Brain Science

I have been watching David Eagleton's series on The Brain on the BBC iPlayer with great interest. I was particularly struck by the plasticity of the brain: how we actually shape and develop our brain by the way in which we use it.

The study of brains of professed religious, who had often lived long and disciplined lives, revealed that many of their brains showed that they had developed Alzheimer's Disease: yet in life they had shown none of the symptoms of Alzheimer's.  

The effect of learning any particular discipline, whether music, free climbing or cup-stacking was extraordinary, in terms of how the brain develops as a result of repeated training, in order for the learned activity to be entirely natural, and to some extent effortless.

That underpins the classical conceptions of the virtues, of course: the habit of behaving in a particular way, which is developed by repeated as-if behaviour. That is, if I wish to develop the virtue of charity, I should repeatedly think and behave as a charitable person would do; as-if I were a charitable person. If I do that in a sustained and systematic way, I develop my brain so that such behaviour is natural to it.

That is not to down-play the role of grace, of course. It is only by being receptive to grace that I will be able to think and behave as if I were charitable in a sustained and systematic way. But it does underline the importance of a spiritual discipline if we are to grow holy brains. St Benedict knew a thing or two...

It also sheds some light on the whole debate about gender identity and sexual preferences. Whilst there may well be both genetic and environmental factors that incline an individual one way or another, there is no doubt that consistently thinking and behaving in whatever way one does is the way in which one constructs such an identity. And as with the other examples, that will then feel entirely natural.

Which is why I believe, if one accepts the evidence that aberrant sexual identities lead to poor outcomes in terms of health and happiness (and the evidence is certainly there to support that), it is not wise for society to pretend that all gender identities and expressions are equally good; for it may lead more young people than would otherwise do so to adopt, and to make real for themselves, such identities. 

Whereas a strong heteronormative education, and a strong education for chastity, are likely to help more young people to develop a healthy self-understanding and a healthy identity, leading to better outcomes for them and society. The challenge is to do that in a way that does not lead to unjust discrimination against the very small minority for whom the genetic and environmental factors are so strong that they develop aberrant identities despite this support.

A House Divided

I have not written a lot about the Synod, but it continues to... (is haunt the right word?...) me.

Last night I read Bishop Athanasius Schneider's powerful response to the final document. I was interested that he named our own Cardinal Nichols.

It seems to me that what +Schneider is saying, and indeed the known positions of various Cardinals who were at the Synod, such as ++Pell, ++Sarah, and indeed many others, are in stark opposition to what ++Nichols, ++Kasper and so on are saying (here for example, though as ever, ++Nichols' studied ambiguity makes it very hard to be sure quite what he means...).

So what is a Catholic to do? One's instinct is to look to the Holy Father: where is Peter on this? But that is not entirely clear (which in itself is a problem, I believe). So we then have to look a little more searchingly: what is the Tradition of the Church? What have previous Pontiffs said and, more importantly, formally taught? What do the Catechisms say? And in this case, we also have the very clear teaching of Our Lord and St Paul. So it is not difficult to conclude that +Schneider et al stand in the Faith of the Church, and insofar as ++Nichols et al are opposed to that, they have departed from the Church's teaching.  

If my analysis is correct, that is a grave situation indeed: one inevitably reflects on Mark 3:25, A house divided against itself cannot stand. However, we also have Our Lord's promise in Matthew 16:18 that 'the gates of hell shall not prevail against her (the Church).'

So we have to conclude that, even if, as at the time of the Arian heresy, many bishops are espousing heretical beliefs, the Church will stand: the bishops in error will either fall away, leaving the house still standing, albeit somewhat shaken by their fall; or they will come to their senses.  We hope and pray, of course, for the latter.

On another note, I am currently reading, inter alia, Christopher Booker's mighty work on The Seven Stories. I don't like his Jungian interpretations, but his fundamental analysis of story types is fascinating and compelling.

It led me to ask myself What is the story we are living through: is it a comedy of a tragedy?

I have to conclude that it is a Divine Comedy: that ultimately,  'All shall be well, and all shall be well and all manner of thing shall be well.' But that does not preclude personal tragedy, of course. Souls may be lost, and much damage done along the way.

But we must not lose the Faith, we must not lose Hope, and we must remain in Charity: for these three endure.

Public Morality, Social Sanctions and Virtue

The other day Mrs T posted a picture on Facebook of one of the girls (the one I call Bernie on this blog) doing some DIY.  She was cutting some metal tubing with an angle grinder: it was a dramatic picture, as there were sparks everywhere, and she was kitted up in gloves, helmet with faceguard etc. I was in the background, holding the other end of the pipe.  I (of course) was not wearing any such personal protective equipment.

