Scottish Schools to Teach LGBT Rights – Catholic Bishops Tacitly Supportive…

Scottish First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon (centre) celebrates with Time for Inclusive Education activists…

Schools in Scotland soon will be required to teach students LGBT history to prevent “homophobia and transphobia” and to encourage exploration of  their gender identity.

That’s according to the London Guardian, which says Scotland has become the first nation in the world to embed teaching about gender options in its regular school curriculum.

The move comes after lawmakers “accepted in full the recommendations of a working group led by the Time for Inclusive Education (TIE) campaign,” the report said.

“There will be no exemptions or opt-outs to the policy, which will embed LGBTI inclusive education across the curriculum and across subjects and which the Scottish government believes is a world first,” the report said.

Those advocating for mandates regarding alternative sexual lifestyles were cheered.

“This is a monumental victory for our campaign, and a historic moment for our country,” Jordan Daly of TIE told the newspaper.  Read more here

Comment:  

So, to sum up…  “Scotland will become the first country in the world to embed the teaching of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex rights in the school curriculum…” 

Pride in our national identity used to be a characteristic of Scots.  Well, not this Scot.  I’m thoroughly ashamed to belong to a country – once renowned for its rigorous academic record in education – where evil is being taught (“embedded”) so that young people grow up to think that homosexual activity and “transgenderism” are normal behaviours; something good and desirable. 

And note, importantly, that the Scottish Bishops can’t complain about the fact that  “there will be no exemptions or opt-outs to the policy” [including for Catholic schools, obviously] because one of their priests – Father Paul Morton, Diocese of Motherwell –  actively supports the group behind this diabolical policy, the Time for Inclusive Education (TIE)  Not only does he actively support TIE but the Scottish press lauded him as the very first Catholic “representative” [of the Bishops] to support LGBT education in schools. 

This policy, then, is being implemented in Catholic schools, with the active support of the Catholic Church in Scotland – and that will remain the case unless and until the Bishops take action – publicly – to safeguard children in the Catholic education system against being “embedded” with immoral beliefs which are contrary to Catholic teaching because they are offensive to God. Not for any puerile reasons, not out of bigotry or prejudice, but because such sexual immorality is offensive to God.  

We’ve discussed this LGBT indoctrination in schools before and, to be honest although I saw the headline a few days ago, I contented myself with posting it on one of the topic threads, but now that I’m getting emails from thousands of miles away to alert me to this latest report, I thought it might be time to launch another thread, in the hope of encouraging Catholic teachers and parents to fight this evil with all of their collective might, in a spirit of better late than never.  I didn’t include “priests” in that list.  No prizes for guessing why…

Everyone’s going along to get along, as the saying goes.  Nobody’s fighting back.  Everybody’s terrified of the LGBT +++ juggernaut.  I’m not crazy about it, myself, but I think we need to regroup and DO something.  But what?  When Catholics thousands of miles away are reading that Scotland is proud of being  a”world first” in brainwashing children into the LGBT +++ “lifestyle”, then maybe it’s long past time we were a bit more pro-active in dealing with this scandal.  

Talking’s no use.  I challenged Father Paul Morton to a debate, before, remember?  That went down like the proverbial lead balloon, with the Bishop banning any such debate although not banning Father Morton from his supportive “pastoral” work on behalf of the TIE bunch. I wonder what that Bishop is thinking now, with the “fruits” of his tolerance about to be “embedded” in the souls of children and young Catholics across Scotland. 

I’m fresh out of ideas. Over to thee!  

69 responses

    • I read your link and for the Life of me ( and am not going to look it up on Google ) what is Biophobic. The new Phobias that are coming daily onto the Phobia Market is most certainly giving me a Phobia about Phobias. At least the kids may leave school with a complete knowledge of Phobias. Maybe there will even be a Phobia Degree in Scottish University’s.

      Asasaidbeforethewholelotwidjistgieyeitheboak

      • Faith of our Fathers,

        “phobia about phobias” – LOL! Your post made me howl with laughter, especially that bit and this bit:-

        Asasaidbeforethewholelotwidjistgieyeitheboak

        LOL!

    • Whistleblower,

      Due to technical difficulties, I couldn’t open any of the documents in the SCES resources at your link, except the cartoon of the Good Samaritan.

      While I understand the temptation to use cartoons – have used some myself as a teacher, e.g. story of Adam & Eve – I wasn’t impressed with the depiction of Our Lord as an unattractive cartoon figure. Kind of at odds with the need to inculcate reverence for Our Lord.

      The rest will have to wait until I can overcome my tech-phobia… FOOF, are you paying attention? I’ve got a phobia too!

      • Yes Ed nice one . Also all this Language about Phobias am sure there are real sufferers of Phobias on here like myself who really have to laugh at this SNP garbage language. I myself have had Claustrophobia since my teens and it is certainly not just a simple dislike of something or somewhere. Claustrophobia for me meant ( uncountable times ) coming off of public transport on my way to or from work. Paying busfares and train fares twice or walking miles back home if it were the last bus or train that I left due to the Horrendous feelings. So for this so called Government to tell me i have a Phobia because I don’t agree with Homosexuality or I didn’t like The Muslim of whom I did a Job for, we agreed on a price and when the Job was finished he didn’t want to pay the agreed price . No Miss or Ms or Mrs Sturgeon whatever you wish to call yourself today. Not liking Islam or The Reprobate Act of Homosexuality is not Phobic.
        Sorry Ed for the long winded Post.

        • FOOF,

          Don’t apologise – that’s the best rebuttal of the smear “homophobia or transphobia or islamophobia” or any other false phobia I’ve yet heard, read or whatever. Well said.

  1. Sturgeon and that wee creep Patrick Harvie are the main Deviants behind this Perversion. Sturgeon can’t wait for these Demonic Pride Marches to come around so as she will look as if she fits into things. To tell you the Truth our Priests like Morton have sold the jerseys long ago and it’s TIEM he went and he can take that dreadful TIE of his along with him . Also ED we have to stop this GAY talk and start calling out this for what it is . Support of the Sodomite Lifestyle. Homosexuality has got to be called that NO acronyms. Anyone with kids or grandchildren has to tell them that this Perverted way of life is not only a threat to their Religious beliefs but greatly to their health.

