Edinburgh Social Services Accuse SSPX of being Sect – Parents fighting to prevent children being taken into care… 

Saints Margaret & Leonard, SSPX chapel, Edinburgh...

The following email from an Edinburgh reader arrived in my inbox this morning, and after due consultation, I have been granted permission to publish it: the names of the parents have been withheld. 

Email from Edward (not his real name)

Can I ask you all to pray for [names withheld] who attend the SSPX chapel in Edinburgh? They have a meeting tomorrow with the Social Services who are trying to take their children into care. Apparently when one of the children walked into a tree and grazed herself someone reported them to the Social Services who accused [the child’s father] of causing the cut.

They are now bringing the SSPX into the case claiming that [the parents] belong to a sect which is not recognised by the Catholic Church and “which holds many contentious points of view, including anti-Semitism and holocaust denial, among many other things.” The Social Work Manager claims that the children are “being exposed to controversial views preached at the church.”

[The father] has often complained to St. Mary’s school in Leith about certain things being taught in the school which were contrary to Catholic teaching and is obviously regarded as a troublemaker. I suspect that it is the school who have contacted the Social Services.

Please pray that all will go well for them tomorrow. Ends

In a subsequent email, “Edward” disclosed the fact that the Archbishop has shown himself to have “no problem with the SSPX” and so those involved in trying to help the parents are confident that he will agree to help the family by explaining that the Society is not a sect, and that anyone regularly attending the chapel will affirm that the allegations of anti-Semitism, holocaust-denial and the like in preaching at the chapel, are totally without foundation.  

Note: the dual purpose of this thread…

1)    to seek prayers for this family, for all the spiritual sustenance necessary to withstand this intrusive attack on their family life, with the attendant anxiety and worry.  

2)   to highlight the dangers for parents of pupils in the Catholic education system, if they seek to question any materials or content which they consider is contrary to Catholic  teaching. No “dialogue”, no “parental involvement” allowed here…

On the contrary, “Liberal tyranny” is alive and well and working hard here in Scotland, for all the world to see.  From the sinister Government Named Person Scheme, a spy in every home, for every child, before and after birth, until the child’s 18th birthday, to the equally sinister persecution by pseudo-experts of parents who dare to insist on an authentic Catholic education for the children they have chosen to send to a Catholic school.  At least, in this case, it seems that the Archbishop is seeking to be fair and there has been  a move to put the family in touch with a Canon Lawyer, so we must give all credit to the archdiocese on this occasion. Let’s pray that they are minded to help this family to achieve justice. 

Finally…

Pray for this family – and share your thoughts on the sheer audacity of that person or persons who think nothing of lying, blatantly, in order to undermine parental rights, Catholic family life, and the reputation of the priestly Society of Saint Pius X.   

59 responses

  1. This is the kind of thing that went on under the Nazis and still goes on wherever Communist governments take control, they have spies everywhere to ensure the stamping out of religion by any and all means. The couple involved should refuse to cooperate, quoting the law above legislation. We elect our politicians to office in this country, not to “power” to alter the established common law in accordance with their ideological agenda. Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights affords every citizen in the land the right to trial by jury for any criminal offence they are accused of committing, be it minor or major, that’s the law of the land and no government can presume to usurp that law with what they call “legislation”.

    As Theresa May recently reminded us, this country is governed by consent, that is, the individual consent of every person to every piece of legislation. Acts of Parliament, then, are legal ordinances, not necessarily lawful. To be lawful, they must be consistent with the common law of the land and in line with the long-established Constitutional rights of individuals. Hence, legislation that interferes with how parents raise their children are null and void and so no one should participate in power grab it represents.

    Legal, as I say, does not immediately equate to lawful. The Nazis made it legal to treat Jews as second class citizens, if even that. Now that was legal in Germany but it was neither consistent with the moral law or the law of the land, hence it was unlawful. People in this country need to wake up to what governments are doing in the name of legislation, formerly known as Admiralty Law, the law of ships captains. They are grabbing power and using it against the common good while pretending to do so for the common good. It’s clever but quite demonic. This couple needs to get a Human Rights lawyer on the case to blow these trumped up charges clean out of the water.