Within minutes, two friends had commented on my lack of PPE; rightly, I suppose. Whilst the perspective was a little deceptive and I was not as close as I appeared, I was still too close to be completely free from any risk.  (I have blogged before about my cavalier attitude to personal, physical, risk...)

All of which prompted me to reflect on what we can and can't call people out about, and what that says about public morality and how that may be enforced by social sanctions.

For example, I think that if we had posted pictures of Bernie immodestly dressed, or of me roaring drunk, I think it would be less likely that I would have been publicly called out on it. People are wary of such moral censuring of others in such cases.

But only in some cases: when Health and Safety is at stake, we are all deemed to agree that it is acceptable to shame those who put themselves or others at risk. But criticise someone for immodest dress and you will in turn be shamed for the crime of 'slut-shaming.' Or criticise someone for any aspect of their behaviour that resulted in them becoming the victim of a crime, and you will be shamed for 'victim-blaming.' Or suggest that a woman who has chosen to have a child out of wedlock has done anything other than a heroic action, and the skies will fall in.

So reflecting on what one is allowed (and even expected) to censure, and what one is forbidden from censuring suggests an interesting analysis. For the modern liberal (if that is what it is) mindset is only liberal with regards to those things of which it doesn't strongly disapprove: the social sanction of shame is heavily invoked on those things it deems truly wrong.

And there is, for the Christian, the problem that these things and Christian beliefs and values are some way apart: how often I have heard people proclaim 'tolerance' as a Christian virtue?  Just yesterday, when I was reading at Mass, the Bidding Prayers I was given to read included one about the outcomes of the Synod, and suggested we should all pray for 'tolerance, mercy and compassion.' Mercy and compassion I recognise as 'Gospel values': but tolerance? It is not a word I associate with either the example or the teaching of Christ. Strangely, I omitted the word in reading out the prayer. I was tempted to make it 'justice, mercy and compassion,' but desisted.

But the risk is, unless we keep attentive to such things, that we adopt the same standards as the world, and if salt loses its savour...

Acedia

I mentioned the other day (here) that I have started reading Abbot Jamison's Finding Happiness. Yesterday, I read the chapter on Acedia, and it really hit home. Fr Jamison mentions that the Eight Thoughts of Cassian and the Desert Fathers were reduced to Seven Deadly Sins: and that it was Acedia that was dropped from the list.

That is a great shame: Acedia,  according to Fr Jamison, is spiritual carelessness, and is an evil to which we should pay especial attention in our time, as it is so prevalent that we risk not seeing it at all.

And then he writes: 'Gossip and idle curiosity are top of the list of things to avoid: these activities waste our time, distracting us from more generous or thoughtful conversation or reading. Celebrity news magazines would be a good example of this; they do no apparent external harm but are a complete waste of internal time and space. So cut out reading rubbish and allow reading time to become spiritual reading.'

My version of 'Celebrity news magazines', is probably 'idle internet browsing.' 

I had a somewhat restless night (post hoc, but not, I think, propter hoc), and by the morning had composed this limerick:

I pointlessly browsed Wikipedia And self-diagnosed: "It’s Acedia! I spend nights and days Online, in a haze, Especially on social media."

So I will be attempting to exercise vigilance in my use of social media: not eschewing them altogether - I think Twitterangelus a good thing, and I learn a lot from, for example, Fr Hunwicke. I even think my blogging may serve some good ends. But I will try to refrain from 'gossip and idle curiosity.'

What Does Mercy Look Like?

My last post was about a Cruel Mercy.

I think it important to balance that with something more positive.

So what should Mercy look like (apart from the face of our Lord and his Blessed Mother)?

Here are some clues from the Penny Catechism

321. Which are the seven Corporal Works of Mercy?

The seven Corporal Works of Mercy are:

1. To feed the hungry. 

2. To give drink to the thirsty.

3. To clothe the naked. 

4. To harbour the harbourless.

5. To visit the sick. 

6. To visit the imprisoned.

7. To bury the dead. (Matt. 25; Tobias 12)

322. Which are the Seven Spiritual Works of Mercy?

The seven Spiritual Works of Mercy are:

1. To convert the sinner.

2. To instruct the ignorant.

3. To counsel the doubtful.

4. To comfort the sorrowful.

5. To bear wrongs patiently. 

6. To forgive injustice,  

7. To pray for the living and the dead. 

Now, for a technical exercise: how many of these do you find expressed in the comments emanating from those who attended the famous Synod of Mercy?

Which of these do you think are actually contradicted by the liberal 'champions of Mercy'?