  2. This is what happens when a country falls victim to Marxism! The cultural revolution that follows eradicates every trace of Christianity from the public arena, replacing it with the hedonism of the ancient pagan cultures and calling this regression “human progress”. Our Lord likened such vile rejection of His redeeming grace to a dog returning to its own vomit!

    Marxists always seek primarily to control the education system in any country where they seize power in order that they may propagandise young impressionable minds. I think it was Pius IX who warned of this saying that Marxists primarily target “incautious youth” with a view to indoctrinating the young with revolutionary propaganda, propaganda against God and the moral law.

    Woe betide the politicians in that Scottish Parliament, and indeed Westminster, when they are called from this world to appear before the divine judge to answer for their crimes against children and youth. And woe betide any Pope, prelate or priest who has participated in this public criminality either by active promotion or passive silent consent.

    Church authorities who do not demonstrate the most vehement public opposition to immorality, especially that sin which the Church condemns as “crying to heaven for vengeance”, are false Christians who misapply tolerance to justify sin. To quote St. Paul concerning such Churchmen, and of course any Christian who imitates their treachery, they “use liberty as a cloak for malice”.

    St. Paul, divinely inspired, wrote the following concerning active homosexuality: “…Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

    For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.”

    These are the words that every true Christian must re-echo, “in season and out of season”, to quote the Apostle to the Gentiles again, otherwise they will become what G. K. Chesterton described as “dead fish who flow with the current”. In other words false Christians whose pretend piety and tolerance makes them even more deceitful and dangerous than outright pagans.

    Any sexual activity outside of the Christian marriage, be it adultery between a man and a woman, or between two men or two women, is immoral and reprehensible before God, forbidden by His divine law, which is eternal and which no created being may presume to alter.

    In respect to imposing such immoral teaching on children in schools, we may recall the words of Our Lord who said: “He who harms one of these little ones of mine, it would be better for him that a millstone be placed about his neck and he be cast into the deepest river.” Yes, these were the words of God Himself concerning those who make it their business to poison the minds and souls of youth with doctrines that equate lust with love.

    Our Lady foretold these evil times in which we live when she appeared to Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres in the 16th century, describing how the late 20th and early 21st centuries would be marked by a global assault on Christian marriage and the Christian family. She emphasised in particular that children would be targeted with perverse teaching during this time which would result in a majority being robbed of their innocence. Even more telling was her prophesy that those who should speak out during this global assault on God and purity will remain silent. I think this prophesy is fulfilled today before our eyes in a Pope and hierarchy largely silent while evil abounds.

    The good news for every Christian presently mourning the world’s return to hedonistic paganism is that The Mother of God has promised that she will triumph over the enemies of God. “At the precise moment they think they have won”, said Our Lady at Quito, ” I will snatch the victory from them”. She repeated this same promise at Fatima when she said: “In the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph”.

    We humbly await the fulfilment of this promise of Our Lady, which I believe is now imminent. In the meantime, the world vociferously and aggressively marches against the law of God under the banner of Pride, which, as all Christians know, is the mother and root of all sin, the sin that caused the fall of Lucifer.

    • Athanasius,

      All very true and I completely agree with you about the Good Success prophecies coming true before our very eyes. There’s no question about it. The Pope and bishops are silent in the face of this onslaught of sexual permissiveness and it can’t be that they don’t know – I’m sure they will all read Catholic Truth online, it’s the only publication or blog dealing with Scotland, so they just must read it and they are turning a blind eye and deaf ear to the warnings given by Our Lady about what will happen in this century and how they will fall silent. They are in for a terrible judgment, of that we can be sure.

      • Margaret Mary

        Yes, they know all right! And if they don’t know then they must have their episcopal heads buried well and truly in the sand. The truth is they want to be on good terms with the world and that means Our Lord must be sacrificed.

        Our Lord said “if the world hates you, know that it has hated me first”. He also said “I am not of this world” and He expects his servants to say the same. Tragically since Vatican II all Churchmen have sought to please the world and that’s why the Catholic religion today is almost completely stripped of the supernatural. They have made their choice, God have mercy on them, and the world laughs them to scorn for their weakness. I don’t think the Church has ever had so pathetic a hierarchy in her sacred history as the wishy-washy prelates it has today. The only time they get tough is when there is a possibility of a Traditional Mass re-appearing in their diocese.

      • MM you are correct they most certainly do read it . One Priest God Forgive me who shall remain nameless of whom I mentioned something pertaining to Catholic Truth and Catholic Tradition said more or less to put it mildly that We had it all wrong. Personally after that I couldn’t take same Priest seriously. Nor would i now take him seriously although up until that point I had known him all my life. I don’t know if it was because he met Francis in Rome that put him in that closed frame of mind . God Bless.

        • FOOF,

          It can be a shock to realise that our assumptions about certain priests have been all wrong. I remember one of our team asking her parish priest, who had previously served in my home parish, if she could post an advertisement for one of our conferences in the church porch. He threw up his hands in horror and refused. She then asked if he realised that I was the editor (thinking – as I had! – that we had gotten along well when he was in my parish) to which he replied “Yes, I do know – but I don’t know what’s gotten into her, she’s started her own religion!”

          Honestly, FOOF, you could NOT make this stuff up!

    • Sorry but your post has to much Truth in it .
      Of course I jest when I say that . Are we now in the end times or is it possible that the older we get ( meaning myself ) we look into and at things with a different perspective. No doubt looking back on both Wars especially WW1 the men in the Trenches would have and rightly so believed they were living in the End Times. Then there was The London Blitz and I can remember my Parents telling me they thought the World was going to End the night of the Clydebank Blitz. Of course the worst of all was Probably the Atomic Bombs being dropped. Then in our own times The Vietnam War which was a Horrendous conflict but if not fought as the Domino Theory was then in full swing it’s believed that there would have been War in Europe over West and East Germany. But now the Enemy is more sleekit. Why attack from the outside when it’s easier and cheaper to attack from the inside. Destroy their Morals with Homosexuality and Transgenderism. Teach it in the schools. Turn boys into effeminate creatures who know not whether to Stand up or Sit Down to Pee. This is what’s facing us now a greater enemy than the Clydebank Blitz because that Enemy came at us with all guns blazing . This one slinks through society like Patrick Harvie on a Saturday night. One other major thing we know of course on here is that neither the Muslim Countries nor the great Communist Countries will allow the Dreadful Pride Marches to effeminate their Male Populations. They know if it comes to it that their not going to have any Chelsea Manning at their back in any Army.

