Child Abuse

One of Anna's friends told her yesterday of a dreadful incident. Her five year old daughter had just had her bath and her husband picked up the towel to dry her. At which point the girl said: "You mustn't touch me!"

It transpired the girl had had a sex education lesson at school...

Anna's friend was furious and told the school so, withdrawing her from all future lessons on the topic: but some harm is already done to this child - and to countless others.

Doubtless there are children whose fathers cannot be trusted: but to plant such ideas of mistrust of their families in the hearts of five year olds is to rob them of their innocence. This particular child is one of those who ask 'why?' about everything - so who knows what she was told.

The school concerned is well known to be a 'good Catholic' school.

Sancta Maria purissima: Ora pro nobis.

A Queer Business...

'Our pastoral care policy is light on dogma and heavy on compassion and celebration of diversity.'

Thus Jarlath Burns, the principal of St Pauls, Bessbrook, the school which proudly sent pupils to the Gay Pride march in Newry. He also tweeted:

'So proud of these pupils who attended @prideinnewry parade today. @stpaulsbbrook
#inclusion '

The school had announced its intention on Twitter (and Facebook), too:

We are inviting Year 13/14 students to represent our school at the Pride In NewryMarch on Saturday. We are proud to be a school that embraces diversity and promotes inclusivity, further demonstrating commitment to our Catholic ethos. Those interested should PM for further details. The Rainbow flag will be flown at the school to mark our support for equality for all.

Thanks to the Faith in our Families site, I was able to find out a little more. They linked to an article about Jarlath Burns which quoted him more extensively. The headline was ‘I would die for Catholic education’ which is a good sentiment, and Mr Burns, who is apparently better known as a sportsman than a pedagogue, said several quite sensible things. However, he also said (talking about homosexuality):

“This is one area of Church teaching where I part company completely with the Church.”

“Why should we say to gay people that it is not a sin to be gay but it is a sin to have a partner and to practise homosexuality? That is a very prescriptive thing to say about people who can offer so much to us and to society.”

There is much that is wrong here, when one considers the role with which he is entrusted, and the event which he encouraged his pupils to attend: the scandal given; the corruption of the young with a false ideology and so on.

However, what I want to focus on is the ignorance of him as a principal.  The paucity of the logic of his comment about  'a very prescriptive thing to say about people who can offer so much to us and to society,' is self-evident, and demonstrates a mind governed by political mantra rather than anything approaching thought.

But it is his previous comment which I find particularly revealing: “This is one area of Church teaching where I part company completely with the Church.” That is clearly a nonsense, but it is a very prevalent one. One cannot 'part company' with the Church on one issue like this.  For it is taught in the Catechism. So one is then saying that the Catechism is wrong. But the authority of the Catechism rests on the teaching office of the Pope and the Bishops in communion with them.  So one is saying that one does not accept their authoritative teaching authority. And so on. Reject part, and you reject far more, undermining the very basis on which belief is founded.

Yet so many people seem to think that they can 'in good conscience' 'part company' with the Church on a particular teaching which they find difficult (most often, on examination, because they have not really understood it).

This, it seems to me, is one of the major problems faced by the Church today: the rejection of authority and its replacement by one's personal opinions (based, all too often, on the values of the world...)

Autonomy is so highly-regarded in our culture that to question this is seen as almost medieval.  People appeal to the Christ of the Bible who was, apparently, all about inclusiveness of all regardless of belief or behaviour. A Christ who, it seems, 'is light on dogma and heavy on compassion and celebration of diversity.'

The trouble is, I don't find that Christ when I read the Bible. I find a Christ who is about obedience - his own to the Father, and ours to Him and to His Father.  I find a Christ who is about making judgements between good and evil and telling us the consequences in no uncertain terms.  A Christ whose compassion compels Him to talk repeatedly about the reality of Hell and the risk we face of eternal damnation if we do not obey; for we shall be judged by our actions, as today's Gospel reminded us. A Christ who says:

Go, and sin no more!  

Is Sex Education Necessary - or Wise - Or Holy?...

I was reading Ofsted's comments on the excellence of Sex Education at a Catholic School today (and indeed, the school's own account of it, which is available from the same site).

By and large it sounded fairly innocuous, and indeed good in parts: 'issues such as abortion and contraception are approached fully and with confidence, reflecting Catholic teaching.' If that is true, it is very encouraging.  