Answers on a banknote, please, to Cardinals Marx and Kasper...

The Just War argument

The comment by Ttony on my blog about lying to save lives, seems to me to be the nearest we have yet come to a solution to this dilemma.  He uses the Just War argument as an analogy.

To tease that out a little further, it seems clear to me that just wars were possible before Just War theory was properly articulated.

By the same token, perhaps what we see in the exposure of Planned Parenthood's evil, by way of means involving subterfuge, is a just lie, even though we have not yet been able clearly to argue a Just Lie theory.

Just as it seems clear to most people that the war against the Nazis had to be fought, for to fail to do so would have been collusion with a great evil, so one could argue that exposing the deception of Planned Parenthood had to be done, to avoid colluding with a worse evil.

I'm nearly there.

But I'm not quite.

Interestingly, it seems that in the original draft of the recent Catechism of the Catholic Church, the version that was first published in French, it included in its definition of a lie that a lie was committed when one deceived someone who had a right to the truth. That would have settled it.  However, when the official Latin text was released, that clause had been removed. Clearly, in the editing and checking process, it had been found that there was not a sufficient consensus that such a clause accurately reflected Catholic teaching.

So, perhaps a straw in the wind, but on the other hand, one that was rejected...

My moral intuition tells me that no sin was committed in the deception of  Planned Parenthood staff to reveal the evil at the heart of the organisation, but my intellect still isn't sure.  And taking the Just War argument a little further may help to explain why.

The Second World War, I think most would agree, met the criteria for a just war, from the point of view of the Allies. However, that does not mean that all that the Allies did was justified. I think the dropping of the atom bombs was morally illegitimate, as was the blanket bombing of Dresden.

Moreover, there is always the risk, inherent in war, I think, that we demonise the enemy, when our instructions are to love our enemies.

And I further believe that the Allies' damaged themselves by the way in which they conducted some aspects of the war; a moral compromise that has borne bad fruits in Western Europe and the USA ever since. But again, that is more an intuition than something I can make a strong rational case for.

So I remain conflicted: I still feel that lying in this case was probably justifiable, though I cannot quite see how to justify it, theologically. I remain deeply convinced that lying is dangerous and normally damaging to the one who lies, and that any sin, however trivial, is simply wrong. Further, I am very wary of the precedent we set when we lie for a good cause, and the risk of a slippery slope if we erode our fundamental understanding of the natural law. And there is that risk that in order to justify our actions we demonise Planned Parenthood as the enemy...

Let me be quite clear: I am not condemning the actions of those who made the films: I am exploring my own moral understanding and the limitations thereof - and anyone who can help me clarify it further will be very welcome!

Is it right to lie to save lives?

So a rather trenchant discussion has been taking place on Twitter (and what have I told you before about Twitter? Really not a good medium for such discussions...) about whether it is right to tell a lie to save lots of lives.

The context is the sting operation by the Centre for Medical Progress which has resulted in three (so far) chilling videos exposing Planned Parenthood's practice of selling parts of aborted unborn children (or foetuses, if you prefer the technical term - it means the same thing) for profit - and discussing the whole business in the most callous terms.

Clearly we should fight the evil abortion culture of deadly lies with every legitimate weapon available to us. But is lying a legitimate weapon?

I feel torn both ways  on this. On the one hand, I can see (and have seen) very strong arguments against lying. On the other, I can see (and have seen) very strong arguments in favour of what CMP has done. I have also seen very poor arguments marshalled, and indeed some ad hominem, which add heat rather than light to the debate.

People on either side of the debate see why their own side is right so clearly, and see how the other side is wrong with equal clarity; but I do not.

So this blog is an attempt to articulate some of my thinking; I do not necessarily expect to reach a definite conclusion (though I may, of course, surprise myself).

On the one hand, it seems to me that lying is a particularly serious type of sin. It is not just an offence against God's law, and normally an injustice to our neighbour; it is also an attack on God, in so far as it is an attack on the truth, and God the Son said: I am [...] the truth. Likewise, it is a siding with the Devil, who is the father of all lies. So even a relatively trivial lie, a venial sin, is (I think) a particularly serious type of venial sin, and therefore very dangerous for the person who commits it.

And any sin, mortal or venial, is to be avoided. It is a first principle of Catholic moral philosophy that we must not do evil in the hope of achieving good ends. Or to put it the other way around, for an action to be good, both the means and the end must be good.

Further, based on the Natural Law, St Thomas Aquinas makes it quite clear that every lie is sinful.

