Sexual Morality "Opt-out"

[AndrewAxland]

It doesn’t matter. And these parents would be just as uncomfortable having their children “tested” on any matters related to sex anyway. And who could blame them.

If you were reading, then you should also have noticed that the parents were given the option to opt out. Probably in accordance with diocesan guidelines, under the insistence of the diocesan risk-management attorney. I find it odd that so many posters are so eager to second-guess the parents in such a matter.

I don’t think you appreciated how many parents are totally freaked out about the mere idea clergy or church representatives talking about sex or sexuality with their children in any way whatsoever. And it’s disingenuous and callous to say that their hesitation is not worthy of consideration.

 

[PetraG]

109 posts and no one has mentioned the elephant in the room. There is a good reason why many parents would feel extremely uncomfortable about clergy, church employees or church volunteers discussing sex in any way whatsoever with their children. Period. And that, of course, is the long and extensive history of abuse

Read the posts. This is about parents not wanting their children taught that things are unacceptable when the parents do not teach that, not the other way around. There is no reason to believe this has anything whatsoever to do with abuse.

I don’t think you have the slightest idea “how reality works in the post-abuse-scandal world,” either. How it works is that parents now have to opt their children out of training that teaches children that they have the authority to say no to hugs they don’t want, that they have the authority to blow the whistle on people who do things they are not comfortable with and that they have the authority to say no to people who want to talk them into things and hide those things from their parents. This is what “risk attorneys” are telling parishes to do. Catechists are not being told to stay away from the topic altogether, not by a million miles.

 

[PetraG]

The teaching on marriage for instance is not expressed in explicitly physical sexual terms. It has to do with human nature, sexual differentiation, vocation. mutual sacrifice, etc…

Church teachings on marriage are teachings on sexual morality.

 

[goout]

goout:

The teaching on marriage for instance is not expressed in explicitly physical sexual terms. It has to do with human nature, sexual differentiation, vocation. mutual sacrifice, etc…

Church teachings on marriage are teachings on sexual morality.

Well, yes, and much more than just sexuality.
Chastity is an integration of sexuality with the whole person.
And of course we know how rich and complex marriage can be.

 

[PetraG]

Well, yes, and much more than just sexuality.

Listen, if the parents reviewed what the bishop put into the curriculum and have objections because it adds to the teachings that are in the Catechism of the Catholic Church concerning the 6th Commandment, that is something. I guarantee you there are topics there that people don’t want their children to hear because they do not want their children to be told that it is wrong, not because they don’t want their children to know about it. In 9th grade? They know about it.

 

[AndrewAxland]

I would rather not have to teach this.

Then don’t. You have absolutely no obligation to, and you are not indispensable. It might be better for all involved if you were to back away until you have given the matter some serious thought, especially, as I said, from the point of view of the diocesan risk-management attorney. Like I said, you’re playing with matches in a room full of dynamite.

All it takes is one PO’d parent to complain to the diocese about you. And their word counts a whole lot more than yours.

 

[goout]

I wasn’t really addressing that…

 

[PetraG]

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it: The tradition of the Church has understood the sixth commandment as encompassing the whole of human sexuality.

 

[Pup7]

It’s not “sex education”.

It’s marriage, and chastity, and the entirety of the Sixth Commandment.

This isn’t anatomy and physiology 101.

OP, I bet if you changed the name of the section to “The Sixth Commandment and Catholic Morality” you’d get less flak. I’m serious when I say my guess is this is more about semantics and people seeing the word “sex” and less about the content.

 

[HolySpirit]

Forgive me if I am mistaken, because I don’t watch network TV. Isn’t the whole LGBT thing on just about every show?

I don’t think gay marriage or pretending to be the opposite sex is something that isn’t front and center to most confirmation age children.

Hearing the views of the Church on these issues should not be controversial. It is merely equal time for a viewpoint different than the norm of society.

Expecting children to know this before being confirmed is not an unreasonable expectation.

They are going to have to answer questions about it anyway, as soon as an adult or other kid learns they are Catholic. They should at least know what they are talking about if they are Catholic.

 

[goout]

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it: The tradition of the Church has understood the sixth commandment as encompassing the whole of human sexuality.

This is what I’m talking about right here.
II. THE VOCATION TO CHASTITY

2337 Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.

The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift.

yes, the 6th commandment addresses human sexuality fully.

Catechesis does not have to be explicitly sexual, or emphasize explicit sexual matters necessarily.