    In the meantime, we must pray for them that their evil accusers are exposed for the godless liars they are.

  2. I should have added that the couple in question should refuse to participate in this kangaroo court and demand the name of the person who made the false declaration about the SSPX with a view to defamatory proceedings in court. Bishop Williamson was expelled from the SSPX precisely for making statements denying the Holocaust, which demonstrates that the SSPX does not put up with such views. Additionally, Pope Francis himself called the SSPX “a Catholic institution” when he wrote personally to the Argentine President to secure charity status for it. So this nonsense about the SSPX being a “sect” can be very easily disproved.

    As for the general accusation against the father, he should demand his right under the law, which is that any crime he is suspected of be reported to the police and, if upheld by them, moved through the Crown Prosecution Service to a JURY trial, which every citizen is entitled to. Otherwise, he should tell them to keep their noses out of his personal and family life which cannot lawfully be opened to scrutiny by any amount of legislation by so-called “Acts” of Parliament.

    Finally, this shows Nicola Sturgeon up for the liar she is. She promised me live on radio that the Named Person Scheme would not be used to persecute families at odds with the SNP’s agenda, which is the Marxist counter-cultural revolution embraced also at Westminster and other parliaments throughout Europe. She said parents could easily opt out of it without fear of reprisals. So much for that promise!

    • Athanasius,

      All thoroughly well said in your two posts above. Thank you for those succinct and thoughtful comments. I do hope those involved will take heart from all that you say and act, bravely, in the face of this scandalous attack on their family life.

      Note: this comment from me slightly modified below, when I’d re-read both comments from Athanasius.

      • Editor

        It seems I repeated myself a number of times between the two posts.

        In this case I don’t mind since I cannot repeat often enough how unlawful the procedure against these parents is. We, the voting public, lend credibility to these power grabs when we cooperate with them. Tell these secular officials to sling their hook and report any suspected crime to the police, who must then gather evidence of the suspected crime before moving to prosecution and trial by jury. I say again, THIS IS THE LAW in Britain. Not even a magistrate or sheriff can try a person in the UK as they are merely paid court employees who are not judges and do not take the judges oath. School authorities and social workers have no lawful powers over anyone in the UK, it’s as simple as that.

        Interesting though to note how the social workers continue to act against responsible loving parents yet repeatedly fail to protect the lives of truly vulnerable children with a history of being violently abused.

    • Athanasius,

      I’ve just read your comments a bit more carefully (usual rush earlier) and it strikes me, on reflection, that you mention Magna Carta and The Bill of Rights, both of which are English documents, not, perhaps, applicable in Scotland?.

      Also, I don’t think there is a right to trial by jury in Scotland – Isn’t it up to the Lord Advocate or Procurator Fiscal to determine whether there is a jury or not?

      And recalling my stint on jury service, I think I’m right in saying that sheriffs are, in fact, judges in the Scots Judiciary.

      I think my later suggestion (see below) of seeking top legal representation if the threat from Social Services is carried through, is probably the only way forward.

      • Editor

        Both Magna Carta and the Bills of rights correspond in almost every principle with Scottish judiciary practice dating back centuries, although there are general variances between English and Scottish law at different periods in time. The most important point, however, is that the right to trial by jury has always existed in both England and Scotland, the only difference being the number of jurors selected – 12 in England and Wales, 15 in Scotland.

        On the second point. Remarkably enough Scotland is the only country within the Union to have maintained the right to trial by jury. The rest of the UK had the right taken from them by the Blair government.

        The linked articles below make interesting reading. The first details how the Labour government (blocked by the Lords) failed in its attempt to suppress the immemorial right of every citizen to trial by jury. The second records how, after a delay of a few years, they simply tried again and were successful.

        https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2000/jan/20/jurytrials.law2
        https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/may/19/jurytrials.law

        As regards the exact role and authority of Sheriffs in Scotland, you may have a point. It seems the office of Sheriff is a little more intricate in Scotland, though I would have to research the history to garner a little more detail. I do know that Sheriffs are not permitted to hear very serious criminal cases such as murder, rape and treason. They can oversee other less serious cases like GBH, robbery, etc., and can even include a jury, though this is rare. What the evidence suggests then is that Sheriffs are not judges in the sense that they are able, as high court judges are, to generally hear cases of trial by jury. They are restricted authority, somewhat inferior to sitting judges, which is very strange.

