This story entails the issue of a parent's role in their child's education on human sexuality. In Scotland it appears that the children are taught mandatory information without a parent's right of exemption.

You'll note that despite the Catholic objections in the Times article, there are actually Catholic and other religious representatives on that Committee.

quote:

---

You'll note that despite the Catholic objections in the Times article, there are actually Catholic and other religious representatives on that Committee.

---

If the RC on the committee is not a person that is reflecting the values of the church and those are values you are creating your family's life around that would suffice. Most persons who are devout RC would not be appeased by the knowledge that a RC who felt distinctly differently about church teachings was on the committee.

quote:

---

Much has been made lately about teenage pregnancy rates here. It really surprised me that they are as high as they are, because I get my birth control pills for free here, so I don't think there's a cost factor. There's also a number centres that dispense condoms. So I think it has more to do with ignorance, which is why the Committee (and Glasgow City Council) wants to eliminate the veto, I think.

---

As far as I know (which is little, since, having once been a good Catholic, I've read only bits of it and relied on priests to tell me what it meant), the Bible is silent on sex education. The Church has official positions on sex, contraception and abortion, but I've never heard of any papal encyclical or other Church directive on sexuality education.

I didn't go to Catholic school, but friends who did have told me they were instructed in reproductive anatomy, the rhythm method of birth control [*ahem*], and the Church's position that premarital sexual activity is sinful. Another Catholic friend, from Newfoundland, told me she actually got comprehensive sex ed at her all-girls Catholic high school (this would have been in the late '80s). She suspected the bishop didn't know what the feminist nun-teachers were up to, though.

[ 26 June 2005: Message edited by: puzzlic ]

[ 26 June 2005: Message edited by: puzzlic ]

quote:

---

Another Catholic friend, from Newfoundland, told me she actually got comprehensive sex ed at her all-girls Catholic high school (this would have been in the late '80s). She suspected the bishop didn't know what the feminist nun-teachers were up to, though.

---

I went to a Catholic school in Alberta mid-80s, and we got "Christian marriage" education that sounds roughly like what your friends describes. I remember the discussion of contraception was fairly detailed, with films about how they work and even condoms and diaphragms brought into class. As well, I recall hearing that the year after I left, one of the teachers brought in a gay couple she knew to discuss their relationship with the class. I didn't hear about this being the cause of any controversy.

Whether the bishop knew about any of this, I couldn't say. As far as I know, Catholic schools in Edmonton are governed by the seperate school board, not by the church directly.

[ 27 June 2005: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]

quote:

---

they were handed pamphlets stating that "Sex is Satan's greatest weapon"

---

Wait a second. I thought sex was God's greatest gift?

Oh. *slaps forehead*. When you're married it's God's gift but when you aren't then it's Satan's weapon.

quote:

---

Masturbation particularly constitutes a very serious disorder that is illicit in itself and cannot be morally justified ...

Especially when the practice of homosexual acts has not become a habit, many cases can benefit from appropriate therapy ... Homosexual persons are called to chastity.

...
In the first place, parents must reject secularized and anti-natalist sex education, which puts God at the margin of life and regards the birth of a child as a threat. ... As regards sterilization and contraception, these should not be discussed before adolescence and only in conformity with the teaching of the Catholic Church.

... parents must also reject the promotion of so-called 'safe sex' or 'safer sex', a dangerous and immoral policy based on the deluded theroy that the condom can provide adequate protection against AIDS. Parents must insist on continence outside marriage and fidelity in marriage as the only true and secure education for the prevention of this contagious disease.

---

quote:

---

Masturbation particularly constitutes a very serious disorder that is illicit in itself and cannot be morally justified ...

---

quote:

---

As far as I know (which is little, since, having once been a good Catholic, I've read only bits of it and relied on priests to tell me what it meant), the Bible is silent on sex education.

---

I don't know that I'd agree with that because it is fairly thematic in the bible that parents need to instruct their children and it also talks about values around sexuality. I don't think it's a huge step to say that it would be expected to teach those values that are favoured.

quote:

---

I didn't go to Catholic school, but friends who did have told me they were instructed in reproductive anatomy, the rhythm method of birth control [*ahem*], and the Church's position that premarital sexual activity is sinful.

---

What would you expect them to teach?

quote:

---

My sister was just confirmed in the Catholic Church and during her confirmation classes, they were handed pamphlets stating that "Sex is Satan's greatest weapon" and "Condoms are Satan's favourite lie". It made me sick. Luckily, my sister is incredibly smart, and since we are a very open minded and feminist household, she already knows all about sex and appropriate condom use. I can't believe in this day and age of STIs and teen pregnancy, the Church would advertise the withdrawl method for birth control...of course, only to be practised once you are married.