It also sounded dodgy in other parts, to be honest: 'Teachers deal extremely well with sensitive and controversial issues ensuring that students feel secure and able to express their opinions and reach their own judgements.'

Is that really a Catholic education - students reaching their own judgements? I think not. 

But even if it were excellent, I still have a profound problem with teaching sex in schools. I think it intrusive, inappropriate and unnecessary - particularly when they go into things like contraception (which this school does, and I guess all others with any Sex Ed will do).  I am particularly concerned about the types of people who might think this such a good idea that they dedicate themselves to developing material and specialising in this, and the slant that might give to the approach taken.

What was it St Paul said?  Let such things not even be named among you, as becometh saints…

These days, of course, we are meant to bow down in homage at the sacred cow of evidence-based teaching.  But here's a funny thing. The evidence for Sex Ed is rather unclear (to say the least).

You know how, when you tell someone not to think about a pink elephant, the one thing they have to think of is a pink elephant?  

It seems some of our well-intentioned public education campaigns fall foul of the same part of Murphy's Law.  No smoking signs, according to a team of academics from Oxford, Yale and MIT, may stimulate smoking.  Could it be that getting kids to talk about sex might just stimulate…?

Sancta Maria, mater Dei, semper virgine, ora pro nobis.

Stonewall in a Catholic Junior School

I was shocked to read that a Catholic Junior School had invited Stonewall, the homosexual lobbying organisation, to train teachers how to deal with homophobic bullying.

There are several grounds for objection.

One is that I think it is wrong to treat bullying for different reasons separately.  All bullying is bad, not just homophobic or racist or whatever bullying.  The evidence suggests that what kids get bullied for is primarily 'difference' - which can be anything. Why privilege bullying for some differences as more problematic than others?  That leads to all manner of unfortunate consequences.  So training teachers how to deal with homophobic bullying as though that is worse than, or different from, any other kind strikes me as misguided.

The Catholic answer to bullying is good moral character formation, based on the virtues, and grown above all through prayer and the sacraments

Inviting Stonewall into a Catholic School to do such training is worse. Stonewall has an understanding of the human being, and in particular of human sexuality, that is entirely opposed to the much-vaunted Catholic Ethos which Catholic Schools strive to establish.

Even if they say nothing (when visiting the school) about their advocacy of Gay Marriage (for example) Stonewall's whole approach is founded on a set of assumptions about 'being gay' which, because it is also so dominant now in our culture, and in particular propagated with great intensity and frequency by our news and entertainment media, may easily supplant a Catholic understanding in the minds of teachers, with potentially lifelong impacts on the children in their care.

So what are the assumptions that I question, and how do they compare with the teaching of the Catholic Church?

Here are a few of the assumptions that underpin the whole notion of 'some people are gay.'

1 That we all have a 'sexual identity' which is innate and fundamental to us as individuals;

2 That discovering and being honest about our sexual identity is the way to integrity and happiness;

3 That we are able to discover our sexuality at an early age, and should be supported in doing so;

4 That living our sexuality is freedom and maturity;

5 That all sexual identities and orientations are of equal worth and goodness;

6 That questioning any of the above assumptions is homophobic and hateful.

It is worthy of note that there is no scientific consensus on any of those assertions (though there are whole swathes of academia dedicated to promoting them - but that's another story.)


By contrast, the Catholic Church teaches (inter alia) that:

1 Human sexuality is a gift from God, ordered to love and procreation;

2 As a result of the Fall, we are all damaged: how we are is not necessarily how God wants us to be;

3 The only correct use of sexual love is in faithful marriage, open to life;

4 All other sexual inclinations are disordered, and all other sexual activities are sinful, and therefore harmful;

5 True happiness and wellbeing - and the common good - are to be found in subordinating our sexual inclinations and desires to the Divine Plan;

6 We all have a vocation to discover and to live out; and for all of us that includes chastity;

7 True education includes education in the moral virtues: both understanding and practice;

8 We must love our neighbour as ourself; all are subject to disordered inclinations; all are children of God worthy of dignity, respect and love.


Clearly these two sets of assumptions do not sit easily together, which is why Stonewall has no place in a Catholic School.  Its agenda is to normalise a worldview that is at odds with, and indeed in large part hostile to, a Catholic worldview.