        These are all questions for another day. Right now, as you say, the case in hand is the one headlined for this thread. Your suggestion that top legal representation is the way to go for this family, should things turn ugly, is absolutely correct. We’ll address Constitutional questions another time.

      • Editor, you are correct about Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights not being applicable in Scotland. I used to work in the National Archives and sometimes people would come in from outwith the United Kingdom and would often ask about these documents and the Archivists had to point out that they were English documents and as they predated the 1707 Union had absolutely nothing to do with Scotland. You are also correct about there being no right to trail by jury. It has never existed in Scotland. This was another thing we often had to point out to readers.

        • Vianney

          That’s not historically correct. When Magna Carta was originally signed by King John and distributed in the 13th century, Scotland adopted its principles along with England. It was only later that Scotland diverged to a different system but still held on to such Magna Carta rules as trial by jury. The difference was that Scotland chose 15 as the number for jurors while England settled for 12 (or 9 on occasion).

          • I found this on the Scottish government website.

            “In Scotland the accused has no right to determine whether they are tried by jury. It is the responsibility of the Lord Advocate or the procurator fiscal to decide whether to prosecute under solemn or summary procedure, although certain offences can only be tried in solemn or summary courts.”

            • Petrus

              Yes, I read this. But it wasn’t always the case. This was the power grab right under our noses, a blow to proper justice. If I recall correctly, Our Lord was crucified because of the wrong decision by a single influenced judge. True justice is best served by a jury of ones peers weighing all the evidence, not by governement appointed sheriffs and JP’s who judge on the legal rather than the lawful. There can be, as I said at the start, a very great difference between the two.

  3. This is truly terrifying.The very thought of potential removal is to horrendous to contemplate.The corruption and injury caused to these children’s souls is too much too comprehend.The poor parents who surely are in agony over this situation were they too lose their children.Who pays the price for what is tantamount to stealing one’s children.Do we not live in a country where one is free to profess one’s faith?We must believe God will save this family .He will look after his own and spare these parents the loss of their children.

    • Hope,

      “truly terrifying” it is – you are totally right.

      I know that home-schooling parents live in fear of this sort of invasion into their family and religious life, all the time. It’s utterly scandalous. So, it is very interesting to see it hitting even parents who are sending their children to a Catholic school, if “Catholic” is the correct adjective (which it is not!)

      • I expect that most families raising their children with sincerity in the faith recognise this fear, given our increasingly irregular status in secular society. We can but hope that such is the fundamental attack on Catholicism that the Archbishop will stand squarely behind them and in so doing redress the de facto schism which appears to have arisen in the parochial school.

        We prayed for the family this evening and under Our Lady’s protection they will surely persevere in the face of injustice.

        • Crossraguel,

          I’m interested in your remark about “the de facto’ schism” which you say ‘appears to have arisen in [St Mary’s, Leith]”; there is no “appears” about it, sorry to say. Catholic schools have long ceased to exist in anything but name. Taking a brief tour of the school’s website (where you will note that they have listed pupils as ‘genders – boys and girls’, implicitly accepting that there are other genders) it is impossible to escape the fact that this school is about as Catholic as the moderator of the C of S.

          Surely, you are right, though, about Our Lady’s protection of this poor family, in the face of this injustice.

          I’ll add updates about this situation as and when I receive them.

  4. There are several issues here. I will give my opinion, albeit briefly as I’m snowed under, on each one.

    How awful for this family! They must be at their wits end. Of course we should pray for them.

    It’s good to hear that the Archbishop of St Andrew’s and Edinburgh is willing to help this family. It would be monumentally scandalous had they refused.

    This just goes to show that this country is run by tyrannical despots who see children as property of the state. Unfortunately this is the logical consequence of the abandonment of God, His Church and the moral law.

    This also goes to show the damage that the crackpot in the purple cassock, Richard Williamson, has done with his crazy conspiracy theories. As Athanasius has said, he was dealt with and told to sling his hook, so that should be made clear.