---

Why would you expect them not to try to instill RC values at a RC church?

quote:

---

I thought sex was God's greatest gift?

Oh. *slaps forehead*. When you're married it's God's gift but when you aren't then it's Satan's weapon.

I guess they went halvsies on it

---

The pamphlet is being distributed to persons who are willingly attending a RC event. It's not like they are being dropped off door to door in a neighbourhood. It shouldn't be astounding that the church believes that sexual expression is reserved for marriage.

And I don't think that it's flawed or illogical to say that sex in some contexts is fine and in others it's not.

quote:

---

Satan specializes in pre-marital fornication and all the associated evils that go along with it, dontcha know. I know, it's hard to keep up with the whirlwind of Catholic contradictions...that's why I said "Fuck it". Now I'm a dirty agnostic.

---

I haven't found contradictions but I have found, for myself, areas of disagreement.

I do admire leaving the church when you find that's no longer a fit.

quote:

---

that it's entirely up to the parents, who should teach their kids that sex is only for marriage and must always be open to procreation. And that if they find out the school is teaching anything about contraception, homosexuality or any other perversion of God's plan, the parents should pull their kids out.

---

Puzzlic, don't you think parents have final authority in that area?

And why would you think that CATHOLIC parents sending their CATHOLIC children to a CATHOLIC school wouldn't expect CATHOLIC teaching?

quote:

---

Well, if we respect SS relationships, why not go all the way?

---

Most change happens gradually and over time.

quote:

---

Why would you expect them not to try to instill RC values at a RC church?

---

quote:

---

Puzzlic, don't you think parents have final authority in that area?

---

I don't think kids' health should be put at risk just because their parents don't want them to know about birth control, condoms, Pap smears, STD testing and other important aspects of sexual and reproductive health.

If Catholics, or any other denomination, want to teach their kids fake facts and homophobic values, they can do that at home. Not in publicly funded parochial schools.

quote:

---

And why would you think that CATHOLIC parents sending their CATHOLIC children to a CATHOLIC school wouldn't expect CATHOLIC teaching?

---

I don't contest the church's right to teach its uncensored views on gender, masturbation and sexuality -- in church. But discrimination and factual inaccuracies have no legitimate place in elementary or high schools.

[ 28 June 2005: Message edited by: Nikita ]

quote:

---

Those are dangerous things to say to 13 year olds. A lot of kids my sister's age don't have the kind of open dialogue we do at my house and if all the information they have been given is that "condoms don't protect against AIDS" and that "safer sex is a lie", well they probably won't use condoms although they will probably still have sex.

---

I don't know that they are dangerous if they are complied with in full. It's obviously complicated if a child follows some but not all of the advice and creates risk factors.

quote:

---

No, actually, I don't....And if parents believe the fiction (perpetrated by Ratzinger and various anti-sex-education fanatics) that condoms have microscopic holes that HIV can get through, I still expect taxpayer-funded schools to teach them the reality -- that, if used consistently and correctly, condoms are 98% effective in preventing HIV transmission. I certainly do not believe that publicly funded schools should be teaching that masturbation is sinful or that gays and lesbians must choose between lifetime celibacy and loveless marriage to someone of the wrong gender.
I don't think kids' health should be put at risk just because their parents don't want them to know about birth control, condoms, Pap smears, STD testing and other important aspects of sexual and reproductive health.

---

I am not trying to be dense but I'd like to clarify are you suggesting that the school should teach a sex education curriculum that reflects the above values that you feel are important and if people don't like it they can choose not to attend rather than promote any adjustments? or are you saying that parents don't even have the right to ask their child be restricted from going to the class?

quote:

---

If Catholics, or any other denomination, want to teach their kids fake facts and homophobic values, they can do that at home. Not in publicly funded parochial schools

---

I agree that it becomes complicated when you are drawing on public funds. That blurs that considerably.

quote:

---

A lot of kids my sister's age don't have the kind of open dialogue we do at my house and if all the information they have been given is that "condoms don't protect against AIDS" and that "safer sex is a lie", well they probably won't use condoms although they will probably still have sex.

---

quote:

---

I don't know that they are dangerous if they are complied with in full

---

*sigh*

It would be a much better idea for the church just to say "Wait until you are married to have sex" instead of putting potentially dangerous and just plain wrong ideas into their heads. It is dangerous because the age group with the fastest growing rate of HIV infection is women aged 16-30. (They don't have the highest numbers of infected people yet, but the rate of infection for this age group is rising exponentially, much more than homosexual males)

[ 28 June 2005: Message edited by: Nikita ]

[ 28 June 2005: Message edited by: Nikita ]

quote:

---

Most persons who are devout RC would not be appeased by the knowledge that a RC who felt distinctly differently about church teachings was on the committee.

---

I am 100% for full, factual, detailed and explicit sex education starting at a young age, but I really don't think parents should be forbidden from withdrawing their children from sex ed if they feel strongly about it, and I *don't* think schools should *have* to provide what we might consider thorough, sensible sex ed to their pupils. I REALLY think no school that receives pubic money should be able to provide inaccurate sex ed information, but I don't think they should be required to follow a particular curriculum.

quote:

---

I'll make you a bet Hailey. I'll bet that the RC people on the committee are just as devout as this "devout" group you keep harping about. Even if they're not zombies parroting the party line.

---

How could we resolve the bet! We don't really have a way of reaching these people!

The RC people on the committee are people who may feel some affinity and significant connection with the church but what they are promoting is considered strictly outside of the church I believe.

I don't think that people who are faithful to church teachings are "zombies".

I'm not as familiar as I need to be about RC doctrine in terms of how much sincere disagreement can occur prior to finding oneself outside of the church body. There may be some measure for allowing people to work within the church for changes they perceive as desirable but I'll bet that is limited too.

quote:

---

Most of us still take communion despite disagrement with the "Magistrium" (honestly, who talks like that?), willingly administered by priests who are dissenters themselves more often than not.

---

I wasn't aware that was allowed. I have a learning curve with regards to certain areas of the church.

I'm not able to take communion in the RC church when I visit weekly. I asked and had them confirmed. (I am not a member but my sister converted and I attend with her usually once a week).

Presently, I am also not able to take communion in my own church.

And I learned the term Magistrium from RCIA. I hadn't thought of it as an uncommon term.

[ 28 June 2005: Message edited by: Hailey ]

quote:

---

Much has been made lately about teenage pregnancy rates here. It really surprised me that they are as high as they are, because I get my birth control pills for free here, so I don't think there's a cost factor. There's also a number centres that dispense condoms. So I think it has more to do with ignorance, which is why the Committee (and Glasgow City Council) wants to eliminate the veto, I think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by brebis noire:
BWAGA has principles? Fill me in on that, Gir!

---

Edited to add: that, of course, falls under the "ask a stupid question" category...

[ 28 June 2005: Message edited by: brebis noire ]

quote:

---

the school should teach a sex education curriculum that reflects the above values that you feel are important and if people don't like it they can choose not to attend rather than promote any adjustments? or are you saying that parents don't even have the right to ask their child be restricted from going to the class?

---

If these kids' parents don't want them getting comprehensive sex ed (which, by the way, should support the decision of adolescents to abstain from sex even as it also provides information that kids who already are sexually active or will become sexually active do need) -- all the more reason they should hear in school that there are different ways to do things. The Catholic official sex ed position actually encourages parents to send a gay adolescent to conversion therapy, which is discussed, in its full horror, on this thread ... Hailey, do *you* really think parents' right to direct their children's education goes far enough for them to force their kids into conversion programs if they think their kid is gay? I have a feeling our difference of opinion is unbridgeable here ...

As for "values that [I] feel are important", comprehensive sex ed should allow students to reflect on and consider their views on sexuality and reproduction and be supported in whatever values are important to them. (They shouldn't be urged to discriminate, though.) Facts about proper use of, access to and effectiveness of condoms are not "values"; they are facts. Factual misrepresentations (e.g. "condoms don't work") are not education.

As for the idea that lesbians, gays, bisexuals and other sexual minorities are just as good as straights, that's not just a value that *I* feel is important: it's their right as equal citizens under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and various provincial/territorial human rights codes. I think it's arguable that public funding of homophobic teachings violates the constitutional equality guarantee, and that homophobic teachings in fully private schools might violate the applicable human rights code (unless the church exemption applies, and I haven't looked into it).

[ 28 June 2005: Message edited by: puzzlic ]

[ 28 June 2005: Message edited by: Papal Bull ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:
Because she is obviously an expert on Catholic catcheisms because she is a practising Catholic and theologian. That's why she can take communion.

---