Sexual Morality "Opt-out"

[Augustinian]

That should/must be talked about in Confirmation, how else will they learn it?

The parents feel qualified and believe that discussion of sexuality belong in the home.

 

[Paul71]

This thread has helped me a lot in my discernment as to whether or not I continue as a Confirmation catechist.

I hope that you haven’t discerned that you should stop being a catechist. I hope that you will continue.

 

[1ke]

I honestly do believe that you don’t read threads. If you did, you would see that I and other Catechists are part of the problem according to some. The attitude of some people on this thread is exactly why parishes have such a hard time holding onto Catechists.

Well I’m not one of them who thinks that.

 

[CilladeRoma]

I never said you were.

 

[I_trust]

Parents know their child. Parents know what the children are ready for when it comes to discussing sexual morality and the best way to talk with their own child about it. Parents have a right-- an inalienable and absolute right-- to be the ones to broach these topics with their child. What the DRE did was violate the parents rights as educators of their children on human sexuality.

What the DRE did was wrong.

Believe me, I completely agree that parents are the first, primary educators of their kids.
I am a parent as well as a Catechist.
Parents have the right to breach any and all subjects first with their children, not just the Church’s teaching in this area. By signing up for class, the parents are asking the Church to help with the formation of their kids, so the DRE did nothing wrong.

Many of these kids have parents who do not bring them to Mass except at Christmas and Easter. Most of these kids have gone to Confession once in their life. They are 16 years old. The kids in my class did not know even the basic teachings of the Church. None of them knew what a Sacrament was, and none had any idea what Pentecost or Confirmation was.

Many of the parents sign their kids up for faith formation only in the year of First Communion and Confirmation. In so doing they agree to allow the Church to help them educate their kids in the faith. The Bishop and the pastor want the children to be taught the basics of the Church’s stands on moral issues that teenagers are facing. I happen to agree…to avoid all discussion on the Church’s teachings of the moral life would be doing the kids a great disservice.

Appropriate materials were used, same as used at World Youth Day, based on the Theology of the Body.
I have to reiterate again, this was not a sex ed talk. It is simply laying out the Church’s teaching.

Have you watched the video?

Would my pastor saying the same thing in a homily be wrong?
Should he have to warn the parents that their kids will be exposed to the idea that contraception, pornography and sex outside marriage is wrong, and that chastity, purity, and traditional marriage are beautiful?

I think it is absurd to think that parents who voluntarily ask the Church to help educate their children in the faith need to screen before hand what parts of Church teaching their kids will be taught. If they want to keep their kids from knowing the Church’s teaching they should not sign them up for faith formation.

 

[AndrewAxland]

If the parents do not want their children to be taught about below-the-belt issues, it would be a grave violation of their supreme and absolute right to do so without their knowledge or against their will. I would go so far as to say that it would be a grave offense to do so without the parents explicit permission. The bishop’s role is to help the parents, not to override their own judgement and usurp their God-given role.

Of course, the parents shouldn’t be surprised if the bishop decides to withhold the sacrament. That is his supreme and absolute right. As the person administering the sacrament, he can determine whether the candidates meet the criteria. He has no obligation to confirm anyone who he is not convinced is prepared to his satisfaction.

But then he shouldn’t be surprised if the children and their families decide to leave the church, as is their right.

What bothers me is that some posters here seem to think that it is OK to do an end-run around the parents and compel a captive audience of minors to listen to their message on a highly sensitive topic. No, it is never permissible to spread God’s message anywhere where one is not invited to do so, especially when one has been specifically told so that any discussion in this area is not welcome. Jesus was very clear about that. It reminds me of the evangelicals who preach to the people waiting in line at the DMV, where people cannot walk away without losing their place in line. It’s pretty sad if you think so little of your message that you don’t bother finding people who are willing to listen, and have to resort to pestering a captive audience.

My impression is that the OP is frustrated by the fact that she has been denied a captive audience. That’s not a healthy reaction for a catechist to have.

 

[I_trust]

The parents signed the kids up, by doing so they agree to allow the Church to teach their kids .
This is formation in the morality of acts, not sex ed.
This is not usurping their role as parents.

The Bishops who want these teachings presented, and have their mandate and authority given by Christ to teach, apparently disagree with your position.

 

[AndrewAxland]

The parents signed the kids up, by doing so they agree to allow the Church to teach their kids .

No, that is absolutely not true, especially when they have explicitly stated otherwise, as was the case here.

 

[AndrewAxland]

This is formation in the morality of acts, not sex ed.

It doesn’t matter. No means no.

This is not usurping their role as parents.

It certainly is.

 

[I_trust]

I see your point.
The OP was dealing with parents who had explicitly expressed that they opt out.
That was not the case in my class.

But if the parents had not expressed this, it is not wrong to teach these teenage kids what the Church teaches since they asked the Church to help teach their children…

 

[AndrewAxland]

That was not the case in my class.

Yes, I was talking about the OP’s case, not yours.

 

[I_trust]

I would like to add that in the Church’s documents it is clear that the parents have the primary responsibility to teach their kids in all areas of the faith. This responsibility is not limited to just teaching on sexual morality.

Parents can, but are not obligated to ask the Church to help. But if they ask the Church to help by signing up for faith formation, they should not be surprised that the Church will teach about sexual morality as well as other areas.

Remember this is about the morality of acts, not sex-ed.

 

[AndrewAxland]

This responsibility is not limited to just teaching on sexual morality.

Yes, that is correct. However, it should be easy to understand why some parents would object specifically to any material related to sex and sexuality more than other, less controversial, areas of Church teaching.

Remember this is about the morality of acts, not sex-ed.

You can repeat that as much as you want, but I highly doubt that any objecting parent would be convinced.

But if they ask the Church to help by signing up for faith formation, they should not be surprised that the Church will teach about sexual morality as well as other areas.

It still would be a good idea to inform the parents exactly what material will be presented, and get their explicit permission beforehand, than risk ticking them off and risk losing them and the child to the Church forever. At least that’s how I would have proceeded when I was doing RE to high school students. Both out of CYA and common courtesy.

 

[I_trust]

Yes, that is correct. However, it should be easy to understand why some parents would object specifically to any material related to sex and sexuality more than other, less controversial, areas of Church teaching.

Why would any faithfull Catholic find the Church’s teaching “controversial”?

Perhaps because they disagree with the Church and want to lead their children into the same error?

If so, I don’t think the Church needs to avoid teaching the truth, just because some disagree or would be offended by the truth. Of course, it should be presented in a loving, compassionate way.

 

[CilladeRoma]

My impression is that the OP is frustrated by the fact that she has been denied a captive audience. That’s not a healthy reaction for a catechist to have.

Why do you keep insulting me?
You don’t know me or my motives and your impression could not be further from the truth.

 

[AndrewAxland]

As I said before, a lot of parents have a knee-jerk reaction when it comes to ANYONE discussing ANY below-the-belt matters with their kids, especially now after the chld-abuse scandals. Even if they completely agree with church teaching.

Perhaps because they disagree with the Church and want to lead their children into the same error?

Or perhaps they would rather do that themselves when the children are at an age that they think is appropriate.

It bothers me that you are so ready to assign sinister motives to these parents. Even if they did so because they disagree with the teaching, I see no reason why their decision should be questioned or overridden by anyone, least of all a mere catechist.

Of course, it should be presented in a loving, compassionate way.

I agree. The problem is that it is often not, with disastrous consequences. Which is another reason why parent’s tend to be hypersensitive about these matters.

Fortunately, when my boys were going through faith formation, this issue never came up as below-the-belt issues were not on the menu.

 

[Pup7]

Telling someone that the Church teaches that divorced and remarried persons without a valid annulment are violating a Commandment isn’t describing the physical act of sin that’s occurring.

Telling someone the Catholic teaching on birth control doesn’t mean you’re giving a lecture on how to do NFP. These kids know what the Pill is (or I’d be surprised if they didn’t at 16 in public schools; I can’t speak for parochial schooling).

Telling someone a same-sex relationship is wrong and why according to Catholic teaching doesn’t give mechanics.

What some people here are failing to realize is this is not “about below the belt” acts. It’s about what’s in the CCC. I haven’t found descriptions of any such thing in my CCC unless it’s written in invisible ink.

With that said, I did say I don’t have any issues with parents opting out, because I also understand that there are kids involved that are apparently in irregular situations that the parents may want to discuss with them away from the prying other 20 pairs of eyes. But some need to realize what it is they’re opting out of, and it is not descriptions of anything “below the belt”.

 

[Pup7]

It still would be a good idea to inform the parents exactly what material will be presented, and get their explicit permission beforehand, than risk ticking them off and risk losing them and the child to the Church forever. At least that’s how I would have proceeded when I was doing RE to high school students. Both out of CYA and common courtesy.

That happened in this case. Fourth post in the whole thread:

We had a parents meeting and went over exactly what we would be doing.

The ones who want to opt out believe that we shouldn’t be telling their kids what the Church truly teaches because it’s not “always true for everybody”.

None of this was sprung on the parents. They knew in advance.

 

[I_trust]

It bothers me that you are so ready to assign sinister motives to these parents. Even if they did so because they disagree with the teaching, I see no reason why their decision should be questioned or overridden by anyone, least of all a mere catechist.

Hence the word “perhaps” in my post.
I do know many of these parents because my children are the same age. So I do know that many of them disagree with the Church’s teachings.

When have I said that their (parent’s) decision should be overridden by me (a mere catechist)? I believe you are assuming things that are untrue about me.

 

[CilladeRoma]

He is talkng about me, @I_trust.
Apparently, I have an ego and ulterior motives.