Scottish Catholic Education Service Guilty of Institutionalised Child Sex Abuse

Recently, January, 2017, we discussed the distinction which has to be made today, between Catholic schools and authentic Catholic education. The two are no longer the same thing. This, in the context of the large numbers of Muslim pupils populating Catholic schools. Click here to read that discussion

Previously, in July 2016, we had addressed the issues surrounding the compliance with the LGBT agenda, of the Catholic education service in Scotland (SCES) here

Barbara Couper, Director, Scottish Catholic Education Service

Barbara Couper, Director, Scottish Catholic Education Service

Now, today, we look at the utterly shocking report in this week’s Scottish Catholic Observer (SCO) detailing the sheer scale of the apostasy and depravity within the Scottish Catholic Education Service (SCES) where, says Barbara Couper, Director of the SCES speaking on behalf of the Scottish Bishops, “gay” pupils in Scottish Catholic schools are to be given “safe spaces” to talk to specially trained (in LGBTI issues) teachers or other adults, under the patently obvious pretext of “bullying”.  No such provision for pupils bullied for any other reason is made.  Just those who imagine themselves to be called by God to a life of depravity and moral corruption. Ms Couper was addressing the Scottish Parliament’s Equalities and Human Rights Committee about a “range of measures that would be taken in Catholic schools to prevent bullying of any lesibian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex (LGBTI) pupils”  Bishop Keenan of Paisley “praised Ms Coupar’s performance before the committee saying she gave an ‘excellent account to the Holyrood Equalities Committee of how our Catholic schools are responding to LGBTI bullying issues while respecting parents’ wishes that their children be educated within the Catholic vision of the dignity of every human person.” (LGBTI ‘safe spaces’ for Catholic schools, Scottish Catholic Observer, 3rd February, 2017.) At time of this writing, the report is not online – if it appears later, we will link to it. This week’s SCO can be read here   

Bishop John Keenan of Paisley

Bishop John Keenan of Paisley

It goes without saying that if Ms Couper’s version of Catholic education had remotely reflected the truths of Catholic Faith and Morality, it would have made headline news – as a “hate crime” – for weeks if not months to come.  And Bishop Keenan must know that, so he – with his brother bishops – are seriously complicit in this depraved (literally) version of Catholic education. 

Lest anyone be ignorant enough to think that this move has anything to do with bullying, take a look at the Stonewall booklet (A Guide For Schools) which argues for ways and means to encourage young pupils to “come out” – this is what is actually going on here; Catholic schools encouraging this vice among young people, who, half the time can’t make up their minds whether they want to be bus drivers or brain surgeons, cops or high court judges, yet they are exposed to the possibility that they may engage in depraved sexual behaviour and be actively encouraged to do so by none other than so-called  Catholic educators. Barbara Couper, Director of the Scottish Catholic Education Service, insists that Catholic schools “propose the Gospel, not impose the Gospel” – ignoring the fact that the LGBTI community have no problem imposing their counter-gospel.  Thus, with a red-hot warning that if you visit this comment from an Anglican gentleman posted by me on our General Discussion thread recently, you will be faced with the sheer depravity of homosexual activity; if you are a parent or a teacher, however, you ought to grit your teeth and suffer the filth, for the purpose of knowing precisely what it is that Barbara Couper and the Scottish Bishops are doing by their ‘safe spaces’ initiative in Catholic schools.  They are exposing children to everything you will read there, and more – the commitment of the  SCES remember, as quoted in the SCO report of 3rd February, is to put pupils in touch with “help inside and outside the school.”   

Below, is the substance of my comment copied from the July thread, with some additional remarks, because I think it applies today, in the context of this latest dereliction of duty by the Scottish Bishops. 