On the other hand, our duty to the truth is not, perhaps, as simple as it first appears. There are certainly occasions when it would be wrong to reveal the truth - the most obvious being the seal of the confessional. So withholding truth is not, in itself, always sinful.

Further the moral theologians allow deception (in certain circumstances) as legitimate, and it is hard to see the moral distinction between deception by devious means and a lie direct.

And then there is our fundamental moral intuition. It seems self-evident that to tell a lie in order to save lives is not a terrible thing to do. The example of hiding Jewish people from the Nazis and lying when you get the knock on the door is hard to refute without great moral discomfort.

Because of concupiscence (that is the damage to our natures left by Original Sin) I am wary of appeals to moral intuition. As I have observed before it is too easy to make excuses in sin.  But in this case, the moral intuition is inclining us to do something dangerous, not easy, so the question of it being disordered by self-interest seems less obvious, and therefore the moral intuition more worthy of respect.

So my heart pulls me in the direction of allowing the lie to save lives.  But then my head rebels: I consider St Thomas More, for example. He could easily have argued to himself that by a small lie, he could do far more good, both politically, and with regard to his vocation as a husband and father, than by sticking to the truth and dying, with no chance of achieving anything. Yet we revere him as a saint, a martyr and a hero for his witness to truth: and who would dare to say that no good came from it?

So perhaps a strict adherence to the truth, even if it prevents us from taking actions which we believe might well save lives, is what God wants: and He will use it according to His infinite wisdom and love, in ways that we cannot foresee.

Moreover, where does it end? If I will tell a small lie to save lives, would I tell a big one (eg falsify research, or lie on oath)? And if I would, what else would I do? Threaten an abortionist? Kidnap his child? Bomb his clinic? Murder his child as a warning (for after all, if taking one innocent life could save thousands...)? Where does one draw the line?  And how does one decide where to draw it?

The moral basis for our pro-Life beliefs is surely that there are some actions that are inherently wrong: if I don't adhere to that, on what basis do I proceed?

And then my heart revolts: are you not playing the Pharisee? Posing as virtuous, when you know the truth is quite other? You say you refuse to sully your purity to save lives, when you casually sin on a daily basis, with no greater purpose than your own comfort or whims?

And of course, my head knows the answers to that, not least the chilling quotation from Newman, and so it goes on.

And then people are quoting Rahab and all that, and I think, what about Abraham, who was ready to kill the innocent Isaac because God told him to do so? Obedience to God's law is foundational, not Pharisaical, surely? And so it goes on and on.

And part of me knows what I would do, but I am also clear that we cannot deduce what we should do from what we would do: that indeed would be arrogance, implying that all my behaviour is virtuous...

So I admire the clear-headed logic and rigour of those who insist that we cannot sin to do good: they are surely right.

And I admire the compassion of those who insist that lying to the likes of Planned Parenthood in order to stop the slaughter of children is legitimate: how can they be wrong?

And I cannot find any authority in the Church to support the notion that not all lying is sinful (if anyone can, please let me know!)

And I know in my head and my heart that there cannot, finally, be any conflict between Caritas and Veritas: for they are one and the same Person. 

And I remain unsure.

--

And why does it matter?

It matters because both truth and love matter.

It matters because in fighting abortion we are fighting a spiritual battle: so we must ensure that we are fighting it in ways that do not collude with the Father of Lies, but rather are taught us by the Father who is Love and Truth.

It matters because our vocation as humans is to know, love and serve God.

It matters because to sin is cataclysmic: whether that sin is lying, or failing to do all we legitimately can to save innocent lives.

And on a very practical note, it matters to me, as it reveals a huge gap in my own education, and the need to study this issue further.

--

As ever, I welcome comments: feel free to put me right, point out where I am an idiot, etc. 

However, I will not post comments that are unduly disparaging of others.

More hopeful reflections

I blogged a bit about some reasons for hope yesterday, but got distracted by domestics while writing (domestic issues, not domestic servants, since you ask). So the thoughts were not as well formulated, or as comprehensive, as I had planned.

So today, whilst occupied with other duties, I remembered several other points I had intended to make, and indeed some of the pithy and engaging ways in which I was going to put them across.

However, now I finally have the time to sit and write, all those words, they seem to slip away. 

Still, I will do what I can to articulate them - and as with yesterday's post, this is as much a memo to self as anything else.

But I really do think that there are more reasons for being hopeful than I mentioned yesterday.

One is simply that the battle lines are much clearer now. There are more bishops unmistakably on the side of orthodoxy, and others more clearly taking up mistaken positions. That in itself is an improvement, I think, on the more confused state of affairs over the last decades.