Thinking that children at the age of 13 or 14, those turbulent adolescent years, can and should assume a sexual identity, is misguided.  It is also a contributory factor in such shocking cases as the Oxford sex ring, when people charged with looking after girls believed it to be normal and acceptable for 13 year olds to be sexually active.  The culture of sexual liberalism that Stonewall, inter alia, cultivates has real - and devastating - consequences for real people and society at large.  Lending it any credibility at all is another reason that the School is guilty of a grave error of judgement.

In this case, Stonewall were invited into a junior school.  Those promoting a 'liberal' sexual agenda are always trying to target children at an earlier age, whether directly or by re-educating their educators. It is shameful that a Catholic school was complicit in this.

Maria purissima - ora pro nobis.

A Good Gig

Last night was the school's spring concert.

The music was largely 20th - 21st century apart from Marc-Antoine Charpentier and Oskar Rieding; but despite my prejudices, there was little one could describe as cheap (Hans Zimmer's score for Pirates of the Caribbean, an Aerosmith song, and Johnny Nash's I Can See Clearly Now being the only lapses).

So we were treated to Irving Berlin, John Rutter, Poulenc, Burt Bacharach, Tom Lehrer (no he's not cheap - not high art, of course - but a different category altogether), Eric Coates, and a wonderful Sonatina for Cello which I hadn't known by Pal Járdányi, amongst others.

The most modern compositions were by pupils performing their own pieces, one a serenade for Clarinet and Piano, with the composer's younger brother on clarinet, and the other a piano piece.  Both were very good.

The programme was nicely balanced, too, with performances by the Band (Puttin' on the Ritz and a Glenn Miller medley) the Chamber Choir (The Way You Look Tonight, For the Beauty of the Earth, New York, New York!) the String Group and a String Quartet, the Choir, the Boys' Chamber Choir (Poisoning Pigeons in the Park, I Can See Clearly Now), the Brass Sextet and of course the full orchestra (Dambusters March, Pirates...) as well as many soloists, including a sax player performing Gerry Rafferty's Baker Street (which Charlie and Dominique were thinking of doing next year - having discussed it, they still may, as they feel last night's performance, though competent, was nothing compared to what they could do with it!)

Charlie featured in the Brass Sextet, which we hadn't even heard about till yesterday, and both he and Dominique are in the orchestra.

What was impressive, though, was the standard of musicianship throughout.  There were one or two slightly weaker performances, but overall it was as good as anything the school has put on, and a lot better than many.  In particular, the strings are vastly improved: the intonation, which is always what makes me wince with school string groups and orchestras, was flawless for much of the time, particularly in the String Group and the Quartet.  It was a little dodgy in the orchestral pieces at times, but still significantly better than it used to be.

All the singing was of a very high standard, as were the other small ensembles; and the soloists ranged from good (though nervous in the case of the sax and the flautist playing Poulenc's very tricky Sonata) to excellent in most other cases; the highlight being the cellist playing the  Járdányi Sonatina.

We pass lightly over the percussion (and wish they had).

I had gone expecting it to be good in parts; I left really impressed.

It's that time of year...

Last night we were at another Christmas Concert. Two nights out in one week: how the Trovati live it up!

This one was at the school, so Charlie and Dominique were in the orchestra.  For some reason Grandma chose not to come - can't imagine why...

Actually, the school orchestra are reasonably good: strings stronger than sometimes, brass and flutes good, a bit lacking in confidence in the clarinets, and percussion entertaining.

It was another good mixed programme, though, with soloists and the choir and smaller ensembles all making contributions.  The cheapest music this time was Lennon and McCartney (Michelle), and attentive readers will have detected my weakness for the Beatles, so that was OK, and All I want for Christmas is you, which was lamentable...

Highlights were a lively performance of Gaudete by the Chamber Choir, and the Orchestra's Bizet (Farandole)

The soloists all acquitted themselves well, too, and the punch at the interval was very good!

The Betrayal of Children

The scandal emerging from Rochdale raises many difficult questions.  On the BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning, there was a chilling description by one of the abused children of the attitude of the social workers who should have been protecting her.  Her parents were told that she was a prostitute, that that was a lifestyle choice, and that as she was nearly 16, they would not intervene.

According to the BBC’s website:

“The report also shows some officials believed vulnerable girls as young as 10 - who were being groomed for sexual abuse - were "making their own choices".One of the girl's parents said they were simply told their teenage daughter was hanging out with a bad crowd, it [the report] says.”

There are so many shocking aspects to this, but the one that I want to focus on is the culture of that makes it possible for social workers, police or anyone else to condone the abuse of children (as all under age sex is, with or without consent) on the grounds that the children had ‘chosen it.’