Comment: 

The Scottish Hierarchy continues to keep a disgraceful silence on the undermining-through-to-destruction of traditional marriage and sexual morality  – always taking their lead from the enemy; secular society and, specifically, the homosexual lobby, whose list of deviant behaviour is ever growing.  Not one Scottish Bishop has come out plainly to warn the faithful against the heresy in Amoris Laetita.  Far from it.  Archbishop Tartaglia has advertised training for teachers and priests on how to teach, preach, implement it and you can bet your bottom dollar that if he were instructing Catholic teachers and priests to preach traditional Catholic doctrine on marriage, and ignore the heresy, we’d have heard about it, with banner headlines in the secular press about the “infidelity” of  “disobeying” Pope Francis the Great. 

There’s a push now for the normalisation of “transgenderism” and “intersex” and goodness knows what else will be added to the list once that’s firmly in place (and they’re almost there, with few questioning the idea that a man may become a woman and vice versa)  – bestiality? Why not?  

Children and young people are, therefore, effectively being groomed for sexual deviance, with the full and knowing complicity of the useful idiots currently running the Education Service of the Catholic Church in Scotland – and their episcopal bosses. Click here to see who’s who….

Nobody but nobody will convince me that these self-styled education “experts” and the Bishops do not know perfectly well that “addressing LGBTI+ matters in an appropriate and sensitive way” (and providing “safe spaces” for pupils to “come out”) means condoning sexually deviant behaviour and accepting its normalisation – and imposition – by those guilty of this grave sin, which Christians have always believed, is a sin “crying to Heaven for vengeance.”  

It seems self-evident then that what is going on in Catholic schools today amounts to institutionalised child sex abuse. If you agree, why not write to the Scottish Catholic Observer to complain about their report published in the paper, 3rd February and entitled: LGBTI ‘Safe spaces’ for Catholic schools – email the Editor, Ian Dunn at  ian@sconews.co.uk   I’m about to write to him myself, having sent him this comment in advance, in an effort to make absolutely sure that he understands what is at stake for the young people entrusted to Catholic educators. [Later that same day – I’ve now emailed a letter for publication. Let’s see if it makes it onto the SCO Letters Page.]

I would add only this, for reflection: I have long been of the opinion – and said so for years in our newsletter, well before the Cardinal O’Brien scandal broke – that bishops who permit and promote deviant sexual behaviour have placed a huge question mark over their own sexual morality and integrity.  It’s called “fair comment”. 

Anyway, back to the immediate issue:  perhaps you think that providing ‘safe spaces’ in Catholic schools to encourage “gay” pupils to “come out” is just fine?  Let’s hear it… 

Pope: Take Risks With Your Salvation?

In his homily at Casa Santa Marta, Pope Francis explained what paralyzes Christians with a very graphic example.
POPE FRANCIS
“‘Not taking risks, please, no… prudence…’ ‘Obeying all the commandments, all of them…’ Yes, it’s true, but this paralyzes you too, it makes you forget so many graces received, it takes away memory, it takes away hope, because it doesn’t allow you to go forward. And the present of a Christian, of such a Christian, is like when one goes along the street and an unexpected rain comes, and the garment is not so good and the fabric shrinks… Confined souls… This is cowardliness: this is the sin against memory, courage, patience, and hope.”
He also added that pusillanimity and fear of everything are two sins contrary to giving up one’s life in service to others, as Christ asks.
SUMMARY OF PAPAL HOMILY IN ENGLISH
(Source: Vatican Radio)
“‘Brothers, call to mind those first days’: the days of enthusiasm, of going forward in the faith, when you began to live the faith, the anguished trials… You don’t understand the Christian life, even the spiritual life of each day, without memory. Not only do you not understand: You can’t live in a Christian way without memory. The memory of the salvation of God in my life, the memory of my troubles in my life; but how has the Lord saved me from these troubles? Memory is a grace: a grace to ask for. ‘Lord, may I not forget your step in my life, may I not forget the good moments, also the ugly; the joys and the crosses.’ The Christian is a man of memory.”
 
“Hope: Looking to the future. Just as one cannot live a Christian life without memory of the steps taken, one cannot live a Christian life without looking to the future with hope… of the encounter with the Lord. And he uses a beautiful phrase: ‘just a brief moment…’ Eh, life is a breath, eh? It passes. When one is young, he thinks he has so much time before him, but then life teaches us that those words that we all say: ‘But how time passes! I knew this person as a child, now they’re getting married! How time passes!’ It comes soon. But the hope of encountering it is a life in tension, between memory and hope, the past and the future.”
 