    I’ve attended the Society of Saint Pius X Masses for over ten years and I’ve never heard anything remotely anti-Semitic. Clearly someone has it in for this family, probably the school, and they are using anything as evidence in order to build a case. Horrifying!

    • Petrus,

      I agree – it would be dreadful if the archdiocese refused to help this family so let’s pray that they do the right thing.

      It will, of course, then, highlight the problem of having placed pseudo-Catholics in positions of authority in Catholic schools. Something needs to be done about that, without delay, so I’m with Athanasius’ call for the reporting culprit(s) to be named, shamed and brought to justice. Starting with ensuring that all those responsible are given pride of place in the nearest dole queue.

  5. I’m horrified. This state guardian is being thrust upon us and getting more ’closer to home’ !

    What are we parents to do!

    Ed: this post went into moderation because you had misspelt your surname in your email address. Thus, the system thinks you are a new blogger and puts you into moderation. You and Theresa Rose, both – a right pair!

  6. I would just say here, for the record, that I’m not sure the Named Person legislation has been invoked here. There was no mention of it in any of the emails I received from “Edward”. Maybe someone “in the know” could confirm that for us.

    Of course, in one sense it’s irrelevant because there is every likelihood that if the parents were refusing to attend the meeting tomorrow, then that evil NP legislation WOULD be invoked. It’s a shocking situation. So much for Nicola Sturgeon’s mantra in praise of a “modern, progressive, democratic Scotland”. As I’ve said before, and, sadly, may well say again, my first association with the word “progressive” is always “cancer”.

    • My understanding is that the named person is not law yet i could be mistaken.However I’m not as naive to think that privately it is being used.I think as mentioned above even those children who are home schooled will not escape these wicked measures.For those with children very very frightening what consequences lies can do.

    • Editor

      The parents should refuse to attend, telling the usurpers of power that if they suspect a crime then they must inform the police, whose job it is to investigate crime. These parents are not under any lawful obligation to attend a kangaroo court made up of people with no judicial powers. They should put it to the test by asking what “LAW”, not “ACT” constrains them to attend and what “LAW” authorises these non-judicial people to investigate such claims. I guarantee that they will try to get around it by rhyming off legislation. But legislation is not the law.

      • Athanasius,

        While I totally agree, the evil is so endemic now, with the agencies of Government ranged in unison against parents that, without the offices of top legal representation, I am concerned that, by going on the offensive, as you suggest (and as I believe IS the right road) a court order might be obtained, or whatever it is they do, to take children into care.

        I suspect the parents are going along with this first stage in the hope of ending the whole debacle. If not, then we’ll need to pray and work to get them the best legal representation: I’m sure this is a case that would be taken up by the Christian Institute.

        And just think – the Scottish Government has just published legislation to ban smacking of children by parents
        https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/legislation-to-ban-smacking-of-children-published-at-holyrood

        Given what appears to be intense hatred of children from the womb onwards, I can’t help wondering if Nicola Sturgeon’s conscience is bothering her in terms of her own life decisions – I mean, she didn’t like it one bit when an interviewer asked her why she had no children. Snapped that nobody asked Alex Salmond about his family planning when he was First Minister…

        Just a thought…

        • Editor

          Yes, maybe you’re right, no one wants to see court orders being issued by these eveil people to tak children into “care”. But should the usurping authorities in question find against the parents, then, as you say, it will be time to kick into action and get proper legal representation. Personally, if they came to take my kids, assuming I had kids, I would simply smash their faces in. Is that me being uncharitable?

            • Editor

              Just to clarify, it wasn’t the kids faces I was talking about! Anyway, maybe that was a bit too strong a statement. No wonder we get angry, the world was a sane place until social workers turned up along with the hippies.

                • Editor

                  It was funny, I just didn’t know if it was meant to be funny. There’s nothing worse than laughing at something you think is a joke for the person to say it wasn’t supposed to be funny! I’ve fallen into that one a few times and it’s embarrassing.

                  Mind you, the most embarrassing moment I ever encountered (me and my big mouth) was when a young, stout, female hairdresser was giving me a haircut and I asked her when she was due. The reply was “I’m not pregnant”. I wanted the earth to open up at that point in time and just swallow me up.

