British bishop: Catholic schools at risk in general election [CWN]

[CWN_News]

Bishop Malcolm McMahon of Nottingham is warning Catholics that a victory by the Liberal Democrats in the May 6 general election could threaten the existence of Catholic schools. The party …

More…

 

[Santi2]

If the Liberal Party were to win the general election, chances are many Catholic Schools may close in the same way that many Catholic adoption agencies have. In one of his interviews, the leader of the Lib Dems (who has publicly acknowledged in another interview that he does not believe in God), also proposes that faith schools must teach that homosexuality is “normal and harmless”. Unfortunately, that is also supported by their education manifesto which also proposes to end an opt-out from the employment and equalities legislation for staff in faith schools.

thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23794333-nick-clegg-faith-schools-must-tackle-homophobic-bullying.do

 

[wisdomseeker]

Bishop Malcolm McMahon of Nottingham is warning Catholics that a victory by the Liberal Democrats in the May 6 general election could threaten the existence of Catholic schools. The party …

More…

let’s expect that our leaders of the CC turn their hearts towards God. the reason we have all these problems is due to liberals who are in leadership of the Church also.

youtube.com/watch?v=HGHdGFvm1K4

 

[Guyonthestreet]

let’s expect that our leaders of the CC turn their hearts towards God. the reason we have all these problems is due to liberals who are in leadership of the Church also.

youtube.com/watch?v=HGHdGFvm1K4

Those pesky liberals. !!!

But can they spell ‘‘catechism’’ as opposed to the ‘‘caticism’’ in the video link

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Bishop Malcolm McMahon of Nottingham is warning Catholics that a victory by the Liberal Democrats in the May 6 general election could threaten the existence of Catholic schools. The party …

More…

Some more reading here:

libdemvoice.org/david-laws-faith-schools-sex-education-18218.html

 

[Santi2]

Liberal Democrats will defend the role of faith schools in state education. But state funded prejudice is not a freedom that liberals or Liberal Democrats should feel the need to justify or tolerate.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Oh, it’s just the usual political claptrap doublespeak.

Nothing to see here.

Move along.

 

[josie_L]

Those pesky liberals. !!!

But can they spell ‘‘catechism’’ as opposed to the ‘‘caticism’’ in the video link

There is truth to what he says, i.e., fidelity to Christ and his teachings was sorely lacking in the 60’s, 70’s and early 80’s during which liberal (and liberation) theology was at its strongest.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Those pesky liberals. !!!

But can they spell ‘‘catechism’’ as opposed to the ‘‘caticism’’ in the video link

i will let the spelling to the liberals.

 

[Tybourne]

Okay, this really concerns me as a Catholic who was planning to vote Lib Dem. I respect and admire Bishop McMahon and was formerly a member of his flock. I am against liberalism, as defined by Venerable John Henry Newman in his Apologia. At the same time, I do have some belief in Liberalism, as a political approach. As Chesterton said, "As much as I ever did, more than I ever did, I believe in Liberalism. But there was a rosy time of innocence when I believed in Liberals. "

To an extent, the Torygraph and Bishop McMahon are scaremongering. The quotes here are from the website that Guyonthestreet kindly linked:

The Conference clearly decided to allow faith education within the state funded sector. It respected the choices that many parents want to make, as well as the success and popularity of many faith schools…can it be right that a child living in the catchment area of a faith school whose parents want to choose that school for the child should be denied entry to the nearest taxpayer funded school on the basis of a religious test? That is the reality in many communities. Liberal Democrats therefore voted to require all faith schools to have a more inclusive approach to entry – and voted to give local authorities the powers to implement such a policy in a sensitive and flexible way

This is not as much of a problem as it seems. Catholic schools need to be reconsidered as part of the missionary endeavour of the Church. This does not depend on having only Catholic children in Catholic schools, quite the contrary.

Conference also decided that, with the exception of religious instruction, staff in faith schools should be chosen on the basis of ability to teach and not simply on the basis of faith. That is surely right – anything else is unfair both to the children who need the best education, and to the teacher with the right skills.

This is much more of a problem. Catholic schools cannot be Catholic without Catholic teachers, obviously. To argue otherwise flies in the face of religious freedom.

is it really acceptable in the 21st century that – for example – a school should be able to teach about homosexuality while at the same time making clear that it same sex relationships are morally wrong,

Yes, absolutely. It’s necessary for religious freedom that we should be able to teach children in Catholic schools the truth.

Now I don’t know which way to vote…

 

[DL82]

Hmm,

I think, on balance, as a Catholic who was also going to vote for the Liberal Democrats, I still have to go, taking all policies into account, with the Lib Dems.

Catholic education is important, and it is especially important to me, as someone currently doing a doctorate looking at the role of faith and religious education in schools in the UK. All the same, it is not a ‘final’, ‘objective’ issue, in the way that abortion would be. If there was a major party in the British system that would outlaw abortion, that would be a decider for me. If there was a party that was going to abolish Catholic schools, that would also be a decider.

To say that we may need to take in non-Catholic students isn’t a concern at all. Catholic schools in Scotland have been doing this for a long time already. Also, Catholic schools already have non-Catholic teachers, but all of them must be in support of the ethos and values of the school.

The issue on sex education is more complex, but we need to be able to distinguish between what we have to admit, and what we have to promote. A Catholic school could teach about homosexuality while maintaining what the Church teaches in terms of Catholic belief and lifestyle. Ignorance is not the answer. I don’t agree with David Laws’ views on this matter, but I would also point out that neither do a great many Lib Dems.

Finally, it’s worth pointing out that the Liberal Democrats have some very odd policies on their books, but there’s a reason for this. The Liberal Democrats are the only party in the UK mainstream where ordinary delegates to the Annual Conference can propose policy ‘from the floor’ - in the Labour and Conservative parties, there are committees of MPs who set party policy on the basis of what will play well with the voters. In practice, Liberal Democrat MP’s are not held to a ‘3 line whip’ (an obligation to vote with the leadership or be suspended from the party), unlike other political parties, so, while David Laws may vote for Catholic schools to have to support homosexual practice, that is just David Laws’s opinion, and doesn’t mean every Lib Dem MP will do the same.

On balance, considering the Lib Dems position on tax breaks for the poorest, nuclear disarmament (now that is an ‘objective’ moral issue), support for people who care for sick or elderly family members, I can’t imagine their position on Catholic schools and sex education would be a major priority for them. I’d have to say, I’m shaken, but unmoved in my support for them as (marginally) the best of the bunch.

 

[Santi2]

A Catholic school could teach about homosexuality while maintaining what the Church teaches in terms of Catholic belief and lifestyle.

But, Catholic schools will not have that option where Nick Clegg proposes to force faith schools to teach that homosexuality is “normal and harmless”.