule. Furthermore, one major feature of condoms is that, in the event they do fail, it’s generally a visible failure: upon realising that a condom has slipped or ruptured, the couple can go out the next day and get emergency contraception as a safeguard against the possibility that both regular forms of contraception happened to fail simultaneously.”
This sounds so clinical, rubber and pills before, during and maybe after sexual intercourse! I just cannot believe it is the real thing. I’d better not say more or editor might delete it, but all I will say is that it is certainly not my idea of romance. It is terrible to think that a whole generation of young people are being brought up to think this performance is normal.
-
Rebel, the pills I don’t really see a problem with, since that’s well before or after sex. As for the condom, the process of putting it on can itself be made an enjoyable part of the experience, rather than a detraction from it.
-
DSimon, your posts on this thread have been entirely reasonable, moderate and informed. The replies you have been given are in general shrill, ignorant and dangerously stupid. Hats off to you for continuing. I, for one, could not be bothered facing the irrationality of some of the posters here. Unfortunately, views such as those of the Catholic Clique here permeate into society, and so many more unwanted babies get born. But it’s all grist for the mill, isn’t it? More catholics to feed the ever-growing splendour of the Vatican- a house of cards which will inevitably tumble, and rightly so. When you have an organisation that is rocked by another sex-scandal almost every day, how are its pronouncements on sexual morality to be seen as anything but utter, abject hypocrisy?
-
When you have an organisation that is rocked by another sex-scandal almost every day, how are its pronouncements on sexual morality to be seen as anything but utter, abject hypocrisy?
I don’t think it’s valid to hold an entire group responsible for the actions of some of its members. The problems with child molestation in the church are serious and systemic, but that itself isn’t an argument against the entire philosophy of the church, only against the manner in which it is ran.
Or to put it another way: just because someone (or some organization) is a hypocrite doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wrong. I think it’s better to counter ideas directly on their own merit and leave the people proposing the ideas out of the debate entirely.
The replies you have been given are in general shrill, ignorant and dangerously stupid.
I don’t really agree with this. I do think many of the ideas I’ve been hearing from posters here are dangerously broken, but from my interactions with them I don’t think the people here are stupid or shrill.
-
Dsimon,
Thank you for your generous comments and mature attitude to the criticism that the Church per se is to blame for the sins of its members.
Far-fetched as it may sound, there is very strong evidence that the Church was infiltrated by Communists in the early twentieth century
http://www.savethemales.ca/160303.html so that goes some way towards explaining the shocking disorientation in the Church at the present time. That is not to claim that all authentically ordained priests are saints – not at all. But there was a concerted, well documented effort by the Communists to destroy the Church and – humanly speaking – they have enjoyed some success.Turning briefly to my “criminal” analogy – the purpose of the analogy was not about motives. Obviously some criminals seek the security of prison, just as some young people seek the security they perceive in sexual relationships.
However, my analogy was simply intended as an illustration that being happy with early sexual activity is no argument in its favour – just as being happy in a life of crime is no argument in favour of breaking the law of the land on stealing and killing. That’s all.
Reference your remark that some of the ideas here are “dangerously broken” – that is a “premise and conclusion” statement.
We’ve talked about this before, DSimon. I would argue that your arguments are “broken” because you begin form the premise that there is no God and, therefore, you cannot reach the correct conclusion (I’m sticking here with the issue of sexual activity outside marriage – obviously, if you look at the sky and see clouds, you might rightly conclude that it’s going to rain!)
Similarly, because I DO begin from belief in God and His Law and in the authority of the Church to teach with divine mandate on matters of sexual morality (and Faith, of course) I will never reach the conclusion that condoms are acceptable.
So, “broken” or “dangerously broken” ideas will be a judgment made on the genesis of the idea. I’m sure we’ll agree on that!
And the fact is that if the Church’s teaching on sexual morality were (as it once was) the widely accepted norm, we wouldn’t have the problem of spiralling STDs, teenage pregnancies etc. That is a fact. So, far from being “dangerous” the Church’s teaching is eminently the safest route to sexual health.
-
“there is very strong evidence that the Church was infiltrated by Communists in the early twentieth century”
Oh yeah – let’s put the entire disfunction of the Catholic Church down to the Communists, Editor. Are we grasping at straws, here?
Editor: read the link I provided from the former Communist, and you tell me.
“So, far from being “dangerous” the Church’s teaching is eminently the safest route to sexual health.”
Tell that to the mother in Brasilia who has a prolapsed womb from having eight children, four of whom are now dead because she turned them out on the street, unable to feed them. True story, editor- where does that leave your wonderful catholic sexual morality? Sickening stuff – I expect better from you.
Editor: hard cases make very bad law. I’ve got a friend with 14 children (I could have introduced Cathedralman to her at the Fatima Conference, if he’d only come along) and she looks younger than many of the folk I know with their 2.5 statutory allowance. I also know folk with NO children, who have breast cancer. And I know of cases where professional couples from wealthy England took their three children off on holiday, left them unattended while they went off to enjoy an evening wining and dining in a tapas bar and someone stole one of their three toddlers. So, what does any of this prove? Stick to the issue, Lucky. Stick to the key issue.
-
So, “broken” or “dangerously broken” ideas will be a judgment made on the genesis of the idea. I’m sure we’ll agree on that!