Such a dreadful opinion is only possible because the whole cultural milieu is corrupt.  There is no real sense of the intrinsic harm that children can do to themselves by ‘poor choices’ at this age - indeed, ‘poor choices’ is too judgmental; they are just ‘lifestyle choices.’

What’s worrying is how widespread this idiocy is - and how even Catholic schools have welcomed Connexions, who are steeped in exactly the same philosophy.

This is the philosophy that considers it ‘appropriate’ to give contraception to under-age girls without parental knowledge or consent; that then arranges their abortions, again without parental knowledge or consent.  This is the philosophy that makes people from other cultures look on white adolescent girls as so much trash to be abused at will.  This is the philosophy that abandons girls as young as 10 to exploitation in the name of choice.

It represents complete moral bankruptcy, and an abdication of our responsibility as adults to make wise choices on behalf of children, to protect them, and to educate them to make wise and good choices.

And we invite it into our schools, give it access to our kids, in complete confidence...

Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, 

Sancta Dei Genetrix. 

Nostras deprecationes ne despicias in necessitatibus, 

sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper, 

Virgo gloriosa et benedicta. 

Amen.

Ant's teaching placement

As part of her degree, Ant is doing a module working in a local school as an assistant teaching Maths. 

I think it's started well; one of the pupils said on her first day: 'Miss Trovato, are you going to be a teacher one day? Cos I think you should be... you'd be the nice sort.'

We're getting a reputation at the School...

Breakfast dialogue at the Trovato table today:


Self: Why are you wearing that?
Dominique: It's own clothes day: it's the last day tomorrow, but we have the end of term Service, so it's own clothes today.
Self: What's it in aid of this time?
Dom: Cancer research...
Self: Did you...?
Dom (interrupting): Yes, I went to reception, and they said as long as I gave a pound to some charity, I didn't have to give it to them.
Self: Were they curious why you didn't want to...?
Dom (interrupting): No, they're used to us.


If you don't know why we don't support Cancer Research, look at SPUC's Charities bulletin.  Cancer Research UK is, inter alia, a member of the Association of Medical Research Charities, which campaigned in favour of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, which Cancer Research UK also supports.

Oona Stannard steps down from CES

Oona Stannard has officially resigned from her role as Chief Executive and Director of the Catholic Education Service.  She has been on leave from her post since November, and will not return before her resignation takes formal effect.

I understand that this is due to health reasons in her family, and am sure all will join me in offering prayers and good wishes for a speedy recovery, God willing.

Astute readers will have noticed that I have not been a fan of the CES under her leadership, and I am pleased that the acting Director, Fr Marcus Stock, will continue in that role for the time being.

Let us hope and pray that a permanent change in leadership leads to a permanent change in approach.

H/t Total Catholic

Why I'm so bitter and twisted #314

Many years ago, when I was younger and only a little bit bitter and twisted (at least compared to now) I went to see a bishop.

(It was a different chap from the one there now, and a different diocese from the one in which I now live).

I had some concerns about Catholic education in a Catholic School my daughters were at.  One of the issues I mentioned was that they were not even taught about the obligation to attend Mass on Sundays (this seemed fairly basic to me, if one is to teach anything about Catholicism to anyone...)

The bishop responded that the schools could not teach about the Sunday obligation, as some children's parents might not go to Mass on Sundays, and that would make the children think they were doing something wrong.

I think that was when I started to worry seriously about our bishops...

Just follow that line of reasoning down any of the interesting avenues it opens up...  See what I mean?

Equivocate, that's the word I was searching for.

Now what recently could have brought that to mind?

Sexual identity: Nature or Nurture?

I was irritated yesterday to hear that Hamleys had succumbed to a Twitter campaign and had changed its traditional arrangement of toys. It used to be that Boys' Toys were on some floors and Girls' Toys were on another. So you might see, on the one hand, an array of cars, fighting heroes and action toys; or on the other, lots of pink fluffy things.

But this was terrible gender steroetyping, apparently; although, in fact, there were no security guards turning the girls away from the train sets (the only bit of Hamleys my wife remembers visiting as a child) or excluding boys from the Barbie aisle.

