There are days, I truly can’t recognise this country anymore. It seems to me as if certain news were actually a parody but no, they are true.
Let us consider this. Fr Ashley Beck is the Dean of the Archdiocese of Southwark in charge of the training of deacons. He says something which in my world is so banal that it wouldn’t even deserve mention: children of people co-habiting shouldn’t be admitted in Catholic schools. To me this is like saying that the Pope should be Catholic, but the fact that Fr Beck says that they should not shows that such a banality is, in fact, a piece of news and that apparently children of a cohabitation are admitted as a matter of fact in many Catholic schools. One wonders how a Catholic school can even begin to raise children in a Catholic environment if it is not even requested that their parents follow I do not say the strictest orthodoxy, but at least a behaviour such that they do not live in objective mortal sin, give scandal and are excluded from communion. What is in my eyes surprising is that what Fr Beck asks is merely that the parents be married, not that they be Catholic! I might be missing something here, but it seems to me that Fr Beck’s words can only be defined as generous, and more inclusive than they should.
Apparently, though, the marital status of the parents cannot be considered by a school. A Catholic school is not allowed to consider whether the parents are married.
Someone here is seriously under the influence whilst in Government.
Am I missing something here? How else can the objective mortal sin of the parents be considered irrelevant in the education of the child, other than because a Catholic education is considered not important and the objective mortal sin of the parents utterly irrelevant at worst, or a sub-optimal option at best? How else can the fact that the parents are excluded from communion be neglected, other than because the exclusion from communion is ignored or considered a relic of the past? How can a faith school not be allowed a mainstay of that faith as an admission criterium?
After the words of the Dean (which would be absurd to define courageous; the adjective “obvious” comes to mind) one would expect the atheist “dementigentsia” to cry foul (they hate Catholicism but hey, they want a Catholic school for their children…) and complain that……… the Pope is Catholic. This would be mildly amusing on a good day and no more than unnerving on a less good one.
But when one gets rather angry is when one discovers that such a statement of the damned obvious leaves Oona Stannard, the Head of the Catholic Education Service, “almost speechless”.
The woman is not speechless because children of non-Catholic christians are allowed into Catholic schools, leaving children of Catholic families out, nor is she angry because a Catholic school is not allowed to enquire about the marital status of the parents of the prospective pupils. No, Mssss Stannard is outraged that a religious would dare to ask that the parents be at least married!
What belief this Stannard woman belongs to? Some New Age stream? Wicca? Druidism?
She can’t be Catholic, for sure.
Seton Hall, a Catholic University, has scheduled a course on so-called “gay marriage” (let us repeat it once again: homosexuals are not gay, happy people are gay; and they cannot marry, because they are of the same sex).
The unusual event (as the times are) is that this time the local Archbishop has reacted promptly and has asked the University to change its mind. The affirmation of the Archbishop (that the course be “out of synch”with Catholic teaching) is a rather big understatement but it gives the idea of what is happening anyway.
It turns out that the (Catholic, or so they say) University of Seton Hall is not impressed. Not only have they not done anything to backpedal, but the University has openly mocked the Archbishop by stating that they never had a problem with the course, though “it’s been a problem for, it seems, some people outside of it.” It seems. Some people. Congratulations.
The person chosen for this work of enlightenment of Catholic young minds is a Mr. W. King Mott. Predictably, Mr. Mott is an openly practising sodomite. He states that the aim of his course is to help the students to “gain an appreciation and respect for disinterested analysis that can be used to formulate an informed opinion”. Leaving aside the attempt at being intellectual, the implication here is that to share the Catholic opinion about the matter is to be 1) not informed, 2) biased and 3) disrespectful.
The “disinterested analysis” should come, instead, from a person already demoted in the past for defining the Church “prima facie homophobic” and an aged member of “homosexualist” groups. He is most certainly the man for a disinterested analysis, isn’t he?