                  In my defence, she really looked about 8 months pregnant. Still, I will never ask any woman that question again. So much for small talk!

                  • Athanasius,

                    I did that once, myself. I was talking to a work colleague and she looked definitely pregnant. I did exactly the same thing, said I didn’t know that she was expecting a baby and when was it due. When she said she wasn’t, I didn’t know what to say, but she did add quickly that it was OK, not to worry, she understood, and I actually think she had something wrong with her health, although I never found out more because I left that job soon after. It’s an awful feeling when you put your foot in it like that. Ever since, I’ve just waited to hear the “good news” before speaking,

                    I did laugh heartily at your “so much for small talk!” LOL!

                    • Josephine

                      The lady hairdresser I asked the question of wasn’t quite so forgiving. She remained quiet for the rest of my haircut and the finished product looked like a knife and fork job! At least she didn’t cut oneof lugs off.

                      From now on I keep the big mouth shut!

  7. It’s amazing what kinds of false information circulates in the “mainstream” Church about the SSPX, of which this story is a perfect case in point. For example, several years ago I had a conversation with a member of a diocesan parish that was in the same neighborhood as an abandoned parish later taken over by the Society. In fact, his parish was the “sister parish,” whatever that means, of the other parish before it was abandoned. He said, referring contemptuously to the abandoned parish, “Oh, that building was taken over by the SSPX – you know, that group that has black masses!”

    I somehow suppressed the desire to respond to this with a certain physical action, assisted by the realization that this person was beyond help. So I said 3 Hail Marys for him instead.

  8. To continue Petrus’ post, it’s not just “tyrannical despots” who see children as the property of the state. It’s also the brainwashed bureaucrats, who are the enforcing arms, hands and fingers of the globalist monster, who think that way. In fact, they actually think their police state interventions are benevolent, and that they are rescuing children from some fate worse than death.

    I recall, from my brief visit to Scotland 10 years ago, my impression that the country was thoroughly immersed in and imbued with socialist propaganda. And one of the chief planks of the socialist (Marxist/Communist/Bolshevik…Satanic….) platform is the destruction of the family. In this case, by creating the illusion that certain children, particularly those who are being reared in a traditional family home, need to be protected from their parents, the evil enterprise is cloaked in an aura of virtue and responsibility.

    On this local side of the pond, we have “241-Kids,” just a variation on the same police state theme. Leftists will of course offer certain statistics to show how some children have indeed been rescued from abusive homes, but that is merely their standard tactic: making a rule out of the exception (also used in the pro-abortion camp).

  9. This is extremely worrying, and I agree with Athanasius 100 per cent, the parents should refuse to co-operate and demand to be properly investigated by the police if their children are thought to be at risk.

    I have already prayed for this couple and will continue to do so until I hear the evil attack on their family has been conquered. May the Holy Family, St Joseph, Our Lady and Our Blessed Lord, guide and protect this family.

  10. In my opinion, this is not a plausible argument, because the Conciliar Church is infested with sects such as the Neocatechumenal Path, Anuncio, Medjugorje, Sant’Egidio etc… when the SSPX has twenty centuries of doctrinal continuity.
    Sectarian leaders of the Official Church are those who have broken this continuity, those who created a new religion on the ruins of the Holy Church, ruin of which they are undoubtedly responsible!
    They are the dividers.
    “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!” (Galatians 1:8)
    They really should keep a low profile and repent because they will be held accountable at the time of Justice.
    Their harmful policy of controversial canonizations will be rejected at the time of deliverance…
    They throw confusion among the faithful.

  11. I’ve asked my husband, a solicitor, what should this family do. He advises that, in Scotland, no such right to a jury trial exists and that the family should get a good lawyer. My husband is not a defense lawyer but advises NOT to ignore the summons.

  12. https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/magna-carta-scotland-and-scots-law(bbf9130f-5f5f-402c-87a2-c476f1ffb421).html

    Editor: Crofterlady, when I clicked on your link, I got a message saying that page was not there. I then put the link into my search engine and did get a page which I’ve copied below, with the link from my browser, to show it is the same link. Very puzzling, is technology!