There is also the fact that the confused generation of those who lived through the turmoil of the changes of the 60s and 70s are no longer the only, or even the dominant, voice in the Church.

There is the rise of the strongly orthodox leadership from the less privileged parts of the globe, forged in the fire of real faith and real persecution, who see the dilettante posturing of some liberal bishops in North Western Europe and the US for what it is.

There is the growing number of young people committed to orthodoxy, unscarred by old battles, who look at tradition without jaundice and see much that is good there.

There are even in the decadent NW Europe, and US, several courageous bishops who really believe, and who are leading their flock, despite the opposition of some of their peers.

There are countless good and holy priests and religious, quietly getting on with their vocations.

And there is a growing body of laity, increasingly connecting with each other, supporting and encouraging each other, whether formally through some of the new movements or informally through friendships and even the samizdat of social media; families who are finding that they are not, in fact, alone in striving to raise their kids as Catholic in a rather more comprehensive way than is normative in the average parish.

And, as Mother Teresa remarked, we are not required to win - only to remain faithful...

And the gates of Hell shall not prevail.

Freedom to do or freedom to be?

I can't even remember what sparked this post, but something prompted me to reflect on the very different meanings we can attribute to the notion of freedom.

In contemporary society, people typically think of freedom as meaning the freedom to do something (or even, the freedom to do anything).

The Church, however, has a wholly different notion of freedom: the freedom to become something. And that 'something' is what we are called to be: saints.

The first freedom, the freedom to do whatever we please, leads ultimately to hedonism, sin and misery. Pursuing it results in the restlessness which our hearts experience, the existential angst of the modern age.

The second freedom, the freedom to 'become what we are' leads to ultimate fulfilment (albeit by way of the Cross).

That is one of the reasons that the Church is a sign of contradiction; it is also one of the reasons that we all (and particularly Cardinals and Bishops...) need to maintain a critical distance from the freedoms the world and the worldly clamour for, and not get swept away by them.

Finally, the difference is freedom from any restraint, versus freedom from sin. The second is the primary concern of Christians.

The Hidden Life

I have been reflecting on Our Lord's hidden life: that period between His infancy and His public ministry, with help (naturally) from Frank Sheed's To Know Christ Jesus.

Apart from the Finding in the Temple, we know almost nothing, of course. But almost is the operative word.

We do know a little, and can deduce a little more, and even speculate a bit beyond that.

What we know is that 'He went home and was subject to them.'

We also know where home was, a village called Nazareth, and that He was raised there by the Blessed Virgin and St Joseph.  We know that they will have taught Him, by word and example, as He grew up; and we can assume that He went to the village school, probably in the synagogue (or perhaps outside in hot weather) where the curriculum would have been reading, writing and knowledge of sacred Scripture.

As a good Jewish family, they would certainly have observed the Sabbath, and heard the Shema read at the start of each synagogue service: three passages of scripture that they would also have recited twice a day at home (two from Deuteronomy, and one from Numbers).

 We can safely assume that He worked with St Joseph, the Carpenter.  After all, He remained at home till the age of thirty.

And I think we can speculate a little, too.  For example, it is unthinkable to me that these carpenters of Nazareth would have turned out anything less than the very best they could. He would necessarily have been skilled at, and I surmise would have loved, his craft.

Likewise, they will have sold fairly; in that culture, that would have necessitated bargaining - for that is the process by which fair deals were reached.

We can also deduce that He did nothing spectacular: His neighbours were astonished when He suddenly came to prominence.

And He did not marry. Sheed points out how unusual that would have been for a man of His age, to be still a bachelor: but He had a different vocation.

So what light do we gain from this? I think it valuable. A certain type of Christian will often say 'What would Jesus do?' I am generally wary of that approach; apart from anything else, what He did was always the action of God Incarnate. Moreover, His public life is so different from the situation in which we normally find ourselves.

However, in the Hidden Life, there may well be things to apply to our daily lives: fair dealing, doing the very best we can in our work, commitment to prayer, obedience to our lawful superiors, and fidelity to our vocation.  And the fact that He chose to spend thirty years living a very ordinary life in a village, but always ready to turn His hand to God's work, is a wonderful reminder of the value of the everyday - when offered to God.

SRE Consultation

I have just been working on my response to the Inquiry on Sex Education (with thanks to James Preece for the reminder, and to SPUC for their guidance notes. 

I note that once submitted, they may not be used for any other purpose - including, presumably, as matter for a blog post.  However, I can see no reason why I should not publish my draft notes, and invite others interested to comment and help me clarify and correct any points.

And, of course, if anyone wishes to contribute to the inquiry himself or herself, my draft notes might help provide a stimulus to his or her thinking.