 

[PetraG]

Then don’t. You have absolutely no obligation to, and you are not indispensable. It might be better for all involved if you were to back away until you have given the matter some serious thought, especially, as I said, from the point of view of the diocesan risk-management attorney. Like I said, you’re playing with matches in a room full of dynamite.

All it takes is one PO’d parent to complain to the diocese about you. And their word counts a whole lot more than yours.

Did you read this post:

It was the Bishop who developed this 2-year program and it’s curriculum, so hopefully he will support us.

And no, if you do what you are supposed to do with respect to our training concerning the protection of children it is not true that “their word counts a whole lot more than yours.” Volunteers are trained to protect themselves by having demonstrable facts on their side.

 

[PetraG]

yes, the 6th commandment addresses human sexuality fully.

Catechesis does not have to be explicitly sexual, or emphasize explicit sexual matters necessarily.

Where did you get the idea that the catechist was being more explicit than the Catechism? (You have read the whole chapter, right? It is quite far-ranging and, to be blunt, intensely counter-cultural in places.)

 

[goout]

goout:

yes, the 6th commandment addresses human sexuality fully.

Catechesis does not have to be explicitly sexual, or emphasize explicit sexual matters necessarily.

Where did you get the idea that the catechist was being more explicit than the Catechism? (You have read the whole chapter, right? It is quite far-ranging and, to be blunt, intensely counter-cultural in places.)

What I am trying to point out is that most people do not even understand what morality is. All the see is the word “sexual”. They think prohibitions.

Catechists need to know how to present morality first, in the context of the whole.

Morality is good, points us to your beatitude.
Morality is evaluation of human acts, it gives young people advantages in good decision making.
And morality applies to all areas of life, not just sexuality.

Horse has to come before the cart. (I’m not saying our OP is deficient in this, just bringing up the point cause it’s a general problem)

When you read theology of the body, it is striking how so little of it explicitly talks about prohibitions. They are in there, but the reason TOB is profound is it lays a sound philosophical framework for thinking about human beings and human nature.

 

[HolySpirit]

I don’t have children, so I don’t think I may understand.

If you are going to raise your children to be Catholic, why would you not want the church to teach them about all aspects of the faith?

 

[goout]

I don’t have children, so I don’t think I may understand.

If you are going to raise your children to be Catholic, why would you not want the church to teach them about all aspects of the faith?

Parents are part of the Church.
Primary educators and one with the Church (hopefully).

 

[Daisy]

Parents are part of the Church.

Primary educators and one with the Church (hopefully)

In OP’s situation, they’re not, which is the subject of the thread.

 

[AndrewAxland]

Because, in the eyes of God, that’s ultimately the parents’ responsibility. I am not sure if I would opt out, but if I did, for whatever reasons, that would be my decision, and my right, and I expect my decision to be respected without question. And I do not owe anyone an explanation of why I chose to do so, except God on judgement day.

As a parent myself, I totally understand why some parents would not want anyone connected with the church to discuss anything even remotely connected with sex or sexuality with their children without their expressed and explicit permission. I would be really PO’d if anyone dared do so behind my back, and frothing at the mouth if someone were to do so in spite of my explicit request not to. You can bet your bottom dollar that my attorney would be on the horn with the diocesan attorney as soon as I caught my breath.

And if the OP thinks that the Bishop is going to “back her up” in such a case, she’s living in a fantasy land. There isn’t a Bishop alive that would hesitate in the slightest about throwing her under the bus.

 

[goout]

Because, in the eyes of God, that’s ultimately the parents’ responsibility. I am not sure if I would opt out, but if I did, for whatever reasons, that would be my decision, and my right, and I expect my decision to be respected without question. And I do not owe anyone an explanation of why I chose to do so, except God on judgement day.

As a parent myself, I totally understand why some parents would not want anyone connected with the church to discuss anything even remotely connected with sex or sexuality with their children without their expressed and explicit permission. I would be really PO’d if anyone dared do so behind my back, and frothing at the mouth if someone were to do so in spite of my explicit request not to. You can bet your bottom dollar that my attorney would be on the horn with the diocesan attorney as soon as I caught my breath.

And if the OP thinks that the Bishop is going to “back her up” in such a case, she’s living in a fantasy land. There isn’t a Bishop alive that would hesitate in the slightest about throwing her under the bus.

What if the catechist was teaching from Theology of the Body? Would that upset you?

 

[Pup7]

And if the OP thinks that the Bishop is going to “back her up” in such a case, she’s living in a fantasy land. There isn’t a Bishop alive that would hesitate in the slightest about throwing her under the bus.

Are you sure you read the 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”.

It was the Bishop who developed this 2-year program and it’s curriculum, so hopefully he will support us.