      • FOOF

        Given the example God made of Sodom and Gomorrah, I really dread to think what punishment will come upon the whole world as a result of this embracing and promotion of the sin “crying to heaven for vengeance”. That governments everywhere are thumbing their nose at the Most High, provoking Him to punish, is really terrifying. It will probably come suddenly as it did on those two ill-fated cities, for God will not be mocked.

        • Athanasius. None of us really no God’s Present word unless he gives us a private revelation but what is happening in California just now with all of those Horrendous Fires must make one think. I remember a Priest saying years ago that us as Individuals wiil be punished mostly in the After Life for our Sins . But that lands and Countries will be punished in this Life. It’s a sobering thought. God Help all those who have been affected and the lives lost in those Fires.

          • FOOF

            Odd that you should mention the California fires because, as someone pointed out after Mass yesterday, the experts in the USA are saying these are the worst EVER fires, although they’ve had plenty.

            But what struck me, watching a couple of news broadcasts, was when the reporter pointed out a house on one side of the road completely burnt out, while across the road, the house is intact.

            It brought to my mind Matthew 24, where Our Lord points out that “one will be taken, another left” etc.

            Tenuous connection, some might think, but it made ME think, I can tell you!

    • Athanasius,

      I have recently sensed the reality of the Good Success prophecies coming true right now, especially the silence “from those who should speak out”, that I’ve made it the front page of the November newsletter (now online folks, and in the post today) as you will now have read.

      It’s incredible to think that we are living through these horrendous scandals but more, it is incredible that we are given the grace to recognise the fact of the unfolding prophecies.

      I remember, when Pope Benedict resigned and then the news broke that he would continue to wear the papal white garments, Christopher Ferrara remarked that it’s only when a prophesy is unfolding, that we can often really make sense of it. He was referring to the Fatima seers speaking, in that part of the Third Secret divulged, when they described the desolate scene, the bows and arrows, the soldiers, and “a bishop dressed in white… We had the impression it was the Holy Father” – whereas on every other occasion, they had spoken about “the Pope” or “the Holy Father”. Now with TWO bishops dressed in the papal garments, we could see why there might be a question mark over the identity of the “bishop dressed in white”.

      So, difficult though it is to live through these times, we really are privileged, in a strange way…

      • Editor

        I agree that we are, in a sense, privileged to live through these times, as well as undeservingly graced to recognise the prophetic signs now unfolding and to adhere to sacred tradition during the great apostasy. The problem for us is this: “To whom more is given, more is expected”. These words haunt me constantly!

        It’s very difficult to make sense of the “bishop in white” prophecy as long as the accompanying text of the Third Secret is kept hidden. Personally, I have always thought of the vision as referring to a supernatural chastisement, more particularly Modernism “the synthesis of all heresies” running rampant in the Church. It’s difficult to say for sure but I have no doubt we will know the truth of it in the very near future.

        Pope Benedict’s abdication, for me, was just another example of a weak hierarchy in a time of war. He recognised this weakness in himself when he was elected, hence the petition that we pray for him lest he run from the wolves. Benedict was fully aware that the Vatican presently has many wolves within its walls. It was a great pity he ran from them in the end, and he had no business keeping any semblance of the Papacy after his abdication. He renounced the Papacy. There is no such thing as an emeritus Pope and he more than anyone else knows this. Just another of those Vatican II novelties that will one day be consigned to the bin like all the other devastating innovations to appear with “the smoke of Satan”.

        • Athanasius,

          The point I was making (and Christopher Ferrara was, I presume, making) wasn’t about the nature of the chastisement. It was the fact that the seers spoke of “a bishop dressed in white….we had the impression it was the Holy Father” Instead of their usual unequivocal references to the Pope. Over the years when we read the Fatima prophecies, how many of us even noticed that? Not me, that’s for sure. As Ferrara says (and I console myself against charges of being even more thick than usual!) it’s often only when a prophesy is unfolding that we can make sense of it.

          Irrespective of the nature of the chastisement, therefore, it is noteworthy that on ONE occasion the children spoke of the bishop in white/impression it was the Holy Father, whereas every other time they referred clearly to “the Pope” or the “Holy Father”. That’s the point I was trying to make – sorry I wasn’t clear.

          • Editor

            What you wrote, echoing Chris Ferrara, was perfectly clear and I wasn’t taking issue with the proposition. I am just personally doubtful that heaven would lend any credence to the emiritus pope nonsense. Besides that, no other part of the vision described is applicable to the former Pope Benedict.

            I think it is much more likely that the bishop in white does actually refer to a Pope but that the children hesitated to declare this given the gravity of the suffering he will undergo. It was probably unthinkable to them at the time that such great affliction could befall the Holy Father. It’s one of those uncertain things that we all have an opinion on but none of us really knows the truth of it for sure. From my own perspective I can’t see the former Pope Benedict in the more recent unfolding of the prophesy of Fatima. That is my infallible opinion!!

            • Athanasius,

              They say that men’s and women’s brains work very differently, and I must confess that was my first thought on reading your latest comment 😀

              I can’t see that “the bishop dressed in white” prophesy is about “heaven lending any credence to the emeritus pope nonsense” any more than the “canonisations” of every post Vatican II pontiff shows that heaven has given credence to Vatican II and all that has stemmed from it; any more than the content of the hidden part of the Third Secret (which, according to Cardinal Ciappi reveals that the “crisis in the Church begins at the top”) means that heaven is approving of or giving credence to the shocking crisis in the Church through which we are all living. God is all-knowing, all-seeing and His plan of salvation, inscrutable as it is to our purely human thinking, will unfold – is unfolding – in our world and in the Church as the world and the Church is operating, with all the flaws in both caused by human sinfulness and weakness. The fact that Pope Benedict caused this “pope emeritus nonsense” to come about cannot mean that God will put His plan of salvation on hold because of this, or any other wrongdoing, whether by a pope or anyone else.

              Pope Benedict has, apparently (I believe in his book length interview, but not sure of the source – have read the statement several times) said that he believes that he will be killed. No idea of the context in which he said that, but I throw it out there for what it is worth, in reply to your mention that “no other part of the vision described is applicable to the former Pope Benedict”. It seems that he believes that part applies to him.

