Change in funding of Roman Catholic schools
SINCE 1918 the Church of Rome has had the unfair advantage of receiving government funding for its schools while controlling its own syllabi. At the expense of the majority Protestant population Roman Catholic children in those schools have been indoctrinated in Rome’s erroneous tenets.
Now, because the Government is abolishing the grant-maintained status of Roman Catholic schools in England and Wales, the Roman hierarchy has to choose between returning their schools to “voluntary aided status” or opting for “foundation status”. Under voluntary aided status they would be responsible for funding their own schools, and would have full control by having a majority of members on school boards. On the other hand, a school under foundation status would be funded by the Government but the Roman Catholic church would have comparatively little control and would have to agree to a non-Roman Catholic syllabus for religious education.
The Roman hierarchy has therefore warned the governors of their schools that if a school chooses foundation status it will be cut off from the Church and may even lose its buildings. However, a school that chooses voluntary aided status would have no guarantee of receiving the necessary funding from the Church.
These changes are welcome. For too long, the Roman Catholic education system, unfairly funded by the nation, has been a contributory factor in the fostering of sectarianism and segregation in society.
As for Roman Catholic education in Scotland, Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish has called for the abolition of separate schooling for Roman Catholic children. The Roman hierarchy “reacted angrily” and little wonder when the state is funding the 64 secondary schools and around 350 primary schools which the Roman Church has in Scotland. In prospect of the responsibility for education passing from Westminister to the Scottish parliament in 1999, the Roman Church is lobbying the political parties in Scotland to maintain the status quo.
Winning well-pleased with Scottish devolution Yes vote
IT bodes ill for Scotland that Cardinal Winning appears to be endorsing Scottish nationalism and independence. In a speech in Brussels he stated, said a report, that “he was well-pleased’ with the Yes vote [in the home-rule referendum] because devolution fitted with the Catholic principle of subsidiarity”.
It has often been said that one of the principal strategies employed by Satan against the church of Christ is “divide and conquer”. And it is this strategy which Rome has been using effectively down through the centuries in order to extend its dominion among the nations of the world.
Just as it suits Rome well that Ulster would be severed from Britain, so it would suit her very well if the union between England and Scotland came to an end, and if the safeguards of our Protestant constitution enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement were weakened or removed as a result. We have every reason to plead with God, the “King of nations” (Jer. 10:7), that He would prevent this nation of Scotland – the land of Knox and of the Covenanters – coming under the rule of Rome again. The possibility of a Rome-dominated Scottish Parliament should send us to the “throne of grace”.
Stepinac the saint?
THE Pope went to Croatia in October to beatify Cardinal Alojsije Stepinac that is, to elevate him to a position only one step away from sainthood. Such authors as Avro Manhattan and Edmond Paris, in documenting Rome’s persecuting activities, have shown that Stepinac, wartime Archbishop of Zagreb, was the very opposite of a saint. We are indebted to the English Churchman for this comment:
The real activities of Stepinac during World War 11 are graphically documented in the chapter entitled, Monsignor Stepinac’s Croatia, in Edmond Paris’ book The Vatican against Europe. Having “welcomed the creation of the Nazi puppet Croat state”, Stepinac sat in the Ustashi parliament which approved the policy of extermination of the Russian Orthodox church and the Jews, Gypsies and communists. Stepinac wrote in the Croatian Sentinel on the 1st of January 1942, “Hitler is an envoy of God”.
It is not possible to repeat here all the horrors of the forced conversions, the slow tortures and the ugly deaths of the resisting Serbs. Throughout 1942 Stepinac wore Ustashi decorations, attended all their important official meetings and made speeches.
What is more it comes as no real surprise when the Catholic Times of 11 October this year reports Stepinac’s beatification under the headline “A surprise endorsement”.
The paper proceeds to describe the gratitude of the head of the Croatian Jewish community for Stepinac’s intervention later in the war. This is in keeping with Edmond Paris’ account. He says, “It is true that at the end of 1943 when everyone saw that the Nazis and Fascists were losing, Monsignor Stepinac took certain steps to provide for the future.”
However at his trial for war crimes in the autumn of 1946 the evidence of his not only having consented to but also having “organised” Ustashi units and “crusaders” for the purpose of forcing Serbs to convert to Rome was overwhelming and he was sentenced to 16 years hard labour.’
Stepinac a saint? It is with typical brazen effrontery that Rome projects this notorious satanic monster as a candidate for sainthood.
Is Christmas Christian?
WE were pleasantly surprised to see this question answered in the negative in Evangelicals Now, and to hear another voice being added to the few which witness against this Romish-pagan festival. As well as condemning sinful, so-called good time activities (such as partying, drinking and dancing), and greedy Christmas commercialism, the writer, Dr Alan Clifford, airs the arguments against Christmas which our readers have often seen in these pages.
There is no evidence that Christ was born on December 25, he says, and it is probable that His birth was in early autumn. In any case, we are not commanded to remember His birth. “Significantly,” says Dr Clifford, “Christ Himself only ever commanded the remembrance of His death, in the Lord’s Supper.”
He adds, ” Christmas Day’ resulted from an attempt to Christianise’ the pagan mid-winter festival. . . Christmas’ was the result of a growing tendency of the Roman Church to meet paganism half-way.” Some would have us believe that Christmas carol services, for example, can be a vehicle for conveying the truth to people. We are thinking of the Free Church elder who said at the Free Church Assembly that the carol service held in Bon Accord Free Church last December was an attempt to reach the unchurched. Dr Clifford says in his article, “To argue that Christmas provides opportunities for preaching the gospel is to adopt a false agenda. Should we use an unbiblical method to promote the biblical gospel? We need no seasonal excuse to preach the gospel (2 Timothy 2:4)”.