So without further ado (except a request to put me right if I have got anything wrong)...

1            Executive Summary

1.1  It is troubling that this inquiry is being held so soon after the last: it gives the impression that parents gave the ‘wrong’ answer and the powers that be will not rest until the 'right' answer is given.

1.2  At the heart of this issue are two opposed ideologies: one which sees young people as active consumers of sex, and one which sees sex as properly reserved for married life.

1.3 PSHE ought not be made compulsory.

1.4 Schools should be accountable primarily to parents (and those acting in loco parentis) in the provision of PSHE.

1.5 Provision should be developed in the context of parental wishes and the overall aims of promoting stable family life, which is the bedrock of society, rather than the promotion of hedonism. It should be based on research into what supports stable family life, not a permissive ideology.

1.6 The involvement of Brook  et al in the development of  Supplementary Advice demonstrates which ideology (see 1.2 above and 3 below) is dominant. That is unacceptable to many parents, who believe their approach inimical to civilised society.

1.7 In order for the effectiveness of SRE to be measured, the goals should be clear. I propose the goal should be the reduction of early sexual activity, and the reduction in the numbers of those engaging with multiple sexual partners; measures would then be the associated reduction in STIs, teenage pregnancies and abortions.  All of which would be measurable and all contribute to the Common Good.

2            The present inquiry

            2.1    There has been a very recent consultation by the Department for Education, with a report published in March 2013 http://bit.ly/1n81eEx

Many parents responded (more than any other category of respondent) and the messages were clear: many parents are concerned about SRE, they believe it is primarily the responsibility of parents, they do not wish schools to be able to push material or views they deem inappropriate on their young children, and they reject the idea of compulsion.

            2.2 Given that context, and allied with the strong lobbying by interest groups such as Brook, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this inquiry is an attempt to overturn the findings of the previous one. According to those who deem themselves ‘experts,’ the parents got it wrong.  However, many parents trust their own judgement, particularly when based on traditional wisdom (ie the collective learning of the generations which preceded us) or religious or philosophical systems which reject the implicit hedonism of the ‘experts’ preferred approach.

3            Opposing ideologies

            3.1 At the heart of this inquiry are two opposing ideologies.  On one side there are those like me who believe that we should be educating our children for life-long monogamous marriages; on the other, those who want to see children as informed, active, consumers of sex. Lest anyone think I am over-stating the position, visit the www sites for fpa and Brook, where they make their position, including condoning under-age sex, very explicit. They are advocates of children’s right to enjoy their sexuality, and are among the country’s leading campaigners for and providers of abortion.

It is evident that Brook and fpa talk the language of ‘relationships’ to get their material past parents: there is none of that concern in their www sites. But of course any teenager can convince himself or herself that the current infatuation is ‘a meaningful loving relationship.’ That kind of thinking provides no protection against promiscuity - but then it is not intended to.

The middle ground is made up of those who would prefer children to delay having sex and not be too promiscuous, but believe that they can’t be stopped. That risks being a self-fulfilling prophecy, transforming the historical pattern of a very small number of children being sexually active into a much larger number being so.

The evidence on early sexual activity and multiple partners seems pretty clear: the two go together, and are an unhealthy combination, physically, emotionally and psychologically. Oddly, Brook and fpa, who are so keen to deal in fact, ignore these facts absolutely - as they ignore the research which shows that 70% of girls who engage in sex early (pre-16) regret it later on and wish they had waited.

These different ideologies naturally lead to radically different approaches to sex education. Those who think as I do, believe that sex is private (indeed sacred), and that taboos (and even some things labelled by the ‘experts’ as prejudices) are often helpful in protecting children from premature exposure to adult issues and from aberrant thoughts and behaviours. The other side believes that anything goes (as long as it is consensual), and that openness and choice are the primary virtues.

3.2            Given that ideological division, it is clear that large numbers of parents are rightly suspicious of any approach that is informed by the thinking of Brook and its ideological allies.

4            Consultation Point One: Compulsion?

4.1            Compulsion is a significant decision in any democratic society. It should only be used on those occasions where it is just, proportionate and necessary for the good of society and individual members of society. Such a case pertains in both negative compulsions (laws which restrain behaviours which would be harmful to others, such as driving at excessive speeds) and positive compulsions (laws which compel behaviours for the good both of society and of the individual, such as the education of children).

4.2            In this case, it is not clear that compulsion would be just, proportionate or necessary. Indeed, in the view of many parents it would be unjust, disproportionate and harmful.