              As for the children reluctant to declare him the Pope due to the gravity of the suffering he will undergo – that cannot be the case since they spoke of seeing the Pope weeping – they were aware of suffering to come – and, in any case, they were given the grace to report what God wanted us to know in the Fatima apparitions. They lived through the terrifying vision of Hell – they were no snowflakes – so seeing the “bishop dressed in white” (whether pontiff or A.N. Other) under attack as described in the vision, could not have been worse.

              One last thing; it may be that the children DID report that the bishop dressed in white was a pope, but unless the Vatican releases the complete text of the explanation that goes with the vision, we won’t know for sure.

              Typed the above at top speed again so hope it is all clear. If not, I intend to follow my own personal maxim: if at first you don’t succeed, forget it!

          • Chris Ferrara was one of the speakers at the Fatima Centre Conference in Philadelphia last weekend. It was a privilege to meet him, Suzanne Pearson and Elizabeth Yore in person.

            I have to email you pictures because I don’t know how to attach them to my post. Please let me know if you don’t receive them.

  3. Yes, we knew about this as we always receive notifications about any new legislation, Scottish or from Westminster. It’s truly shocking. Catholics must make up a sizeable portion of the Scottish population therefore it seems reasonable that the hierarchy muster the troops, so to speak. It would be not only be easy to do but it is their duty to do so. A letter threatening excommunication to all who participate in such a programme would do the trick! However, to a not small degree have the bishops shot themselves in the foot by their weakness in matters moral, begging the question, “would the average Catholic even care”?

    • Olaf,

      What you say in your final sentence is scary but I think you are right to ask the question because I don’t think most would actually care at all. The faith has been largely lost, sad to say, and everyone is so terrified of being accused of homophobia – including the bishops – that I am not surprised they are just going along with this.

  4. It would seem that the Three Days of Darkness has come early to once-Bonnie Scotland…courtesy of her apostate, spineless Bishops. I would suggest that these useless bishops, the LGBT brown shirts and their supporting Sturgeons ponder the most important phobias of all:

    Christophobia
    Truthophobia

  5. I was thinking about Olaf’s last sentence and something came to mind: a few years ago our then PP went on walkabout leaving us with no Mass on Sunday and the following day which was a holy day of obligation, some of us invited the Redemptorists from Papastronsay (before they were reconciled) to supply, which they did. A huge crowd turned up at a private house for the Sunday Mass. However, word got out and the parish busybodies put out a notice (purporting to come from the Bishop but it was a lie) threatening all attendees at the following day’s Mass with excommunication. And guess what? Nobody turned up because they were terrified of being excommunicated! These same people are largely cafeteria Catholics but they were still frightened of the threat of excommunication!

    • Crofterlady,

      That was indeed a big lie. Not only were those cafeteria Catholics were deceived by the threat of excommunication, they were doubly deceived by the lie that the Tridentine Mass had been abrogated.

      No Catholic can be excommunicated for cleaving to Tradition.

  6. It is undoubtedly a concern to see activists take an interest in school curriculum, but I wonder if these developments will genuinely have any substantive effect on Catholic schools.

    The problems with modern Catholic schools are well known and I do not set myself up as their great defender, nor do I seek to mitigate or justify the aims of the TIE campaign.

    25 years ago, in Catholic secondary school, we were taught to respect people with a homosexual orientation and treat them fairly – as is in-line with the Catechism. There was an (RE) exercise where we imagined a friend had recently realised they suffered from same sex attraction and we had to write them a letter to reassure them of our friendship and that we would not suddenly shun them or start treating them like dirt.

    The problem was that this tolerance was not balanced by articulating Catholic teaching that homosexual conduct is a sin and is regarded as a great depravity in scripture. That said, in response to the exercise, I do recall very clearly having a very natural negative perception of homosexual conduct as, I am sure, did most pupils.

    Having reviewed the SCES link above, I do not see that it significantly different from my own experience as laid out above – though with modern updates regarding, for example, “cyber bullying”. (of course, this means the same problems remain).

    And so I think this initiative is likely more about bringing non-faith schools up to the same level of promoting respect for others. It is my understanding that, previously, non-faith schools would not even discuss the existence of persons with same sex attraction.

    It is important to note that no legislation has been passed regarding this, and so nothing is imposed and there is nothing to opt-out from.

    The output is regarded as recommendations for schools to support children who realise they are suffering from same sex attraction. While none of us here will regard homosexual behaviour as a good thing (it isn’t) I am equally sure none of us would tolerate a child being subject to violence or exclusion, as a result of them experiencing unwanted attractions (or being perceived to suffer such attractions).

    I would like to think the non-legislative route has been chosen to afford both schools and parents respect and flexibility. For all their talk, politicians know full well what most people think of homosexual behaviour.

    Personally I am happy for my children to be taught to treat others with respect (indeed I will teach them that myself) but would object to them being taught nonsense such as there being such things as “trans people” or propaganda myths such as the “stonewall riots”. Equally I would object to them receiving an unbalanced education, (as I received), by only hearing part of what the Church teaches.

    In my opinion, the problem with Catholic schools is not this new guidance but the fact that – across the board – they simply do not teach the faith and morals adequately. In this way, the schools mirror the mainstream Church and its presentation of a watered-down and infantile faith. The problems with the schools are chiefly the fault of Bishops not politicians.

    The failures are more to do with what they are not teaching, rather than with what they are teaching. As per the example I gave, it is all very well to promote tolerance for others, but it is wrong that schools do not strongly promote sexual morality (on homosexuality, adultery etc).

    And so really, just as it was in my schools days, the onus is on parents to “pick up the slack”. This is really just a continuation of the role which has always existed, of parents being the first educators and guardians. Of course, most parent today don’t exercise this role adequately, having not been taught properly themselves.

    We must be on guard against falling into despair and believing the “big talk” of activists and politicians.

    Activists trumpet that the TIE campaign output is a “monumental victory” – it is nothing of the sort. No legislation has been passed and the whole contrived affair was a dog and pony show from the start. This propaganda is about justifying their own existence and shoring up the self esteem of the deluded unfortunates who look to them for guidance. I would bet the activists privately regard the initiative as a failure, given they have not succeeded in bring legislation to try to impose certain viewpoints.

    SNP Politicians talk of being “world leaders”. But remember, (laughably) portraying Scotland as a “world leader” in any respect is just the standard SNP tactic to try to generate support for independence. Everything they do is supposedly “world leading”. If Nicola Sturgeon went into parliament with her skirt unwittingly tucked into her tights, she would claim this was a “world leading” move to break down taboos.

    John Swinney said he “doesn’t take the view” that the guidance is at loggerheads with anyone’s faith – which is, of course, not within his remit to say. (I was unaware that a conclave had take place and elected Mr Swinney as the new Successor of Peter.)

    And so again I say I am not seeking to pretend all is well with modern Catholic schools, nor justify the TIE campaign. I only seek to take a balanced view.

    I think the onus is on parents to ensure they teach the faith correctly, make wise choices as to where the family practices the faith and in general be sober and watchful as to what their children as exposed to. (not least because we know many clergy and teachers are “unreliables” in this day and age). In this regard, I think parents face the same battle as they have always faced in the 2,000 years of Christianity so far.

    • Gabriel Syme,

      When I was at school (WHAT a memory!) I was taught about charity, to all. There was no talk of “the marginalised” etc – which, frankly, is doublespeak for homosexuals, transgenders… every aberration under the sun. I was taught that Christ teaches us to love everyone, that we cannot claim to love God whom we cannot see if we don’t love our neighbour whom we CAN see, and that our love must embrace enemies as well as family and friends. That takes care of all the “marginalised”, in my book.

      So, let’s be clear; the TIE agenda is not actually ABOUT respect or tolerance. It’s about inculcating the belief that there is nothing wrong with homosexual etc behaviours. That’s very different from merely teaching respect.

      There’s not much respect, after all, is there, for the couple who gave their son the middle name “Adolf”, the couple who joined a Government-banned organisation (which I’m not promoting, be assured!) Not much “respect” for any of us who fall foul of the politically correct rules being shoved down our throats day in and day out. One headline the other days was asking if we can really justify eating meat at all nowadays! What! Crackers. Trust me, they’ll have to learn to respect my love for a good steak or throw me in jail, but I’m not turning veggie for anyone!

      “Respect” – like “tolerance” – is a buzz word which actually means “acceptance”.

      Nothing short of the acceptance of LGBT etc behaviours will satisfy these people. Saying we “respect” them as individual human beings, as we do every other human being on the planet, will not cut it. The minute we express or hint at any reservations about the sexual activity, we’re labelled homophobic. That’s the fact of the matter. Your daughters may learn plenty about “respect” – i.e. accepting homosexuals and their “right” to live as they choose, but if you’re caught teaching them that this activity is displeasing to God, that sin has NO rights, you’ll be in trouble. With bells on.

      So, I, for one, do not want to support the teaching in schools of this subject – whether it’s legally mandatory or merely “required”. Take it from me, any discussions about the baby “Adolf” will not involve inculcating respect for the right of the parents to name their child as they so choose, but will be based on the assumption that everyone agrees that Adolf is a bad name to choose… and I wouldn’t like to be in the room if any pupil offers a different view – if only in the interests of “balance” 😀

      • Editor,

        So, let’s be clear; the TIE agenda is not actually ABOUT respect or tolerance. It’s about inculcating the belief that there is nothing wrong with homosexual etc behaviours. That’s very different from merely teaching respect.

        I agree with everything you say here, but my interpretation of the outcome is that the activists have failed to achieve their goals.

        They wanted legislation passed, which was a central aim. But they have not achieved this and schools have the same rights as before.

        (See links I posted in reply to Lily – I saw her post first, sorry!)

        So, I, for one, do not want to support the teaching in schools of this subject – whether it’s legally mandatory or merely “required”.

        All that has been issued is some recommendations and schools reserve the right to opt out of “progressive” teaching. (TIE wanted this removed and many prominent supporters also demanded material be forced on schools, essentially).

        I think the public is being solid a pup by activists and politicians, with all the big talk. I think the reality of the situation is far removed from the “monumental victory” we are being told about.

        With “balanced view” I was not meaning on the morality of homsoexual behaviour, but with regard to our response to all this propaganda about “world leading progressive schools” etc.

        The conclusion to the TIE campaign is some modest recommendations and nothing more. Recalling their original core objectives, I think this represents a failure for activists and I think there is a lot of hype and bluster about to try to disguise this.

        • Gabriel Syme,

          I really must correct something of which I am very guilty when discussing this topic in writing. I generally don’t fall into this trap in conversation but in writing, for some reason, I tend to forget to point out that I do NOT go along with the idea of teaching “respect” for LGBT etc people because it is misleading. As I’m sure I’ve already said somewhere on this thread, “respect” is the buzz word used to condition us into acceptance of this perversion as in: I respect you, therefore whatever your sexual inclination is, that’s fine by me. while NOT teaching those same children to be quite as respectful to others, as in: I respect you, so if you choose to rob banks, that’s fine by me.. Not only is there no hint that there is anything wrong or unnatural with LGBT etc activity, but any teacher referencing sexual morality in this context, would be next photographed on the end of the nearest Jobcentre queue.

          To test out whether you really want your children to be taught to respect everyone in the sense now routine in our society, that is, to accept whatever their choices are in terms of sexual activity, ask yourself if you want them to be taught to “respect” paedophiles. I doubt it. There’s a difference between “respecting” people and being civil towards them, extending them the courtesy of good manners, politeness. I hope I’m always reasonably (!) polite and well mannered towards everyone – including when I’ve found myself in conversations with people who are divorced and “remarried”, homosexuals, those accused of child abuse and so on. Polite, hopefully, yes, but I have never expressed myself “respectful” of their choices in life. Never. And that’s because, while I may sympathise or empathise in certain cases, I cannot approve of any “lifestyle” choices which are, per se, offensive to God.

          Finally, believe me, these LGBT etc activists have not failed. Far from it. LGBT etc is already embedded in every institution in the land – including the Church! Take a look around this blog, alone!

          Whether or not legislation mandating the teaching of LGBT “rights” is passed or not is actually irrelevant. The promotion of LGBT “rights” is already happening in schools – it was happening before I retired some years ago, and it is now routinely pursued in the name of anti-bullying policies. You can be bullied for any number of reasons that will never be named in any document in any school, but “anti-gay” bullying… that, apparently, is rife…

  7. Gabriel Syme,

    I was so surprised to read your post suggesting that this policy will not really make any difference in Catholic schools, because no legislation has been passed that I re-read the article. I highlighted this quote from John Swinney:

    “The deputy first minister, John Swinney, said: “Scotland is already considered one of the most progressive countries in Europe for LGBTI equality. I am delighted to announce we will be the first country in the world to have LGBTI-inclusive education embedded within the curriculum.”

    To be “embedded” within the curriculum suggests to me that this policy will become a legal requirement and the word “requirement” is already being used to say that LGBTI rights are “required” to be taught. It’s not really about reaching respect – you can teach respect without mentioning particular groups, just – as I was taught at school – that it’s necessary to be kind to everyone, show respect for everyone, because God loves everyone. It’s wrong to teach kids about particular groups before they have been taught about right and wrong. This is all about normalising LGBTI behaviours, it’s not really about respect at all. They want it embedded in kids’ minds that it doesn’t matter what you do sexually – that’s really what it’s about. Reading your post, I was struck by your charity, that you are very keen to take the balanced view, as you said, but can we really do that with morality? That’s a genuine question, as I maybe see things too black and white, or so I’ve been told, LOL!

    Actually, this “embedding” is already happening – this video was played on the BBC news a few weeks ago:

      • Editor,

        But the SCES resource link posted above mainly refers to the matter in an anti-prejudicial context (2 or 3 times).

        It says modern studies and history could look at the history of various social and legislative changes.

        There is no stated provision for (eg) promoting gay marriage as a good thing, or equivalent to real marriage. (Schools retain the right to opt out of “progressive” teaching anyway.)

        Probably they could get the date of its introduction into the subject(s) mentioned, but then they would necessarily have to mention it was done without public support and the Church opposed it (and so why).

        And so the matter could in fact turn into an opportunity to espouse Catholic teaching: at least if things were ‘done right’ (which, I sadly accept, they are often not).

        • Gabriel Syme,

          I’m puzzled at your confidence that schools will not teach this stuff unless they are forced to, by legislation. The nature of the problem is this; that society has been brainwashed over a period of years now, into believing that LGBT-ism is a good thing. Doesn’t matter how perverted sexual activity is, as long as it’s what people want to do, we should “respect” that. And the idea that there is no public support – where is the evidence? It’s parents who object to this stuff who are labelled homophobic and deemed a problem.

          Again, the idea that the Church – in the sense of the local hierarchy – opposes it, doesn’t stand up to examination. The Scottish Catholic Education Service speaks with the full authority of the Scottish Bishops and the SCES has made clear its commitment to providing “safe spaces” for “LGBT pupils”; the SCES is as busy producing the “anti-bullying” policies and materials (which focus largely on LGBT “prejudice” and “discrimination”) as is the non-denominational sector.

          Anyone “espousing Catholic teaching” on this subject is a homophobic, transphobic bigot – that’s the fact of the matter.

          I do admire your attempts to see good in all of this, I really do; however, the innocence of children is at stake. The video clip posted by Lily is very typical of the mindset of the teaching establishment now – Catholic and non-denominational. So, whether or not such teaching is mandatory, it is taking place in schools already – you can bet on it.

    • Lily,

      To be “embedded” within the curriculum suggests to me that this policy will become a legal requirement and the word “requirement” is already being used to say that LGBTI rights are “required” to be taught

      From the start, it was clear that the TIE campaign wanted statutory requirements introduced by law. Legislation was one of the central aims of the Tie campaign.

      But they have failed to achieve statutory requirements being imposed on schools. The working group set-up to look at the matter, which included Barbara Couper of the SCES as the only non-overtly pro-LGBT member, describes its formal output as “recommendations” (see link):

      https://www.gov.scot/publications/lgbti-inclusive-education-working-group-report/

      However, the group has not backed a legislative approach, which paves the way for the reforms to be implemented without a new law.

      https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16966011.government-set-to-back-world-leading-reforms-on-lgbti-education-in-schools/

      The reason there is ultimately no legislation is, of course, because:

      (i) there is absolutely no public support (a 2015 petition gathered only a pathetic 1,413 signatures, including, you can bet, many from outside scotland) and mainly:

      (ii) it is not within the Scottish Govt’s gift to deliver such legislation because the SCES controls what is taught in Catholic schools, reflecting the provisions of the law, and the right to faith / value based education is a human right.

      The current Scottish Education Curriculum allows schools to opt-out of ‘progressive’ teaching programmes that discuss topics relating to the LGBTI+ community, such as the Relationships, Sexual Health and Parenthood (RSHP) framework. This right remains, given no legislation will be enacted due to the TIE report.

      Removed this right to opt out was one of TIE’s unsuccessful goals.

      Barbara Couper described the output as “recommendations that will help to ensure that pupils and school staff are properly equipped to challenge and eradicate prejudice based bullying within schools and wider society”.

      That description is non-threatening, but if she is being dishonest about the implications, then we can be sure it will not be long before she is found out. However, while I am a critic of the SCES, I would be genuinely surprised if she is putting her credibility and reputation on the line here.

      Ms Coupers predecessor, Michael McGrath, openly stated that Catholic schools would not be affected by the TIE campaign. (He was far more bullish than the conciliatory Couper).

      It’s not really about reaching respect – you can teach respect without mentioning particular group

      I would agree, but then surely first acknowledging someone is the first sign of respect for them?

      The Church herself, in her Catechism, acknowledges the existence of people who experience same sex attraction. By acknowledging specific groups, the Church can direct her specific teaching toward them which lets them know that they too are part of the Church and can aspire to heaven with everyone else. It let’s them know what is expected of them. I think ignorance is one of the major weaknesses of today’s Catholics.

      Don’t get me wrong, I do not want to come over all “Fr James Martin SJ”: I (of course) completely and entirely accept the Church’s accurate teaching on homosexual behaviour and expect it to be communicated and lived in a fully orthodox manner, without exception (as with all teachings).

      I would completely agree that homsoexual behaviours hould not be normalised and especially not in any presentation to young children.

      you are very keen to take the balanced view, as you said, but can we really do that with morality? That’s a genuine question, as I maybe see things too black and white, or so I’ve been told, LOL!

      Wrt “balanced view”, I didn’t mean about morality – of course we cannot be less than equivocal about that, just as Our Lord was.

      I was meaning about the implications of this TIE report in that, while it sounds concerning to see activists talk of “monumental victory” and politicians trumpeting, I think the reality is far removed from this.

      The campaign to get binding legislation passed has failed and schools / parents have the same rights as before.

      I think our response needs to avoid helping them achieve a propaganda victory, where they did not get a political one.

      I would not be in the least surprised if, in say 5 years, the activists came back and tried again on some bogus grounds, but the strong barriers they face will remain.

      I hope I am not being naive, but I expect what is served up will be very similar to my experience.

  8. Worried about your child being “taught” LGBTQI theory at school? Worry not.
    As the Editrix knows, I too have a background in (secondary) education, although not in a Catholic school (I couldn’t stomach it after a year of unadulterated guff at St Andrew’s College, Bearsden) and not in the state sector.
    The point is, that there are teachers teaching maths in state secondary schools who can’t count, teachers teaching English who can neither spell nor punctuate, teachers teaching French who can’t speak French., teachers weighing 20 stone teaching PE … you get the message?
    After 35 years’ experience, I genuinely believe that very many teachers will be both unable and unwilling to read any LGBTQI 🏳️‍🌈 guidelines, curricula, schemes of work, call them what you will.
    The “guidelines” will be downloaded, printed off, put in a glossy folder and placed in “the cupboard”.
    My evidence? Who remembers 5-14? Who can name the National Priorities? Who remembers the Core Skills? What can name the capacities of a Curriculum for Excrem… Excellence? Q.E.D.

    • Satro2010,

      The “guidelines” will be downloaded, printed off, put in a glossy folder and placed in “the cupboard”.

      My evidence? Who remembers 5-14? Who can name the National Priorities? Who remembers the Core Skills? What can name the capacities of a Curriculum for Excrem… Excellence? Q.E.D

      I have no teaching experience, but this is close to my expectations of what will happen!

    • Sarto,

      Contrary to what you say, I had no idea that you are a teacher. How did I miss that? No sarcy responses please and thank you.

      Sadly, I have to agree with everything you say – something happened in all the professions in recent years; standards dropped and that includes in teacher-education. I had to instruct some students in my Department not to put anything on an acetate [discouraging them from using the black or white board) until I’d checked the spelling. Incredible.

      • Ah … tempus edax rerum … but it was many moons ago and you mentioned how you had had a certain fondness for some of the ND sisters who’d taught at Notre Dame/St Andrew’s (no names, no pack-drill) whereas I had had not much/very little!

        It used to be a practice that student teachers and junior teachers were invited to supply the marking schemes and “answers” to the old O-Grade/S-Grade/Higher examinations on the day of the exam, for the benefit of anxious pupils who wanted to compare with their classmates how well they’d done. Yes!

        Many junior teachers could not get 100% in the Credit Maths paper and, in my own department, one junior colleague could not even attempt the Higher Latin unseen translation! (I did say I didn’t teach in the state sector!)

        It has gone downhill from even that low point.

        The LBGTQIXYZ theory will be left to young colleagues wearing Doc Martens, sporting tattoos and lip piercings, but their discipline will be so poor, that no youngsters will even given them a second look, never mind listen to their outpourings.

        Courage, mes amis!

        • Sarto,

          Your posts are going into moderation so I’m puzzled – having long since released you! There must be a word or phrase in there that escapes me, but is the culprit.

          Anyway, I can’t recall singing the praises of the ND Sisters – must have been in the days when I was on Diet Coke more than I should have been 😀

          I’m taking your second paragraph with a large pinch of salt, and adding a jug of pepper but, whatever, I do second your concluding exhortation!

    • Sarto2010,

      You seem to be the only Catholic teacher in Scotland who is in any way concerned enough, or has enough backbone, to speak out about this brainwashing of pupils in Catholic schools. Thanks for coming on here, but where are all the younger teachers? 35 years experience is impressive but what of the ones who are just through Catholic teacher training, should they not be speaking out, as surely they’ve just been taught that Catholic teaching means homosexuality is a grave sin so they can’t teach about “LGBT rights”.

      Any teacher who is going along with this and keeping silent, to keep in with the SCES and bishops, will find themselves with “millstones round their necks and cast into the depths of the sea”, as Christ warned in the gospel.

      Things are so bad now that there is just no excuse for any Catholic teacher or priest to kowtow to the bishops. How people can sleep at night knowing they are helping to deliver evil philosophies and agendas to innocent children, is beyond my ken.

      • Fidelis,

        Regarding the silence of Catholic school teachers, I suspect that paychecks speak louder than truth….which btw could also be said of the apostate bishops by adding, to paychecks, status, prestige, power, influence, etc. (and, he added cynically, access to rent-boys…)

        There is also this problem: I can’t say with certainty, but I’d guess a substantial number of these teachers probably agree with this brainwashing!

        • Fidelis/RCA Victor,

          In the interests of fairness, I think we need to acknowledge that it’s something of a problem for some teachers – e.g. who are parents with dependent children, mortgages, rent etc. Especially if a teacher knows that (s)he won’t be supported by the bishop if there is a showdown.

          There is a difficulty, at times, trying to work out what is the (genuinely) prudent thing to do (i.e. not using “prudence” as an excuse) and making a stand.

          I think it’s maybe more reasonable at this point in time, to expect that Catholic teachers are speaking up in the various staff and in-service meetings etc available to them, making clear that they have a conscience issue with this, and then determining that whatever they do in the classroom, they ensure that pupils are aware of what the Church teaches and also the fact that what the Church teaches, comes from God.

          I think that is about as much as we can expect right now. Maybe that is what Pope John Paul II meant when he pointed out that we are being called to a different kind of martyrdom… relief to my ears. I can’t stand the sight of blood. Especially my own 😀

          • Editor,

            I do understand the prudence argument but in the end, Saint Thomas More had to take a stand, and he was a married man with a family. I suppose the best can be said is that it has to be down to the consciences of individual teachers. A hero figure would be edifying, though, LOL!

            • I think it is possible to exercise prudence without it being a cop-out. I have done it for many years.

              I would agree with the editor. There are ways to defend the Faith in your own local situation. I’ve done this several times and I’ve witnessed other teachers doing it too. There are many unsung heroes who are speaking out, but not necessarily doing so on blogs or forums.

              I attended a training event last year and found that once I expressed my concerns, others followed suit and spoke up. I then followed up my concerns with an email to the church authorities, so my concerns were on record.

              I am also aware that a couple of years ago at a headteacher training event , a speaker from a LGBT group spoke and many of the Catholic headteachers present expressed their anger when he criticised Catholic schools.