    LINK VISITED…
    https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/magna-carta-scotland-and-scots-law(bbf9130f-5f5f-402c-87a2-c476f1ffb421).html

    CONTENT…

    Magna Carta, Scotland and Scots Law

    Abstract
    The article is essentially an attempt to explain why, almost alone in the early modern English-speaking legal world, Scots lawyers gave no particular standing to Magna Carta, the great English medieval charter of liberties, either before or after the Anglo-Scottish Union of 1707. The article discusses a case in 1904 where an argument that Magna Carta affected the Crown’s prerogative fishing rights in Scotland was rejected by the Court of Session, and also comments on the significance of the contribution made to the understanding of the charter by the Glasgow law professor W S McKechnie in his book on the subject (1904; 2nd edition 1914). But, as the article demonstrates, it is certain that Magna Carta was at its most important for Scotland in the year of its creation (1215), and that that importance probably did not long outlive King John (died 1216). ENDS.

    Please thank your solicitor husband for his advice for the family and expertise, much appreciated by us all.

  13. Please pray for the family now – I believe the meeting is being held this morning, with the father in attendance. Pray hard for them:

    Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help, or sought thine intercession was left unaided.

    Inspired by this confidence, I fly unto thee, O Virgin of virgins, my mother; to thee do I come, before thee I stand, sinful and sorrowful. O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petitions, but in thy mercy hear and answer me. Amen.

    • I’ve just prayed Mother Teresa’s “Flying Novena” which consists of saying 9 Memorare in succession and an extra one in thanksgiving.

  14. Just read that Blog unfortunately there’s nothing in it that’s a Surprise. That Scottish Parliament is a Cesspool of Filth . Am no Saint nor profess to be but by God bringing up a Family with Morals as far as this Mob are concerned is a No No .

  15. Update…

    Meeting over, and the children were not taken into care, but the family will be receiving a letter within a couple of days (or maybe being sent within a couple of days, I’m not sure.) Talk of “working with the family” – disgraceful; probably a way of getting Social Services out of their predicament without losing too much face.

    So, keep up the prayers.

    • I cannot understand this, it’s too bizarre. This family needs to seek legal advice to protect their reputation, not to mention their family. They cannot allow these secret police to get a foot in the door of their home.

  16. Absolutely outrageous! Those parents should remove their children from that so-called Catholic school and put them to a state school. Normally I’d recommend homeschooling, but in this case not, as it would probably put them under even more suspicion.

    • Helen,

      I think your observation is spot on. I was going to suggest homeschooling but I fear in this case it would just exacerbate the situation.

      I have to say that I have been part of these child protection meetings and have watched the decision making process. The cases I have seen would turn your stomach. One case involved years of systematic neglect and exposing the children to sex offenders. The children were never taken into care. I’m afraid this noble cry of “child protection” is often a ruse. It’s simply a tool of indoctrination and social engineering.

    • Im not so sure that putting the children into a state school would afford this family any better protection but clearly remaining at the present school if it has been established that it was indeed them that made the accusations is untenable.

  17. It`s a letter of apology the family should get with a grovelling request not to take them to court..

    A promise never to interfere again wouldn`t do any harm either.

    These so-called social workers should be re-trained to line our shores about a mile from land (or up to their necks in water) to catch all the plastic waste that`s (allegedly) floating around. That way they would be doing something uselful, like keeping out of everyone`s road.

    The teacher who reported it all could be on the beach digging a hole to bury it all.

    I wonder if they would have suffered the same treatment if they had been members of a masonic
    “sect”.

    It`s about time, if it`s not already too late, for the bishops of Scotland to get their fingers out.

  18. What a chilling story, I hope the family are OK and the matter is being resolved sensibly.

    While I have a low opinion of the public sector in general, it seems social services seek to employ a special type of idiot. Unthinking morons who act like automatons and are complete strangers to common sense.

    They routinely ignore genuine cases where children are in genuine danger, which sometimes results in deaths, and instead expend their energies attacking innocent families on the most absurd of basis (as in this case).