Seton Hall lets it be known that there is “nothing” the Archbishop can do to prevent the course from taking place. They are probably right. Still, it would be nice if the Archbishop would obtain that this university is deprived of the right to call itself “Catholic”. One can be secular and homosexualist and will not be burned at the stake for that (not the times anymore, they say). But we should at least be spared the hypocrisy of such institutions pretending to be Catholic.
What immediately takes the attention of the reader is the political incorrectness of this booklet, more so today than it was at the time for sure. This is rather natural as the booklet is a popularised synopsis of Casti Connubii, Pius XI’s encyclical letter on marriage.
All the “uncomfortable” parts are considered without embarrassment, in encouraging but rather clear words: mixed marriages, abortion, divorce, the respective roles of the parents, the difference to a christian education dealing with marriage and “sex education”. One sees that the problem of those times where largely the problems of our times (poverty, for example, or the surprising fact that apparently there was already a certain number of single mothers).
By reading the rather slender booklet, you’ll discover a view of marriage certainly not taught for the last forty years at least, and still very powerful so many years later, as if these booklet had been written to help us recover Catholic values rather than to help past generations to keep them. Shocking as it may seem to many a modern reader, this booklet makes – as all of Catholic teaching – deep sense and he who spends some times pondering the truths herein contained has spent his time wisely.
Just a curiosity: the reference to the Italian state adopting the law of the Church for the regulation of marriages is literally true. The “Patti Lateranensi” between the Fascist Government and the newly-constituted “State of The Vatican City” established the rule that Canon Law would rule Italian marriages, with e.g. the consequence that marriages could only be annulled if the Sacra Rota (the Church’s tribunal) said so and the Italian government had – unbelievably from a secular perspective – no saying in the matter.
One wouldn’t necessarily advocate for 2010’s Britain the same rules applied in 1930’s Italy. Still, this booklet shows how much can be improved or, better, restored.
Interesting piece of news from Calgary, where a Catholic elementary school has decided to introduce separate classes for boys and girls.
Besides the fact that it all sounds so beautifully conservative, the article points out to a fact that will be shocking (if not outright offensive) to a lot of feminists out there: boys and girls are, well, different. They think differently, they react differently and they learn differently. In the words of the article’s author,
A classroom for Grade 5 and 6 boys features posters of planes and football games on the walls and books about adventure and trucks on the shelves. Girls’ classrooms have books about pets and relationships.
But there is also no reason to fear that this separation may become too harsh, making a harmonious interaction between the sexes more difficult. Boys and girls will be, in fact, be able to meet between classes and during some of the classes. Makes sense to me.
All fine then? Well, no, because amazingly there seem to be people to whom this kind of arrangement seems, in a way, oppressing and limiting of the possibility of growth of the children.
A critical woman – who runs a daycare not far from the school – observes that
Here at the daycare the girls and the boys have the exact same opportunities. So if a girl wishes to play dress up as a fireman for example, and a boy wants to dress up as a princess — they have that opportunity
Amazing. Besides pulling her own institution, the lady seriously thinks it an advantage that a boy may be allowed to dress as a princess and a girl as a firefighter. Common sense has gone down the drain, submerged by a perceived duty to be politically correct at all costs (in the best of cases) or to encourage sexual deviance (in the worst). Please notice the word used twice: opportunity. The opportunity to dress as a Princess.
Someone should explain to the lady (unless she is a man offered the opportunity to dress up as a woman; we are not told) that a boy not dressing up as a Princess is part of the very natural process by which this boy becomes, one day, a balanced man; that it is the duty of the school system to work according to the sexes’ different inclinations, not against them; that a young boy to whom it is lovingly explained that he is a boy and therefore not supposed to dress as a Princess is not being denied any opportunity, but rather given the opportunity of being properly guided and assisted in his natural process of growth.
There is no sense of self-irony in the words of the woman; it is not meant as a joke, or a parody. She really means it. One wonders what has the world come to.
I do hope this costs the lady at least a couple of clients. It might give her the opportunity to dress up as a sound thinking person.