The campaign reflects the orthodoxy that masculine and feminine identities are largely social constructs. That is the belief that has driven the re-shaping of education in this country and the US for decades: removing all boy connotations from Maths and the Sciences, and all girl connotations from arts, humanities and cooking... And when that didn't work, disallowing choice, as the naughty children continued to choose the 'wrong' (ie gender typical) subjects when allowed to do so - as they still tend to do when allowed (eg at University level). So the praxis has had little effect on getting girls into maths and the sciences, as was the avowed intention. It may have had a huge unintended side-effect, one could reasonably argue, in turning large numbers of boys off a feminised education altogether (parallels with the feminisation of liturgy in the Catholic Church are of course wholly inappropriate and should not even be considered).

So the orthodoxy (despite the evidence, one could argue) is that gender stereotyping and other 'nurture' factors determine, or at least strongly influence, gender identity.

EXCEPT when it comes to homosexuality (and various other things in the LGBT morass). These are of course innate and immutable. There is no possibility that, for example, gay teachers, or gay parents, or gay text books will alter, influence or confuse the gender identity of kids, nor that gay people are in fact socially constructed to feel as they do. No, no, no... that way heresy lies...

Lynette Burrows on School Sex Ed

John Smeaton's blog carries the transcript of a talk by Lynette Burrows on Sex Education programmes in school. It is well worth a read. Here's a flavour: "Anyone who wants to talk dirty to little children is a danger to them."

The School's Verdict

If you have been following the Keeping Mum Saga (see various previous posts...) you will be interested to know thatI got a very civil note from the Head of RE today. He has reviewed the film, agrees it is inappropriate and withdrawn it from the syllabus. There: that wasn't too painful, was it?

Now if only schools with a Catholic Ethos were so responsive...

Keeping mum about Keeping Mum

It is now nearly three weeks since I wrote to Charlie and Dom's school about Keeping Mum.

I had a prompt and civil initial response: an answerphone message from the head of RE assuring me that he would look into it.

Charlie has now had two RE lessons since and it has not appeared again. But apart from his teacher asking Charlie if he agreed with me (he said he did) we have heard no more about it.

I was expecting a reply to my letter (and one may yet come: I do understand that teachers are very busy) but I am pleased with the outcome anyway; no prevarication, no demonising of me or Charlie, no attempt to justify the use of an inappropriate film - simply putting the matter right and carrying on.

Of course, this is not a school with a Catholic Ethos...

Day of Reckoning?...

Today was interesting. It was the day Charlie was scheduled to have RE, and following the initial prompt and courteous response from the school to my initial complaint, I had heard nothing.

So I was wondering whether they would continue showing Keeping Mum. I didn't think they would, but didn't know that for sure.

So I had talked it through with Charlie and agreed that if they did, he would have to excuse himself and go to the school library to work (referring the teacher to me, if there was a problem with that).

In the event, they did not show any more of it. Instead they had a period of revision. Charlie asked his teacher if he'd seen my letter (it had been addressed to the head of RE, not the individual teacher), and the teacher replied that he had. He asked Charlie if he felt the same as I did (I had told Charlie in broad terms the content of the letter, but he had not seen it). Charlie said that he did. And there the matter rests for the present.

I am sure I will receive a full response from the school in due course, but have to say that so far their response has been pretty good.

UPDATE

I see that people have been looking at this page again recently (Sept 2013) so thought it would be helpful to point you to what happened next: here)

The School Responds

I got home yesterday to find an answerphone message from the head of RE, to say that he had received my letter, was looking into it, and would get back to me. Prompt and courteous: just as I had expected.

I find, on re-reading my posts about the last time I had to write to the school, that I had not finished the story. In their written response, as I noted here, they assured me they would correct the text for next year.

In fact, they went much further: Dominique told me that the very next RE lesson, they were asked to take out their handouts and correct them, and had the reasons for the correction explained simply and clearly.

That is why I am optimistic about the outcome of the current issue. Their reasonableness, responsiveness, and genuine concern for parents' views and wishes are in marked contrast to some allegedly Catholic schools (or rather, 'schools with a strong Catholic ethos', as they prefer to call themselves), where the (soi-disant Catholic) teachers see the (Catholic) parents as the ideological enemy...

Why we don't homeschool...

A comment in my comms box recently asked why we don't homeschool, which is an excellent question, and felt worthy of a post of its own.

My late father always used to say 'There are two reasons for everything: the good reason and the real reason.'

So I will be quite honest and say that the real reason we chose not to homeschool is because my wife point-blank refused to countenance the idea.

At the time, she wasn't Catholic; but even though she was received into the Church some 15 years ago, I think her refusal would be as strong.