4.3             It is a serious business to bring the law and the legitimate authorities of the country into disrepute: introducing compulsion against the wishes of parents in pursuit of a contested agenda pushed by partisan experts would undoubtedly do that.

4.4            Compulsion would be a derogation to the state and the education system of responsibilities which rightly rest, in the first instance, with parents.  The fact that some parents are unable or unwilling to meet their responsibilities is no just reason to strip all parents of their rights. In terms of the Common Good, parents should be encouraged to undertake their responsibilities, not prevented from doing so.

4.5            Compulsion would also absolve schools of the practical need to work in partnership with parents. A compulsory system would mean simply that the programme recommended by ‘experts’ drawn from one side of the ideological division over this issue, could be imposed with no right for parents to withdraw their children from it.  Given that some of the materials promoted by such ‘experts’ are deemed not only inappropriate but actually damaging by many parents, that would be grave indeed (for example, Living and Growing is an assault on the sensibilities of those who wish their children to grow up chaste – indeed it works directly against such parents’ intentions for their children’s formation).

4.6            For all of these reasons, compulsion should not be introduced.

5            Consultation Point Two: Accountability?

5.1            The family is the place where children naturally learn civilised behaviour, ranging from courtesy, to making sensible decisions and acquiring good habits (for example) about diet and exercise; and also refraining from harmful activities such as taking drugs.

5.2            As before, the fact that some parents are unable or unwilling to meet their responsibilities is no just reason to strip all parents of their rights. In terms of the Common Good, parents should be encouraged to undertake their responsibilities, not prevented from doing so.

5.3            Moreover, many of the issues covered in PSHE are morally contested; parents from different cultures and belief systems will have different views as to what is most appropriate for their children. They should not find themselves in a position where the school is working against their programme for their children. There may, necessarily, be exceptions in extreme cases (such as cultures that support FGM).  Teaching children chastity is clearly not such a case.

5.4            For these reasons, and in recognition of the importance of the parents as the primary educators of their children, schools should be accountable, in the first instance, to the parents of the children who attend the schools. In that way, teaching is not driven by experts’ ideology, but rather is sensitive to the variety of values and cultural norms that local families may adhere to.

6            Consultation Point Three: Provision?

6.1            The provision at present is subject to several criticisms:  it is hedonistic, frequently pornographic, assumes promiscuity as inevitable, and is not based on sound and appropriate research. Further schools are often poor in communicating with parents either about the content or the underlying research and philosophy of the provision.

6.2            It is based on a hedonistic philosophy that many parents find abhorrent, and believe to be damaging of individuals and families and therefore of society. That philosophy equates moral good with only two considerations: pleasure and consent.

6.3            It frequently involves the use of pornographic material: that is, material showing intimate sexual behaviour. Indeed, if anyone other than a teacher were to show such material (eg some parts of Living and Growing) to a minor, he or she would probably be prosecuted.

6.4            It is based on an assumption that young people are going to be promiscuous, that risks being a self-fulfilling prophecy.

6.5            It is not based on research into what will help children to grow up into responsible adults capable of forming stable loving relationships; despite plenty of research demonstrating that such relationships are the best environment to raise the next generation to be happy and healthy.

6.6            There is much anecdotal evidence to suggest that my experience is not atypical.  I was told that my children would be learning about growing up and puberty, and a meeting was arranged for parents interested.  I had to book time off work to be able to get to the meeting, which was at the end of the school day (and thus before the end of the working day). I found that the material about growing up and puberty included information on masturbation, animated cartoons of a couple having sex, and so on. And this at junior school! Most parents will have been wholly unaware what their children were being taught, until after the event.  The Headmaster gave us a handout (provided by Brook) telling us research backed up this approach. He was unable to cite any such research. I withdrew my children from the programme (but if the experts have their way, that will be outlawed).

7            Consultation Point Four: Adequacy of recent steps?

7.1            As far as I can see, this refers to the supplementary advice drafted by the PSHE Association, Brook and the Sex Education Forum. Given that these are all very clearly on one side of the ideological division to which I referred earlier, it is not surprising that they seem not only inadequate, but positively harmful to me.

7.2            Parents are excluded from any consideration at all. The student-centred approach is taken to an extreme that would not be tolerated in any other subject. It is inconceivable that one would teach maths simply by asking children what they want to learn.

7.3            The requirement for SRE to be taught by people who are trained to talk about ‘healthy and unhealthy relationships, equality, pleasure, respect, abuse, sexuality, gender identity, sex and consent,’ raises the worry of Brook-trained ideologues being given licence to teach children according to their own values and beliefs, which may be a long way from those of the parents.