    Those involved in this case have obviously googled ‘SSPX’ and found years-old scare stories about Bishop Wlliamson etc. That’s probably what passes for investigative work these days, instead of e.g. attending a service at the Church, or telephoning the prior to have a discussion.

    You can bet that, if the child who had the injury had belonged to a devil-worshiping homosexual couple, or radical muslims, social work would have sat back in silence, or condemned the “homophobia” / Islamophobia of whoever raised concern.

    I am sorry to hear that the family does not have a good relationship with the school. From what I have heard from other SSPX-attending families is that their local Catholic school (Glasgow) has been very accommodating of their traditionalism and has been respectful of their wishes for children not to attend modern masses etc. Perhaps there is an element of ‘pot luck’ in terms of what kind of person the head teacher is.

    While we know that Catholic schools of today are not places where children learn or experience anything worthwhile about the Catholic faith, I think for many people they are still the least poor choice available. (If home school is not feasible and boarding school undesirable).

    Of course, this does depend on the school understanding / respecting the fact that the family seeks only authentic Catholicism and so does not wish to participate in any modern rubbish.

    • Much of what you say I agree with.I have looked quite closely at the Catholic schools and my understanding in Scotland is that parents have a right to withdraw their children from r.e even in a Catholic school although it suggests it might be slightly more difficult.However where as you say parents wishes are respected i think whilst it’s not ideal it can work.Personally educating one’s children alongside predominately non Catholic children especially in glasgo w is a no go .I feel for these parents very much even with the now good outcome but undoubtedly this will always follow them around now which is both unfair and very sad.

  19. I take it this school refuses to take children from Mormon homes and other sects? They are taught all sorts, including that it’s wrong to have a blood transfusion. I bet if they tried, all hell would let loose in the MSM.

  20. Oops! Hope this copy and paste works:

    BLOGSADOPTION, FAMILY, FREEDOM Tue Sep 18, 2018 – 3:44 pm EST

    UK social services are taking away record numbers of kids…leaving parents terrified
    Forced Adoption, Social Services, Uk

    UNITED KINGDOM, September 18, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Having your children taken away by the state is one of a mom’s or dad’s worst nightmares. Unfortunately, this happens to thousands of parents in the United Kingdom every year–and not always with good cause.

    According to the UK Sun, the number of children ripped from their parents through “forced care orders” rose from 7, 550 to 10, 130 in 2017: an increase of 34%. When you factor in children taken away with the parents’ say-so, the number rises to 32,810.

    Anyone who reads the British newspapers or women’s magazines knows stories about children who were taken away because social workers wrongly accused the parents of abuse. One of the best known is that of Jill Goss, whose daughter Alyssa was taken from her when she was 10 weeks old.

    Having seen a swelling on her daughter’s arm, Jill took Alyssa to the hospital. Doctors found tiny fractures they said could have been caused by the Vitamin D deficiency for which the baby was already being treated–but Jill was arrested all the same. Although the charges against Jill were dropped, Alyssa was taken from her and given away in adoption. When she became pregnant with her son, Jill fled to Spain. She says social workers threatened to take her baby when he was born.

    There are also stories of children being taken from parents because they are overweight, or don’t brush their teeth, or even allegedly because they were not taken out for an ice-cream cone on one occasion. There’s the story of the Courtnages, parents who lost both their sons after the mother took her youngest to the hospital: he had a swelling on his head. Two doctors suggested it was a fissure, a third thought it was a fracture. The parents were not charged or convicted of any crime–but both boys were taken away and adopted by others.

    Even some justices think social workers are too quick to remove kids. This past June, judge Sir Andrew McFarlane , the President of the Family Division, said that the courts were seeing too many cases that were not serious enough to excuse taking children from parents.

    “It may properly be said that we have reached a stage where the threshold for obtaining a public law court order is noticeably low, whereas, no doubt as a result of the current financial climate, the threshold for a family being able to access specialist support services in the community is conversely, very high,” he said.

    But it’s not just poor families that are at risk of having their children taken by the state. Jill Goss is a hairdresser. The Courtnages were an engineer and an accountant when their sons were taken. Now they run a charity for parents of other “forced adopted” children. The theft of children by the state is something that could happen to any parent in the UK, and thus something for all UK parents to worry about.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: