What To Do & What Not To Do – A Tale of Two Catholic Bishops

In other words, a Catholic Bishop and a modernist, non-Catholic Bishop.

From De Omnibus Dubitandum Est.

By Mark Lambert

Well it's LGBTQI+ History month folks and the best place for LGBTQI+ advocates to push their queer agenda is in Catholic Schools (apparently).

Some schools - the majority I suspect - happily embrace this political agenda being foisted on them, despite recent legislation to the contrary, the key point of which was to spell out schools' obligations "to be mindful of legal duties on political impartiality during these events and thoroughly assess both the organisations in question and any materials they provide.”

Why? Well, as pointed out in a recent BBC special in depth investigation Stonewall - the organisation which most prominently seeks to promote this agenda in Catholic Schools, is not impartial, but a lobby group who profit greatly from their own schemes. Stonewall's total income for the financial year ending 2019 was almost £8.5m. They are a powerful force.

Nevertheless some Catholic schools proudly declare themselves Stonewall Schools.

Despite the image presented by Stonewall as an organisation which exists to promote equality and address bullying, its underlying philosophy, ethos and anthropology are all at direct odds with Catholic beliefs. We regularly see this demonstrated through incidents such as Stonewall awarding Cardinal O’Brien the title ‘bigot of the year’ for standing up for Catholic teaching about marriage; and Stonewall was behind the legislation on adoption that forced the closure of Catholic adoption agencies.

The truth is that the two approaches (that of Stonewall and that of the Catholic Church) are incompatible and irreconcilable. Stonewall’s belief that homosexual and other non-procreative sexual behaviour is a positive good, and their mission to normalise and gain acceptance for such behaviour stands in stark contrast to the Church’s teaching, founded on the words of Christ Himself, that human sexual acts are only a good within marriage, when it expresses the nuptial union of a man and a woman, in love and open to life.

This then leads to very different approaches to, for example, the practical issue of education to prevent bullying. Stonewall’s approach is to teach children that 'gay children' (for example) should not be bullied because 'gay' is natural and good.

Jesus and His Church, of course, teach that nobody should be bullied, whether we approve of their behaviour or not. This is because the wisdom Jesus bestowed on the Church reveals to us that every human being has an inviolable dignity derived from the fact that we are all made in the image and likeness of God. None of us is free from fault or defect, due to Original Sin we all exist in a state of brokenness, in need of help; in need of redemption (c.f. Matthew 7:3f). Many of us struggle with self image, but the Church teaches us to accept our created reality and do the best we can with it rather than pretend we can become something we are not. It seems obvious that acceptance of an individual where they are, affirmation of the good that you are (the fundamental kerygma) and accompaniment are healthy, realistic ways for all of us to come to terms with our created reality.

When we consider this basic and fundamental premise of Catholic belief we can recognise that Stonewall’s anti-bullying work is at the service of their larger agenda, which is suggesting that a person is identified by their sexual orientation. Can you see how dangerous this actually is? This may seem like a small thing if you are unfamiliar with theology, but it is in fact a form of idolatry and should set huge alarm bells ringing. The construction and promotion of the notion of a ‘gay person’ as an identity is philosophically and anthropologically unsound, and leads children (and indeed adults, including teachers) into error. That error is compounded with the assumption that ‘being gay’ (i.e. subject to homosexual desires) can only find authentic expression in the indulgence of such desires. That error then leads people to indulge in activities which are contrary to their dignity as a person and may have far reaching psychological and physical repercussions.

Some people argue that to embrace a person's desires in this regard is kind and empathic. We all draw a moral line at what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in relationships and it is very evident that the line with regard to same sex attraction has moved a considerable amount since 1967 when homosexuality began to be decriminalised in the UK. Should we get with the times?

The fact of the matter is that as Catholics we believe that sexual acts which are not open to life are a misuse of our sexual appetite. When we divorce the procreative from the unitive (the part of sexual activity which is about drawing us closer to our partner), we use the other person as an object. This diminishes their dignity as a person made in the image and likeness of God. The same is true of activity like masturbation, viewing pornography, etc. Catholics should avoid all these pitfalls and confess failings in this regard before approaching the blessed Sacrament for Holy Communion.

Put this in the context of our broader journey of life which is about seeking to become holy - becoming like Jesus. This includes controlling all our appetites; becoming the master of our appetites. We all recognise that we need food but if we over indulge we will be sick. Similarly, when a relationship is new, we are careful not to overstep the boundaries. This is the same thing as being in charge of our sexual appetites: not looking at pornographic images, not using other people as objects of our sexual lust, treating every person as the image and likeness of God.

This HAS to be understood in our schools and HAS to be the goal and aim of Catholic Education. Yet parents and educators seem to no longer value the great virtue of chastity and I find myself wondering why parents would not want their children to be chaste? Are they seriously comfortable with their children having sexual relationships before marriage? If so how many sexual partners are they comfortable with their children having? I mean, this is a deep seated sickness in our community if it is true that people responsible for Catholic education are thinking this way and it needs to be addressed.

Moreover, a lack of coherent teaching on this is causing many to leave the Catholic Church. In a recent survey a massive 29% of those who walk away from their Catholic faith cite "Negative religious teachings about or treatment of gay and lesbian people" as their primary reason for leaving. That breaks down as 40% for women, 20% for men, and a massive 39% for Millennials, 12% for seniors, 39% raised Catholic, 29% raised anything else. This is an avalanche of apostasy which the Church desperately needs to address by engaging with the situation and explaining Christ's saving truth with respect to this. Sadly, we don't seem to have any bishops willing to teach the faith, so it is down to the laity.

To demonstrate how bad things have got, I want to bring two stories to your attention, two stories which both have educators - head teachers, deputy head teachers and parents - who clearly are at odds with Catholic teaching due to ignorance of the facts and consequences of their actions. And two bishops, one who does the right thing and one who simply does not do anything. Ever. That's my bishop: Alan Williams sm. To be clear, one bishop, Archbishop John Wilson of Southwark takes the correct action - but the situation has arisen because of an lack of leadership from our bishops and a existential lack of any teaching surrounding this matter.

The first story is from Southwark Archdiocese where Saint John Fisher School in Purley invited an author with Same Sex Attraction who writes books about homosexuality in teen boys to visit the school as part of LGBTQI+ History Month. (Yes now we have two months of the year in which our children can be indoctrinated with this agenda. I say two months, but we all really know it is twelve months!).

Parents were notified of this author coming to the school via a letter from the School Librarian, Mrs A Leggatt:

So the important thing to note is which books are being pushed here to years 8-11. Here is some of the content (warning: if you are of a nervous disposition, you might not want to read this)

There's also a blasphemous parody of the Lord's prayer which has been reproduced by the blog Catholic Truth, you can read it here if you feel you must!

Was the school aware of the material? If they were, then we have a more serious problem than perhaps we could state. It is a form of grooming and certainly sexualising our children in a way which is massively inappropriate.

Unsurprisingly you might think, some Catholic parents complained. It appears that the school did not want to cancel the author - perhaps they were embarrassed or perhaps because they really are pro LGBTQI+. The parents and many other prospective parents from the area who are Catholic rightly went to the bishop. This is when the diocese stepped in. Dr Simon Hughes, director of education at the Archdiocese of Southwark sent this letter which clearly lays out the position of the Archdiocese:

It seems the leadership of the school decided to go ahead with the visit despite Dr. Hughes's recommendations, at which point the Archdiocese took the step of sacking the Foundation Governors.

Foundation Governors are appointed by the local Bishop to represent his education policy in his school. They preserve and develop the Catholic ethos of the school. Clearly the Archbishop (John Wilson) recognised that this was not being achieved with the set of Foundation Governors in post and therefore the bishop removed them.

Dr. Jules Gomes reports how this led to the author Simon James Green to have a melt down on social media, attempting to stir up controversy:

Simon James Green raged against the cancellation on Twitter, noting what he is "most worried about [is] the message it sends to LGBT kids at that school and in general — that, somehow, they are wrong and inappropriate and everything they are is kind of sinful and problematic."

The gay author said the incident reminded him of section 28 — a law that banned schools and councils from "promoting the teaching of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship." The law was passed in 1988 and repealed in 2003.

You can immediately see what the agenda is. Green tries to frame this as a discriminatory act rather than an issue about the content of his books which, as you can see for yourself above, is blasphemous and rife with sexualisation and innuendo. Gomes exposed this in a further article where he contacted two independent experts for their comments on the contents of Green's "children's" books.

Psychologist Dr. Kate Godfrey-Fausset told Church Militant such literature "is primarily about sexualizing children and should raise multiple red flags regarding child protection issues."

Another expert Gomes consulted, Dr. Lisa Nolland explained:

Simon James Green's LGBTQ+ teen fiction appalls. No youngster ought to be "exploring" their sexuality in ways graphically described by Green, who is apparently ignorant of the biology, physiology and public health aspects of both teen sex and MSM [men who have sex with men] statistics.

Adolescent psychiatrist Miriam Grossman notes how we are teaching our young people they can safely play with fire, while the offices of doctors and therapists are filled by those who have been burned, inside and out. Shame on you Simon Green! All kids deserve better!

Read the whole report here. 

The next thing to happen was the Catholic Education Service got involved. Now, you would think they would aim to help people who considered the decision discriminatory to better understand the proper reasoning behind the decision.

But no. The CES has long been a completely useless organisation which exists only to weaken Catholic Education and infiltrate schools with a secular narrative. It's not cheap though, in fact the bill back in 2019 was almost £1.4m.

See the annual reports and accounts.

When I served as a Foundation Governor back around 2010 - 2014, the CES was widely considered to be completely useless by teachers, clergy and by the secularists trying to move in on Catholic education. The agenda was really obvious to anyone who was watching even back then. And the CES continued to work against Catholic ethos without check over the intervening years.

Parents, clergy, teachers and other concerned citizens, both Catholic and non-Catholic, up and down the country have long been outraged by the CES's shameful complicity with government and the pro-abortion lobby in spreading the culture of death through schools. The CES, along with the pro-abortion lobby, helped draft the government's guidance on sex education, which is a cornucopia of anti-life and anti-family ideas. The CES did everything it could to help the government mislead the public about the Children, Schools and Families bill. The bill, as passed by the House of Commons at third reading, was a vehicle to impose the teaching of abortion, contraception and homosexuality on schools, including Catholic and other faith schools.

It is clear that the CES and its agenda has always had the full backing of Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster.

Their blatant disregard for Catholic teaching was expressed clearly when they employed Greg Pope, a former Labour MP for Hyndburn, as its new deputy director. Mr Pope has a lengthy and strongly anti-life and anti-family parliamentary record as was reported at the time by dismayed Catholic parents.

Similarly, clergy have privately and publicly suggested that the CES has been the very vehicle that will ultimately render Catholic education completely impotent.

Of course, as the LGBTQI+ clamour has grown in our society, the CES, far from explaining the faith and ensuring the Catholic position - the promotion of strong morals, the protection of our innocent children, the virtue of chastity and the pursuit of holiness - have rushed headlong to accommodate the ideology and subvert the faith in our schools. Even drawing in groups like Stonewall with a clear anti-Catholic agenda to lead the way.

So when the Archbishop of Southwark stands up to the sexualisation and grooming of children in two schools in his Archdiocese, how does the CES respond? It throws him under the bus of course.

Commenting on this for the Catholic News Agency, Catholic Educational expert and former Director for Marriage and Family life for Westminster Archdiocese Edmund Adamus stated:

"Archbishop Wilson clearly weighed up the consequences of not acting and did the right thing not only by the children attending his schools but for other dioceses and Catholic education as a whole which is why it is somewhat bewildering to see an official statement from the CES that does not emphatically support him. Indeed, the tone and wording of the statement implies that the CES disagrees with the Archbishop and distances itself from his decision for the sake of political expediency.
How sad. In that regard, one might do well to remind those who are authorised to represent the hierarchy with the DfE of the unequivocal words of Pope Francis in April 2014;
"I would like to express my rejection of any kind of educational experimentation on children. We cannot experiment on children and young people. They are not lab specimens!" Furthermore, the CES in its own guidance for secondary schools on such matters as LGBT issues quotes the late Cardinal Hume who said:
"The Church recognises the dignity of all people and does not define or label them in terms of their sexual orientation".

In my view the CES ought to have publicly supported the decision to disinvite Simon James Green since he is clearly someone who peddles his trade on "labels." It can be challenging enough for a youngster to navigate the difficult and confusing period of adolescence which is why moral formation must always be prudent and delicate and certainly not treated in such a glib and vulgar manner. Leo Baxendale, [of Beano comic fame] knew this and summed up the moral responsibility of children's authors well when he wrote;
'Once the imagination of a child is set alight, it takes persistent dousing with cold water to put out the fire.' ""

There's lots more going on with this. As always there is a certain amount of internal politics involved. 
There has clearly been an orchestrated campaign and much negative coverage in the press and on social media characterised by anti-Catholic sentiment and misleading headlines (eg “Catholic church bans visit by gay author to London school” Guardian 09 March 2022”, “Anger at ‘dinosaur attitude’ of Catholic school towards gay author” Telegraph 10 March 2022). One of the removed governors was Mrs Pat Cook, whose son, Christopher, is a prominent journalist, with a large twitter following. Christopher Cook tweeted “My mother is one of the governors who has just been sacked here. I am extremely proud of her” 09 March 2022.

The National Education Union has started a survey to take further action (you can fill it in yourself here) as well as a petition to reinstate the sacked governors.

As earlier stated, the narrative is that Green was removed because he is gay - obviously hugely encouraged by Green himself (qv the Church Militant articles linked to above). This is false but the narrative has been adopted even by local councillors:

Clearly, Archbishop John Wilson has acted wisely and with great courage in this instance.

Now contrast that with Bishop Alan Williams, who is a trustee of the Catholic Education Service.

Church Militant reports that Gemma Ackred, headteacher at Saint Thomas More Catholic Secondary School in Westcliff on Sea published a prayer affirming gender confusion and homosexuality. This prayer was also read out to the students at assembly. I spoke to several teachers who told me they cringed when this happened and shook their heads in amazement. At a recent Confirmation class in the Parish the pupils were all mocking the event loudly.

This is the blasphemous prayer which, frankly, is tantamount to grooming:

And this is the ridiculous message Ackred sent out to all parents and pupils:

Perhaps the worst thing about this message is the way it attempts to manipulate the Pope's pastoral approach to people with same sex attraction. Mrs Ackred states her purely speculative opinion that, “the Catholic Church is changing” but Church teaching cannot and does not change because it is grounded in the revelation of the Son of God. We call this the deposit of faith.

The example used of Pope Francis was speaking of the right of gay people to be in a family relates specifically to parents who disown their children because of their sexuality, which is, of course, appalling and should never be supported. On its own this quote does seem to imply that the Pope endorses marriage between people of the same sex and the right of anyone to have a child, by any means. This clearly contradicts Church teaching that children are not simply a commodity but rather a gift from God resulting from the fruitful love between a married man and woman.

Where is the "Contact" extolling the vital importance of chastity, holiness, marriage or family?

I am excited to find out when the Marriage and family life month is in this school!

Ackred's message enthusiastically endorses so-called “gender theory” which in actuality was condemned by the Congregation for Catholic Education in the document Male and Female He Created Them written specifically to address how to approach transgender ideology in Catholic educational settings. Clearly neither the governing body nor any of the senior leadership at the school has even a passing familiarity with this most current teaching on this subject which is, at the very least, deeply embarrassing and, I might suggest extremely disingenuous to the extent that it excludes the SLT from competence to speak on this issue at all to the pupils. 

The ignorance of this message is also clear from the obvious lack of understanding regarding what is actually being supported under this ideology. A good example is the nomenclature "queer". One normal queer practice is “ageplay” an adult identifying as a baby or young child also known as adult baby/diaper lover (ABDL) or infantilism. There may be a sexual aspect… associated with humiliation”.  This is all from the lead psychologist at the Tavistock Gender Identity Clinic. I'd love to know where this is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The level of ignorance on display here is utterly shocking and reveals a complete disconnect with Catholicism. So how did Bishop Alan Williams respond to this? He did precisely nothing. Zip. Nada.

In stark contrast to what happened in Southwark, no action was taken. The bishop didn't even have a word with the school. He ran and hid. He ignored his clergy's concerns.

Canon 386 §1states: 

A diocesan bishop, frequently preaching in person, is bound to propose and explain to the faithful the truths of the faith which are to be believed and applied to morals. He is also to take care that the prescripts of the canons on the ministry of the word, especially those on the homily and catechetical instruction, are carefully observed so that the whole Christian doctrine is handed on to all.

If Bishop Alan is so determined to do nothing in Brentwood Diocese, perhaps it is time he admitted he does not want to be a bishop and stands down?