catholicweekly.com.au 2 NEWS 2, May, 2021 Schools warning The need for transparency on the part of schools is at the heart of a proposed NSW law. PHOTO: FREEPIK Parents are primary and principal educators of their children; the state should never override this, says Catholic educational leader I n this edition Our story begins in 1839 with the Australasian Chronicle, continuing with the Freeman’s Journal in 1850. Level 13, Polding Centre, 133 Liverpool Street, Sydney, NSW 2000. Phone (02) 9390 5400 | Vol 73, No 5182. The Catholic Weekly is published by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney ABN 60 471 267 587 and is printed by ACM Australian Community Media, 159 Bells Line of Road, North Richmond NSW, 2754. News Movies, books Archbishop’s homily Editorial & Letters 1-7 8-9 16-17 20-21 EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Michael Kenny (02) 9390 5348 EDITOR Peter Rosengren (02) 9390 5400 REPORTERS Marilyn Rodrigues (02) 9390 5410 Debbie Cramsie (02) 9390 5396 SUBSCRIPTIONS Rita Ng (02) 9390 5411 ADVERTISING AND MARKETING Steve Richards (02) 9390 5404 Katie Clarke (02) 9390 5402 DESIGNERS Renate Cassis Mathew De Sousa Faith in the trajectory of life catch it now at: thiscatholiclife.com.au LEAVE A GIFT Archdiocese of Sydney Catholic CHARITIES Order your FREE Wills and Bequests Guide today 1800 753 959 or
[email protected] myWill SUPPORTINGTHE MINISTRIES OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF SYDNEY Leaving a gift in a Be met on arrival at Melbourne Airport or Southern Cross Station. Personal and caring service. Pre-bookings preferred. Baby seat available. English-speaking driver greets you on arrival. » Meet and greet service » Female-friendly and safe BOOKINGS 1300 139 740 or email
[email protected] MELBOURNE? Coming to Your safety is our No.1 priority! PERSONALIZED CABS FROM PAGE 1 “There was one particular schools office who thought they needed to do something different and that’s their pre- rogative.” In its submission, Catho- lic Schools NSW (CSNSW), which represents almost 600 schools, 30,000 staff and 257,000 students, expresses support for the Bill, noting that such a prohibition al- ready exists in the Education Act. “Since 1880, government schools have been legislative- ly constrained to only teach religion in a general and neu- tral way and are prohibited from teaching polemical or dogmatic theology,” the sub- mission said. “Consistent with that precedent, this Bill seeks to prohibit the teaching of gender fluidity ideology.” However, Mr McInerney said the organisation has not given “a blank cheque” in sup- port of the Bill. “We supported it with three very important contingents; that the professional stand- ing of the teacher cannot be compromised, second, that it wouldn’t inhibit or limit our capacity to support these students in our schools, pas- torally and in other ways, and third, that it would not capture and extend to nor- mal discussions of his nature coming up through a student in the classroom in an organic sense,” he said. He said he was confident that nothing in the Bill would stop or limit a school’s ability to support students in their schools who present with or experience gender dysphoria, and that decisions regarding these were ultimately to be made at the local level. “The Bill on our reading does not and should not limit our capacity to support those students pastorally, physically and educationally,” he said. “The primary attraction to the Bill was that for us it af- firmed a key tenant of Catho- lic teaching and this was an opportunity to have that re- flected in an official civil doc- ument, namely the Education Act of NSW, that parents are the primary and principal ed- ucators of their children. “It’s not often you get these opportunities to synchronise the canonical and the civil. “There’s also the considera- tion of what properly belongs inside the classroomby way of educational instruction and scholarship and what doesn’t. “If there are instances where ideology is being ad- vanced through the curricu- lum and it is taking some of indoctrination or polemical approach to any particular subject area which assumes an outcome or a position without the benefit of dis- cussion or inquiry, that is an- tithetical to what should be happening in classrooms. “There’s a line in the sand where if some activists are go- ing to weaponise the school system against the interests of the parents then we cannot be silent.” ArchbishopAnthony Fisher OP, who joined with the Ma- ronite Bishop Antoine-Char- bel Tarabay in support of the Bill, said in their diocesan submissions that it would promote greater transparency in teaching and resist the un- dermining of families wishing to pass on values and faith. In a 27 April pastoral letter Bishop Long confirmed his opposition to the Bill. The lives of students at risk “must not be made more in- tolerable by unjust laws such as elements of the ‘Latham’ Bill”, he wrote. “Some have quickly made the judgement that our Catho- lic education system panders to dangerous ideology. “I can assure you that we take all the vital questions of our culture seriously and reflect on them through the prism of Jesus’ solidarity with the marginalised.” We supported [the Latham Bill] with three very important contingents: that the pro- fessional standing of the teacher cannot be compromised, second, that it wouldn’t inhibit or limit our capacity to support these students in our schools, pastoral- ly and in other ways, and, third, that it would not [prevent] normal discussions of this nature coming up through a student in the classroom ...”