“‘Not taking risks, please, no… prudence…’ All the commandments, all of them… Yes, it’s true, but this paralyzes you too, it makes you forget so many graces received, it takes away memory, it takes away hope, because it doesn’t allow you to go forward. And the present of a Christian, of such a Christian, is how when one goes along the street and an unexpected rain comes, and the garment is not so good and the fabric shrinks… Confined souls… This is faintheartedness: this is the sin against memory, courage, patience, and hope. May the Lord make us grow in memory, make us grow in hope, give us courage and patience each and free us from that which is faintheartedness, being afraid of everything…  Confined souls in order to save ourselves. And Jesus says: ‘He who wills to save his life will lose it.’”   Source
Comment:
Am I misunderstanding what the Pope is saying here?  IS he belittling the danger of breaking the Commandments? There is, believe it or not, a “Theology of Risk” (Google if you don’t believe me) but surely this is not what Pope Francis is advocating? You tell me…

No! To Open Borders-St Thomas Aquinas

stthomasaquinasuniversaldoctorEvery nation has the right to distinguish, by country of origin, who can migrate to it and apply appropriate immigration policies, according to the great medieval scholar and saint Thomas Aquinas.

In a surprisingly contemporary passage of his Summa Theologica, Aquinas noted that the Jewish people of Old Testament times did not admit visitors from all nations equally, since those peoples closer to them were more quickly integrated into the population than those who were not as close.

Some antagonistic peoples were not admitted at all into Israel due to their hostility toward the Jewish people.

The Law “prescribed in respect of certain nations that had close relations with the Jews,” the scholar noted, such as the Egyptians and the Idumeans, “that they should be admitted to the fellowship of the people after the third generation.”

Citizens of other nations “with whom their relations had been hostile,” such as the Ammonites and Moabites, “were never to be admitted to citizenship.”

“The Amalekites, who were yet more hostile to them, and had no fellowship of kindred with them, were to be held as foes in perpetuity,” Aquinas observed.

For the scholar, it seemed sensible to treat nations differently, depending on the affinity of their cultures with that of Israel as well as their historic relations with the Jewish people.

In his remarkably nuanced commentary, Aquinas also distinguished among three types of immigrants in the Israel of the Old Testament.

First were “the foreigners who passed through their land as travelers,” much like modern day visitors with a travel visa.

Second were those who “came to dwell in their land as newcomers,” seemingly corresponding to resident aliens, perhaps with a green card, living in the land but not with the full benefits of citizenship.

A third case involved those foreigners who wished “to be admitted entirely to their fellowship and mode of worship.” Even here, dealing with those who wished to integrate fully into the life and worship of Israel required a certain order, Aquinas observed. “For they were not at once admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations.”

“The reason for this was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst,” Aquinas logically reasoned, “many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people.”

In other words, Aquinas taught that total integration of immigrants into the life, language, customs and culture (including worship, in this case) was necessary for full citizenship.

It requires time for someone to learn which issues affect the nation and to make them their own, Aquinas argued. Those who know the history of their nation and have lived in it, working for the common good, are best suited to participate in decision-making about its future.

It would be dangerous and unjust to place the future of a nation in the hands of recent arrivals who do not fully understand the needs and concerns of their adoptive home.

When facing contemporary problems, modern policy makers can often benefit from the wisdom of the great saints and scholars who have dealt with versions of the same issues in ages past.

Aquinas’ reflections reveal that similar problems have existed for centuries—indeed, millennia—and that distinguishing prudently between nations and cultures doesn’t automatically imply prejudice or unfair discrimination.

Sometimes, it’s just the right thing to do.  Source

Comment: 

It seems that St Thomas Aquinas has left himself open to being labelled “racist”.  

Certainly, one of the most common criticisms of those of us who voted to leave the EU, is that we have encouraged “racism”.  What do you think?