              So, I think Catholic teachers can be cut some slack and think it’s unfair to claim that they are only interest in their pay check! Certainly, not enough are speaking out, but my point is many do it in their own way.

              It’s also worth pointing out that using St Thomas More as a comparison is not completely fair. It’s worth noting that St Thomas exercised prudence and refused to criticise the King publicly until it came down to either signing the recognition of the King’s “marriage” or facing certain death. He did not seek martyrdom and did not speak out until he had no choice.

              Many teachers suffer a type of martyrdom today. They are ridiculed by their colleagues and will never gain promotion. For example, a teacher who attends Mass at a SSPX parish would find it almost impossible to gain the bishop’s approval for a promoted post. It’s very easy for non-teachers to pass comment on what a teacher should, or should not do.

          • Editor,

            Good point, but what will happen to the teacher who teaches what the Church teaches, and because of that ends up being the subject of a complaint by a [homosexual/transgender/fill-in-the-blank] student and his parents for being “offended,” “bullied,” “discriminated against,” etc.? Or even, under the totalitarian rules being discussed here, “disrespected”?

            I’m afraid teachers will have to face the music, one way or another.

            Another question: are Catholic teachers afraid to do even what you suggest, i.e. raise the conscience violations in staff meetings?

            • RCA Victor,

              I hear what you are saying…

              Seriously, though, I do understand the desire for teachers to speak out and blatantly refuse to co-operate with this evil agenda, and, indeed, I cannot, for the life of me, see how any Catholic could possibly justify “teaching” LGBT etc so-called “rights”.

              However, as the old saying goes, there’s more than one way to skin a cat.

              So, I would settle for some fancy footwork – similar, (incidentally, Fidelis), to what Thomas More did at the Reformation (he didn’t just jump in and declare his position) in an attempt to do their level best to minimise the danger to children.

              Typing this in a rush – hope it makes sense. If not, that’s pity 😀

              PS – re your question about meetings and in-service etc – it’s easier in staff meetings etc to state views because a teacher, especially in a Catholic school, may invoke conscience. Actually, in my own experience, religious sensitivities are stronger and senior staff more accepting of conscience issues in NON-denominational schools, as I found out when I was asked to teach sex-education some years ago. As soon as I said I had problems but never like to say “no” when asked to do something, so sure, I’ll take the group, as long as I’m able to give the other side. When asked what I meant by the “other side”, I said the facts about condoms and STDs etc. Nice, thoughtful smile, a “thanks – will get back to you…” which he never did! As I say, more than one way to skin a cat!

              • Editor,

                I would love to be a fly on the wall at some of those staff meetings, mostly because, after years of reading this blog, I have the impression that the number of Catholic school teachers who actually teach the Faith in Scotland equals about the fingers of one hand – assuming said hand has its full complement of fingers…

                • RCA Victor,

                  Well, I’m certainly not in a position to claim that my inbox is full of emails from concerned Catholic teachers NOR am I getting countless teachers signing up for the blog. So, I think you may well have a point there.

                  • Editor,

                    I think we have to acknowledge that there are other ways to speak out . Catholic Truth is not the only way. It’s unfair to make generalisations just because teachers aren’t contacting CT.

                    • Whistleblower,

                      I have not said anywhere that Catholic Truth is the only way to do anything.

                      Having said that, I would be interested to learn of other means available in Scotland where concerned Catholic teachers are able to obtain support. Please publish that because we would want to help Catholic teachers feeling isolated, as much as possible.

                      I know that when I was seeking support myself, I had to turn to an organisation in England, run by a retired Head Teacher, recommended to me by another teacher-friend. Speaking for myself, I’d have been delighted to be able to comment anonymously, share information carefully, and seek advice from orthodox Catholics on a sound Catholic blog. As a “Whistleblower” yourself, I’d have thought you would appreciate that, but, not to worry, if you have knowledge about other means of supporting teachers, you are more than welcome to publish the information here. In that way, bloggers here who come across concerned teachers will be able to pass on the information, or any teacher happening by will pick it up – a win-win situation, as they say.

                      Thank you.

                    • Editor,

                      I didn’t see any reference to “support” in your comments or RCA Victor’s. Forgive me if I missed that. RCA Victor said that he didn’t think more than one or two Catholic teachers in Scotland defended the Faith and you replied that since they hadn’t contacted you by email, or signed up for the blog, he may be right! I don’t think that’s fair or particularly accurate.

                      I don’t think it’s always necessary to seek support from a group of organisation to simply express concerns regarding the Faith. Petrus mentioned above that he’s witnessed it several times. So, if we believe we Petrus says, then the evidence would suggest that it’s unfair to agree with RCA Victor’s comments on the basis that teachers aren’t contacting CT!

                    • Whistleblower,

                      For heaven’s sake! You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Editor only said that RCA Victor “may well have a point” – that’s not exactly a wholehearted vote of confidence, LOL! Lighten up!

                      I doubt very much if many teachers are speaking up against LGBT rights, because most people go along with their wishes, afraid of being called homophobic or because they believe it’s right to support gay rights. That’s just my opinion, though, I don’t know many teachers so I can’t give an informed opinion.

                    • Whistleblower,

                      Now hang on, in no way do I want to give the impression that there are great numbers of teachers speaking out . The numbers are tiny. So I really do think editor and RCA Victor have valid points.

                    • Petrus,

                      Thank you for that clarification.

                      Whistleblower,

                      Please leave it there. I really dislike it when the atmosphere becomes hostile on the blog – and not just because the hostility is usually aimed a me!

                      I intended no offence, so let’s leave it there. Thank you for your co-operation.

    • Wendy Walker,

      I remember reading a London Times article some years ago, in which the author opined that those who are keen to introduce children to sexual matters are displaying the same characteristics as a paedophile.

      I agree. 200%

  9. I was telling a group of mums today about the Scottish Government’s plan to introduce this disgusting material into schools and I was told that I read too many conspiracy stories! I’m going to print off some material and bring it to next week’s group.

    • Helen,

      Tell your mums that if they form their opinions by what they see on TV, or hear in their Novus Ordo parishes (if they hear anything worthwhile at all), they are doomed to ignorance.

    • Helen,

      This is part of the problem, isn’t it? We are often labelled nutters and our concerns are laughed off.

%d bloggers like this: