Catechist participation in circle of grace

[Charitychick]

Our archdiocese requires parishes to implement a program called Circle of Grace. It is a child safety program that is taught directly to the kids by the catechist. I am morally opposed to non parents teaching stranger danger programs to children. I have only seen the content for my grade level (first). My stance is that the material should be provided to the parents and they should choose whether to present to their children.

My co-catechist taught it this year. I found it to be confusing and strange. Although the guidelines call for parents to be informed and I talked to both my co-catechist and the DRE about contacting parents, neither did. I was caught by surprise when the other teacher began the instruction.

Next year, the co-catechist is not returning. I definitely will not present the material. But, I am not sure I should even be participating in a program that teaches sensitive topics directly to children.

Because of personal study, experience, and training in Catechesis of the Good Shepherd
(From which I draw, tho it is is not the official program of the parish), I am a very good catechist. Otherwise the kids will receive an awful, waste of time parish program.

What do I do? Teach or not teach?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I am morally opposed to non parents teaching stranger danger programs to children

I’m totally against “stranger danger” teaching for young children no matter who teaches it. There’s just no need to frighten children against people they don’t know. I kept my kids away from that garbage. They are friendly towards strangers and I always encouraged them to be that way.

I would make your concerns known up the chain and why you’re concerned. See what reaction you get and go from there. If you stick with it maybe there is a way that you could temper the parts of the program that you think aren’t good?

Bishops seem to pretty much have all different ideas about how to go about this stuff. Sometimes I wonder if they really know these programs all that well. Bishops must have some understanding that parents don’t like it when sensitive programs are pushed on their kids. One can hope anyway.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Because of personal study, experience, and training in Catechesis of the Good Shepherd
(From which I draw, tho it is is not the official program of the parish), I am a very good catechist. Otherwise the kids will receive an awful, waste of time parish program.

I really think you should step down. There are likely other good teachers out there and the kids are not going to be lost without you. Your attitude is concerning.

Also, you seem to think your “moral opposition”, in a case where the proposed program does not contradict a Church teaching, means something simply shouldn’t happen. You are not the one in charge of deciding that.

Please, step away.

 

[on_the_hill]

Although the guidelines call for parents to be informed and I talked to both my co-catechist and the DRE about contacting parents, neither did.

I presume you didn’t contact them, either.

It’s not sex ed, for crying out loud.

EDIT: combined two posts

 

[Charitychick]

Probably right.

 

[Charitychick]

The co-catechist did the first lesson on a week I was absent. Then, I just gave up.

 

[TheLittleLady]

I definitely will not present the material. But, I am not sure I should even be participating in a program that teaches sensitive topics directly to children

If your Diocese requires this program, you would do well to step down because disobedience is not the example to set.

Now, if your DRE is not sending home the parent notifications, that ought be addressed with the DRE and the Pastor and the coordinator of Safe Environment.

 

[Charitychick]

Is obedience required for an immoral policy: violating a child’s right to innocence and a parent’s right to to be the primary educator?

It just kills me because I know ( as a former CCD kid who was taught very bad catechesis ) that through the grace of God, I have been well catechized since then and He has given me gifts in teaching…to walk away from the kids. The pariah program is pretty crappy if not supplemented.

I wanted help thinking this through and it would be better to walk away than to sin.

 

[Fauken]

Is obedience required for an immoral policy: violating a child’s right to innocence and a parent’s right to to be the primary educator?

“Right to innocence” and “parent’s right to be the primary educator”? What? Where are you getting this “right to innocence”? Where in the Catechism does it speak of a right to innocence (whatever that is)? Primary educator does not mean sole educator, how would one even be morally guilty of that? “I taught a child about gravity without their parent’s consent”? You appear to be baselessly claiming these actions to be immoral. Have you talked to your priest about your concerns? Does he know you view your diocesan policies to be immoral? Have you asked him to explain why this might not be immoral?

Scripture warns us to be as wise as serpents and as innocent as lambs.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Is obedience required for an immoral policy:

Considerably large accusation, that your Bishop in union with all of the US Bishops would mandate an immoral policy.

 

[1ke]

I am morally opposed to non parents teaching stranger danger programs to children.

You can’t really be “morally opposed” since this doesn’t violate any moral precept or tenant of the faith.

I think “personally opposed” better describes it.

My stance is that the material should be provided to the parents and they should choose whether to present to their children.

If the child is coming to the parish for CCD then the parish must provide the safe environment training.

By virtue of registering their kid for CCD they are agreeing to this training.

If they want to teach at home instead, that’s their prerogative.

I definitely will not present the material.

Then it sounds like it’s time for you to stop being a catechist.

But, I am not sure I should even be participating in a program that teaches sensitive topics directly to children.

It’s the Church herself setting out the training, I don’t think you really have a leg to stand on here.

Because of personal study, experience, and training in Catechesis of the Good Shepherd
(From which I draw, tho it is is not the official program of the parish), I am a very good catechist.

Obedience needs to be in there too, and if you can’t do that you shouldn’t be teaching.

Otherwise the kids will receive an awful, waste of time parish program.

You’ve set up good instruction = you and bad instruction = anyone else. I don’t think it’s as binary as you claim it is.

What do I do? Teach or not teach?

Follow the guidelines for safe environment or move on to other volunteer opportunities.

 

[otjm]

Immoral policy: advising children (without unnecessary details) that there are people out there who wish to harm them? Please elucidate.

Violating a child’s right to innocence? And sexual abuse of that child, because they were not taught safety issues around older people (including older siblings and cousins) doesn’t violate their innocence? Please elucidate.

While programs teaching “stranger danger” have value for kids around adults/teenage children who are not part of the family/extended family/family friends, it has, I would submit, value in making the children aware that anyone who makes them uncomfortable should be reported as it gets to the group of people where the greatest amount of abuse occurs.

 

[1ke]

I’m totally against “stranger danger” teaching for young children no matter who teaches it. T

If you go out and Google Circle of Grace Safe Environment it literally says that the program is not a stranger danger program.

I just read through some of the materials on a couple of different diocesan websites, and they are totally age appropriate and consistent with every safe environment program I’ve seen.

 

[otjm]

I’m totally against “stranger danger” teaching for young children no matter who teaches it. There’s just no need to frighten children against people they don’t know

First, you are presuming it frightens children.

Teaching a child not to run out into the street when playing tag or when chasing a ball can “frighten the child”. If you are adamant enough about it, the child might be “frightened”, but I suspect it would not be about cars. Teaching them, likewise, to not touch a hot stove, to leave knives alone, to not “run with scissors” all could “frighten” a child; or it could teach them to be safe.

Second, you are presuming that it is totally about “strangers”. The area of highest likelihood of being abused is not with strangers, it is with family members (including extended family) and friends of family. Teaching children to be aware of others older than they who cause them to be uncomfortable is truly protecting the innocent.

Garbage? Like teaching a child not to run in the street or touch a hot stove is “garbage”?

Really?

 

[Horton]

Circle of Grace is NOT a stranger danger program, it is a program where children are taught they are permitted to say no to someone when they are uncomfortable, they are taught they have a circle of grace around them they get to control.

This is program used nationwide by many dioceses. It is used in our diocese in all parishes and schools. It goes from K-12 taught every year. If you refuse to teach a portion of the approved curriculum, then you should NOT teach.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Maybe you’re not familiar with what I’m talking about. It’s not akin to running out in the street or touching a hot stove. Stranger danger teaching is about getting kids not to talk to strangers, or to run away when a stranger approaches them.

I really don’t think that this sort of thing is taught very much anymore because it just fosters distrust of people in general. But I can assure you that the stranger danger teaching of the past, which I received as a child, is garbage. If you like it then have at it.

But at this point it seems the OP’s concerns could be tempered if the there truly is no stranger danger teaching in the program in question.

If you go out and Google Circle of Grace Safe Environment it literally says that the program is not a stranger danger program.

If it really doesn’t have stranger danger elements to it then why would they feel the need to say that? I bet it has stranger danger elements to it.

 

[1ke]

Maybe you’re not familiar with what I’m talking about. It’s not akin to running out in the street or touching a hot stove. Stranger danger teaching is about getting kids not to talk to strangers, or to run away when a stranger approaches them.

Yes I am aware of what stranger danger is.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

First, you are presuming it frightens children.

Yeah, I find that odd. I grew up in the era when entire classes were regularly taught about Stranger Danger by “Patch the Pony” who says “Nay Nay, Stay Away” and stops a little boy from getting in a strange man’s car. We had that lesson in kindergarten, and none of us were frightened by it. It was like learning to cross the street safely. Or when the policeman visited and told us what police do.

My only concern with “stranger danger” programs is they don’t recognize the fact that a lot of children are not harmed by strangers, but rather by people they know, like neighbors, shop keepers, even their own family members. But that doesn’t mean you don’t teach kids about stranger danger, because strangers do try to lure kids too.

Circle of Grace is NOT a stranger danger program, it is a program where children are taught they are permitted to say no to someone when they are uncomfortable, they are taught they have a circle of grace around them they get to control.

This actually sounds like a better program though, because it would teach kids they can also say “no” to people they actually know who try to get them to do something harmful.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

I bet it has stranger danger elements to it.

I bet you have no idea what current curriculum like Circle of Grace is all about. I grew up with “stranger danger”; my children get Circle of Grace through the parochial school. Not even an apples and oranges difference - more like apples and crabgrass.

I’m thrilled with the current programming (and yes, as both a parent and teacher, I’ve reviewed it carefully). And for the record, these programs are so much more effective when reinforced at home and in another context that isn’t the parents. It helps the kids understand the realistic sense of things; no innocence lost.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I just read a 16 page synopsis of it and I can see how someone might see it as being a little stranger dangerish even though it isn’t explicitly telling kids to watch out for the boogie man in a van. It’s not quite the apples and crabgrass you’re making it out to be.

The synopsis I read had at least one obvious problem with it. It was from an archdiocesan website so maybe it was their own publication and not specific to the program which may be customized to each diocese. But the problem seemed like a fundamental part of the philosophy of “circle of grace” so maybe it’s not specific to that diocese.