In this case, no. I’m making a judgment here based on the expected outcome of an idea, not its philosophical origins. I suppose that’s characteristic of my argument’s “genesis” of (to over-simplify somewhat) utilitarianism, and its contrast to the religious origins of your argument.
However, for this case, that whole debate is just a distraction. I’m far more concerned about the “dangerous” than the “broken”. “Harmlessly broken” wouldn’t be a big deal; being right or wrong about something like that would merely be a matter of academics and curiosity.
But when we’re discussing ideas that have real impacts on real people, the outcome matters. When implementation of those ideas doesn’t produce the intended outcome, they’re dangerously broken, regardless of where they came from or who made them.
-
DSimon,
You are right – we are not in agreement on this! I would argue that the idea is flawed, that all the bad fruits of permissiveness are “harmlessly broken” as is the implication of the continued safe-sex myth, has had deadly impact on people’s lives.
Conversely, nobody who lives out the Church’s teaching on marriage and the prohibition on sex outside marriage, is ever going to suffer any such deadly consequences as those pursuing the hedonism ( not “happiness”) of sexual promiscuity.
Utilitarianism, by the way, is generally misinterpreted. A truly utilitarian solution to our society’s major problems of health and family breakdown, would be to restore the values which made promiscuity taboo. That would clearly be action which resulted in the common good. Doctoring children and young people with pills and prophylactics in the vain hope that they may be spared disease and early death, is clearly not in the best interests of the greatest number.
-
A truly utilitarian solution to our society’s major problems of health and family breakdown, would be to restore the values which made promiscuity taboo. That would clearly be action which resulted in the common good.
Saying “If everyone were 100% abstinent until permanent marriage our STD and teenage pregnancy problems would be solved” is like saying “If everyone would just simultaneously destroy all their weapons, we’d have world peace”. In both cases, there’s no practical way to achieve the prerequisite completely, and partial achievement doesn’t solve the problem.
I haven’t seen any evidence to contradict the citations I used to back up my claim that abstinence-only education is ineffective. The closest was a vague reference to a study that supposedly contradicts the Mathematica study, but no link was provided.
Doctoring children and young people with pills and prophylactics in the vain hope that they may be spared disease and early death, is clearly not in the best interests of the greatest number.
Editor, you continue to argue that safe sex is a myth and a vain effort, but I still haven’t seen any good evidence to support this.
You brought up four citations. Three of them I found severely lacking, as they were all secondary sources which failed to cite any primary source, and which also often contained outright misinformation (i.e. the invalid probability calculations, and the badly informed statement about the relative sizes of latex pores and viruses). You’ve made no effort to defend these citations against my complaints, which is for the best, as they’re totally indefensible. But, you also haven’t linked anything better to support these claims of the supposed ineffectiveness of condoms and comprehensive sexual education.
The fourth link was the study finding that there was a correlation between teenage sexual activity and increased chance of mental health issues. We discussed this for a while, and I accepted its conclusion but explained in detail why I felt it didn’t contradict my main argument: to solve the issues of teenage pregnancy and STD transmission, educating people to be abstinent doesn’t work anywhere near as well as educating people about safe sex.
Editor, I’ve enjoyed this discussion, but I think we’ve both said all we’re going to say, unless you have more evidence that you’ve been holding on to for some reason.
-
DSimon,
Sorry, but I have been up to my eyes in various things, including overseeing despatch of our March edition, so I’ve not had any time to examine evidence to put to you.
In any event, I really do not need stats to convince me that black is white. I see the destruction of early sexual activity all around me, not least in my own family.
There never WAS a 100% abstinence, everyone waiting for marriage, but the difference is, DSimon, that what was once the exception, is now the norm. Where occasionally, a child might not know who his father is, now there are countless children who don’t know who their father is. Where single (and I’m not talking “widowed”) parents were the exception, they are now the norm.
Maybe we just need to accept that some people, possibly yourself, think that is fine. I don’t. I never will. Not if 1,000 studies tell me that these single mothers wouldn’t have it any other way.
I know that is not true, not natural and not healthy – either for the mother who may be bringing one “partner” after another into her home, to the confusion and psychological (? other) damage of her children, or for the common good.
But my final point is this: you appear to be satisfied that the safe-sex message is working. Our government (secular, liberal) doesn’t agree. They’ve pushed the rubber and pills message at teenagers for decades now, and it just isn’t working.
One reason for that failure is that young people don’t usually go out intending to indulge in sexual intercourse. They fall into a situation of temptation and (I’m quoting a teenager now) “because nobody thinks its wrong any more” they go ahead.
So, why not focus on that good intention, NOT to be sexually active and instead of making it seem perfectly OK to indulge in sexual activity, switch the message so that it matches the “don’t smoke” and “don’t take drugs” message?
That way, the number of girls ending up with cervical cancer will drop (it is a fact that the earlier a girl begins sexual activity – with or without contraception – the more likely she is to have cervical cancer in her 40’s)
and there will be a drop (obviously) in the emotional suffering of young people forming and then de-forming “stable relationships.”That’s about all I can say at the moment – but I know it won’t convince you, DSimon; you’re a case for the High Court. Still, you can’t blame a girl for trying!
-
Editor
There must be something in this spring air, because I agree with everything you say in the above post.
Yours lying down in a darkened room.
Wiggy
-
Cathedralman,
For a whole three days now, there’s been a post lurking here, from you, agreeing with me…WOW! How could I have missed this!
Yours, about to lie down in a darkened room.
Eddie
Comments are now closed.
86 comments