7.4            This is made explicit in the guidance that teachers should “treat sex as a normal and pleasurable fact of life.” For Christians, Jews, Muslims and many others, that is a completely inadequate philosophy. Sex is seen as sacred, relating as it does to the work of the Creator.  It is not simply another recreational activity. We do not expect that view to be accepted by schools, but we do not expect it to be systematically undermined, either.

7.5            It is therefore the opinion of many in this country that the philosophical underpinnings of the approach advocated by Brook et al is inimical to society, tending to raise promiscuous children, disconnected from their cultural roots, and severely damaged in their ability to form stable families.

8            Consultation Point Five: Measuring the Effectiveness of SRE?

8.1            In order to measure the effectiveness of SRE, it is important to be clear about the goal. Effectiveness is then measured by progress towards that goal.

8.2            According to my analysis at 3 above, there are two quite different sets of goals that could be considered: on the one hand the goal of making children into competent consumers of recreational sex in pursuit of pleasure; and on the other, raising children to grow into adults capable of forming stable monogamous relationships for the good of their families and society as a whole.

8.3            Given that the role of the civil authorities is to pursue the Common Good and the well-being of individuals, I believe that the second type of goal is legitimate for the education system, whilst the first is not.

8.4            Therefore I propose that the immediate goal of SRE should be the reduction of early sexual activity, and the reduction of those engaging with multiple sexual partners; measures would then be the associated reduction in STIs, teenage pregnancies and abortions.  All of which would be measurable and all contribute to the Common Good.

9            Conclusions

9.1  This inquiry should not be used as an excuse to disregard the clear messages sent by parents in response to the last consultation.

9.2  The education system should not adopt the hedonistic philosophy of Brook and its ideological allies.

9.3 Schools should not be required to make teaching in this area compulsory.

9.4 Schools should teach in the context of their children’s families’ values and beliefs, not an ideology.

9.5  Provision should be focussed on raising the next, and subsequent, generations in ways compatible with a civilised society and the Common Good.

9.6 Reliance on experts from one side of an ideological division is deeply damaging.

9.7 The true educational goal of SRE should be to develop emotionally mature adults, capable of forming monogamous relationships and raise the next generation of society. The interim goals should therefore be to work against the culture of promiscuity and early sexual experience; and the effectiveness of SRE should be measured against those goals.

The Rush to Judgement

Pondering further on my recent posts about Fundamental Attribution Error and Projection,  I find that the phrase The Rush to Judgement keeps recurring in my mind.

It seems that we cannot help this: that our minds make judgements all the time, and frequently outside the operation of our will or even our conscious awareness.

But our will and awareness do have a role to play. We may not be able to stop our minds from indulging in Fundamental Attribution Error, or Projection, at least in the short term, though I suspect with a bit of mental discipline, awareness and practice, we could reduce them dramatically over the longer term.  However, I do believe that we can take responsibility for what happens next: that is what we do with them.

One of the first things must be to choose to attend to them, and to evaluate them.  A fundamental evaluation is whether we are judging actions or people.

The first of these, judging actions, we may be required to do. If an untruth or an injustice is propagated, it may be our duty to oppose it.  Even here, however, we should proceed with prudence: our judgements are not infallible, and there are many occasions when it is better to keep silence than to speak.

But the second case is the more dangerous: when we rush to judge people: to ascribe motivation to their  behaviour, and moral qualities to them.  This is surely where the injunction Judge Not! comes into play.  We are clearly forbidden from judging their moral worth (the state of their soul). That is God's prerogative, and we have no competence or rights in that regard.

The trickier area is judging their moral competence.  That is to say, if somebody repeatedly tells untruths, or commits injustice, or proclaims ignorance as truth,  we may need, for our own protection, to note that fact.  If they are doing so in  public arena, to the harm of others, we may also need to address it publicly: first with them directly, if that is possible and practical, and secondly, on occasion, by public refutation.  But here, I think, is where we have to be careful.  I think that our public criticism should normally be limited to refuting each error, rather than labelling the person.

There are various, significant, risks underlying this distinction   One is that our judgement may be inaccurate, partial, or just plain wrong: as noted above, we are not infallible.  A second is that once we have proclaimed something publicly, we are more committed to it, and will tend to protect that judgement (both internally in our heads, and externally in the world) even should new evidence become apparent, or the person change his or her behaviour. A third is that such name-callling is less likely to provoke a metanoia in others (which we may claim is our intention) than to provoke a defensive reaction in which they dig into their position, and attack us. That is, of course, very satisfying, as it proves (to us at least) that our judgement was correct and they were beneath contempt…. and so it cycles on.

What was it Our Lord said about calling our brother a fool?