However, with hindsight, there are some good reasons for not homeschooling (as well as many excellent reasons for homeschooling - some of the best Catholic young people I know have been homeschooled, and all that stuff about not being socialised is rubbish, in my experience).

However, I do think that there is some value in having children in schools who are Catholic; it opens the eyes of friends and teachers - and even sometimes those who are hostile to them - to the fact that it there are still believing Catholics about.

Ant and Bernie have both survived school and gone onto University with their Faith intact - and one of Bernie's friends is now keen to convert.

Charlie and Dominique both seem secure in their Faith, at present; and as regular readers will know, I have recently had to take the opportunity to educate their school about some basic issues...

So while I was disappointed at Anna's refusal to consider homeschooling, if I had my time again, I am not sure I would want to homeschool: for our kids, the other option has worked, and possibly benefitted others beyond our family.

Here we go again...

I had been following the saga at Bonus Pastor Catholic College with some interest, initially via James Preeces' blog, and subsequently via Bonus Pastor Exposed.

And then on Friday, Charlie came home to tell me that they'd started watching Keeping Mum in RE, as they were going to write an essay on the treatment of Religion in the Media. (see Bonus Pastor Exposed for clips showing how unsuitable Keeping Mum is - but beware: it is unsuitable! Alternatively, my letter below itemises why I disapprove.)

Charlie and Dominique are not at a Catholic School, as there is not one locally (and our experiences at the Catholic School the bigger girls went to before we moved would not make me rush to another - but that's another story...). Nonetheless, I feel it is incumbent on me to point out that we do not believe Keeping Mum is something he (or any other adolescents) should be watching at school.

To their credit, the RE Dept have been very understanding and responsive when I have raised concerns in the past (see here for my concerns and here for their response)

So here's the first draft of the inevitable letter:

Dear Mr X

I am writing in my capacity as critical friend to the RE department - and also concerned parent.

I have learned from Charlie that his class has just started to watch Keeping Mum, with a view to studying how religion is portrayed in the media.

I have serious concerns about this film being shown in school:

• It blasphemes the Holy Name of Jesus
• It makes repeated use of the F*** word (and does both of these in a context of casual irreverence)
• It shows a young woman interrupted having sex in a van; showing her topless, and again being watched by a voyeur as she undresses, again showing her topless
• It shows the mother being seduced by her golf instructor, including unedifying lines such as: ‘You want our First Time to be in a car: that’s the kind of thing my daughter does, for f***’s sake.’
• It has an ethos of sexual behaviour that is casual and promiscuous (‘And I know why - you’re not getting any’ says the daughter to the mother.)

From our perspective as parents trying to raise our children to be virtuous, all that poses serious problems, breaching as it does several commandments, and the traditional practices of custody of the eyes and custody of the ears, which are how we train our children in the virtue of purity. In Catholic theology, human sexuality is sacred.

I know that ours is an unfashionable, and even counter-cultural, approach, but looking at our children, I don’t think it has damaged them too much: to be honest, I am proud of the way they are turning out.

I recognise that the children may hear this sort of language in the playground, though I lament the fact. I am sure that it would not be countenanced in the classroom, any more than a girl appearing topless would be. So I fail to understand why this is appropriate in a film shown to the students.

I have been told that it is a recommended resource for the syllabus; but that, in my understanding, does not make it either compulsory or desirable.

I suspect that if you asked other Christian parents whether they wanted their adolescent kids to watch blasphemous, profane and sexually titillating material, some others would have reservations.

But we were never consulted or informed, and perhaps that is my deepest concern. If the teaching staff really deem this suitable, their project for our kids is very different from ours: and I really don’t want to have to start quizzing Charlie and Dominique about what they’ve been taught in order to undo damage (as I see it) that may have ben perpetrated by well-intentioned but (in my view) misguided teachers.

I have every confidence that you will take our concerns seriously, and understand them, and look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely

I am confident that the response will be swift and courteous - and it may well be positive. It could scarcely be worse that Bonus Pastor's...

Faith Schools are the Answer, not the Problem

I just came across this post by Sarah Johnson posted in 2007 (because she has just added a further note about the same issue to her rarely-updated blog). It is well-worth reading, in the light of the shenanigans at the Vaughan, and now Coloma Convent (the subject of her more recent post).

She makes a strong case for the validity of considering parental volunteering as part of the selection criteria, and points out how diocesan-imposed changes or challenges are largely based on perception rather than reality.