RSE an Attack on Religious Vocations

“Know also this, that, in the last days, shall come dangerous times. Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked, Without affection, without peace, slanderers, incontinent, unmerciful, without kindness, Traitors, stubborn, puffed up, and lovers of pleasures more than of God: Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid. For of these sort are they who creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, who are led away with divers desires.” (2 Timothy 3:1-6)

There is no doubt amongst those who perceive the world through the eyes of the Spirit, that we are living in very dangerous times. As St Paul warned St Timothy, the time would come when men would be lovers of themselves, puffed up and lovers of pleasures more than of God.

After telling St Timothy to avoid these kinds of people he also warns him that these type of people ‘creep into houses’. St Paul mentions that this was to “lead captive silly women laden with sins” but today, these people creep into the houses in order to steal the souls of children from their parents and from God. They gain access to the children via the schools, the internet, and through false teachers who do satan’s bidding, perhaps unknowingly, but his bidding, nonetheless.

When we go back to the Garden of Eden, we learn of the fall of the first man and woman through the wiles of the serpent. With this ‘original sin’ was born the need for sacrificial offerings and thus the role of the priest. The ultimate sacrificial offering is Christ’s sacrifice of Himself to the Father on the cross, which is re-presented at every Holy Mass.

With original sin, Adam and Eve also learned that they were naked, and the concupiscence of the flesh was born and so God covered the nakedness of the man and the woman.

“And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife, garments of skins, and clothed them” (Genesis 3:21)
God has always raised up pure souls to defend His Catholic Church and this is an aspect of the hedonistic Relationships & Sexuality Education Programmes that most people overlook. These RSE programmes are designed to get children sexually active resulting in them losing their purity, their virginity and their innocence at a very early age. Now virginity is not an absolute requirement for the priesthood, witness the life of St Augustine, but God has always used holy consecrated virgins for some of His greatest works. St Margaret Mary Alacoque, St Therese of Lisieux, St Padre Pio to name just three.

As these RSE programmes become more and more commonplace, there will also be a commensurate decline in the number of these pure holy innocent souls.

Malcom Muggeridge, with his pithy prose captured what I am saying very well when he wrote about the virgin birth.

“The Madonna’s of the Middle Ages, endlessly painted, sculpted, celebrated in verse and prose and Plainsong, are glowingly alive without being involved in our human concupiscence. One comes across them in obscure churches as in great cathedrals and abbeys – faces of transcendental beauty that are also enchantingly homely, and even droll, in wood and stone and marble; still with candle flames flickering in front of them and flowers heaped before them, and a few figures kneeling, touched with wonder at the Mother of God, who was, at once, so sublimely motherly, and so humanly divine. Such faces, blending physical and spiritual beauty into a sort of celestial coquetry, are likewise to be seen among nuns – or were until they put aside their habits and rules to follow Demas and the fashions of this present world.
In humanistic times like ours, a contemporary virgin – assuming there are any such – would regard a message from the Angel Gabriel that she might expect to give birth to a son to be called the Son of the Highest as ill tidings of great sorrow and a slur on the local family planning centre. It is, in point of fact, extremely improbable, under existing conditions, that Jesus would have been permitted to be born at all. Mary’s pregnancy, in poor circumstances, and with the father unknown, would have been an obvious case for abortion; and her talk of having conceived as a result of the intervention of the Holy Ghost would have pointed to the need for psychiatric treatment, and made the case for terminating her pregnancy even stronger.

Thus our generation, needing a Saviour more, perhaps, than any that has ever existed, would be too humane to allow one to be born, too enlightened to permit the Light of the World to shine in a darkness that grows ever more oppressive.” (Malcolm Muggeridge – quoted in ‘Seeing Through the Eye’)

He then speaks of the credulity of present generations who accuse those of the past as being the credulous ones.

“To a twentieth-century mind the notion of a virgin birth is intrinsically and preposterously inconceivable. If a woman claims – such claims are made from time to time – to have become pregnant without sexual intercourse, no one believes her. Yet for centuries millions upon millions of people never doubted that Mary had begotten Jesus without the participation of a husband or lover. Nor was such a belief limited to the simple and unlettered: the most profound and erudite minds, the greatest artists and craftsmen, found no difficulty in accepting the Virgin Birth as an incontestable fact – for instance, Pascal, who in the versatility of his gifts and the originality of his insights was regarded as the Aristotle of his time. From a contemporary point of view, this is the more surprising in that little effort would seem to have been made to achieve consistency or credibility in the account of the Gospels of Jesus’ birth…

Are we, then, to suppose that our forbears who believed implicitly in the Virgin Birth were gullible fools, whereas we, who would no more believe in such notions than we would that the world is flat, have put aside childish things and become mature? Is our scepticism one more manifestation of our having – in Bonhoeffer’s unhappy phrase – come of age? It would be difficult to support such a proposition in the light of the almost inconceivable credulity of today’s brainwashed public, who so readily believe absurdities in advertisements and in statistical and sociological prognostications before which an African witch doctor would recoil in derision.” (Malcolm Muggeridge – quoted in ‘Seeing Through the Eye’)

And so it continues in our day, sex, science and education have become as gods who must be worshipped. The sociologists of our time keep on inventing new ‘genders’ which we are to believe are scientifically true, even though there is not a shred of evidence to support the claims of any genders other than those which correspond to the sex of the human being, male and female. We are to regard what the sociologists say as ‘fact’ and our governments, following the recommendations of these same sociologists, implement programmes which will destroy the lives of millions of children who survive abortion by corrupting their young minds with filthy and perverse ideas about human sexuality.

Writing and reading articles such as this one has its place but writing and reading will do nothing to protect your children or grandchildren from these dangerous people. Some people, looking around at the growing darkness say, “there is nothing to do now only to pray”. Like many false ideas there is an element of truth in this saying. Christ tells us “without me you can do nothing”, but He doesn’t tell us to do nothing. He tells us to pray, to call on God and the angels and the saints, and then to act once the sure foundation has been established through prayerful communion with God.

In the Irish Times of Thursday 14th November, there was an article by one of these poor misguided but dangerous people. Her name is Kate Dawson. She describes herself on Twitter with the following titles ‘Porn Studies’, Sex Educator’, ‘TEDx speaker’ and ‘Active Consent Team Member’. Catholic parents, especially if you live in the west of Ireland, need to be aware of this young woman. The reason why someone like Kate Dawson is so dangerous, is because she really and truly believes that she is a pioneer who is going to make the world a better place by teaching children as young as eight about masturbation, and also teaching children and young people how to view porn with a critical eye.

In October 2016, Kate took part in a so called ‘research’ programme at the Tate Modern in London, where participants sat watching ‘queer’ ‘ethically produced’ pornography. Kate said of her experience “I feel privileged to have learned from these films, and to have had the opportunity to share the work in such a setting.”

This is the same Kate who wants to teach your children ‘porn literacy’. If your children attend a school in the Galway area, Kate may already have interacted with your children. She has done work for WISER ‘West of Ireland Sex Education Resource’ who teach hedonistic sex education in schools in the west of Ireland.
Kate tweeted about one of her sessions with sixteen-year old children. Kate had them call out vulgar words to do with sex which were then written up on a flip chart. After there were public complaints about this, the tweet was taken down.

In her Irish Times article Kate makes out that there is no direct link between pornography and sexual aggression saying that those who get sexually aggressive after watching porn were probably aggressive anyway. After the brutal murder of Ana Kriegel which had a link to pornography, Kate tells us that “Sensationalist headlines which misconstrue pornography research findings have contributed to moral panic over the impact of porn on young people’s lives.” Kate is also on the record as believing that porn can be beneficial.

She trots out the tired old fatalist mantras which do not seek to encourage children to strive to live holy lives basically saying that children are going to watch porn anyway so it is pointless to try stopping porn which is intended for adults to watch. Her solution? More and better sex education which includes ‘porn literacy’ and teaching active consent. Kate is a rising star amongst those who wish to speak to young children about sexual matters and has begun appearing more frequently in the mainstream Irish media.

One of the questions one must ask when assessing so-called sociological research, is, who is funding the research? In a recent document on RSE it was stated that Kate Dawson conducted some of her research with NUIG’s Health Promotion Research Centre (HPRC) which is also a World Health Organisation Collaborative Centre (WHO CC). The WHO is one of the organisations actively promoting secular and hedonistic RSE, therefore it is unlikely that Kate will draw any conclusions which the WHO would disagree with.

What Martin McManus wrote in a recent article for Catholic Voice about the field of psychology is also true for sociologists.

“The field of psychology is populated by professionals who have flawed and dangerous understandings about the human condition. Studies show that professors of psychology are the most likely to be atheists with only 39 per cent believing in God (Gross & Simmons, 2009). With these types of professors, it is no wonder that many of psychology’s most highly educated members spend years in academia and come out with less understanding of what man essentially is”

Sociologists tend to observe human beings much as other scientists look upon lab rats. They watch behaviour patterns and draw conclusions based on their own subjective understanding of humanity. They never question whether the behaviour they are observing is moral or not, they simply look on. To interfere or to stop immoral behaviour would ruin the ‘objectivity’ of the experiment’s results. Thus, Kate is quite happy to sit in a room with people watching pornography. She satisfies her malformed conscience by assuring herself that the pornography she is watching was ethically produced. But pornography is immoral therefore it can never be ethical.

Catholic parents have a duty to become informed of any dangers posed to their children’s salvation, and they must act to protect their own children. Getting together with other like-minded parents is great, but as a parent, you cannot wait for other parents to act, you must be prepared to take the lead when it comes to your own children. Similarly, you cannot wait for the Irish bishops to take action to block these pernicious influences from entering Catholic schools. Others with Kate’s mindset are already visiting Irish schools.
The government is playing a clever game in saying that there is no programme. What they should tell you is that there is no official programme. But RSE is being taught in Irish schools and the teachers’ unions favour the immoral and sexually explicit versions of these programmes and many teachers are happy to teach these classes ‘unofficially’ and with only basic parental approval where parents are not really informed of the full content of the programmes. The INTO have been running a competition in primary schools in Ireland to promote the LGBT ideology.

In his recent talk at the Catholic Identity Conference in the US, Bishop Athanasius Schneider quoted St John-Henry Newman on the role of the laity to resist novelty and errors. He notes that at the time of the Arian heresy it was the bishops who were promoting the errors and not the laity and it is the same now. This should serve as a warning to any parents who are still waiting for our bishops to take action to protect their children.

“In drawing out this comparison between the conduct of the Catholic Bishops and that of their flocks during the Arian troubles, I must not be understood as intending any conclusion inconsistent with the infallibility of the Ecclesia docens, (that is, the Church when teaching) and with the claim of the Pope and the Bishops to constitute the Church in that aspect. I am led to give this caution, because, for the want of it, I was seriously misunderstood in some quarters on my first writing on the above subject…But on that occasion I was writing simply historically, not doctrinally, and, while it is historically true, it is in no sense doctrinally false, that a Pope, as a private teacher, and much more Bishops, when not teaching formally, may err, as we find they did err in the fourth century. Pope Liberius might sign a Eusebian semi-heretical formula at Sirmium, and the mass of Bishops at Ariminum or elsewhere, and yet they might, in spite of this error, be infallible in their ex cathedrâ decisions.” (St John-Henry Newman)

May God bless you