Sexual Morality "Opt-out"

[Pup7]

“For those of you who will not be in class next week, I suggest you study pages XX-YY of the catechism to prepare for the proficiency test. Talk to your parents about doing so. Here’s your catechism, take it home with you.”

I would go farther.

I wouldn’t make the announcement (you’d be singling them out), I would get the materials directly to the parents, and when the children didn’t show up to the next week’s class, then the teacher should say, “They are doing this piece of class with their parents” and move on.

 

[1ke]

Can you test each one separately or does it have to be in a group setting?

And can you find a way to not do a written test, but an agreement? Would the parents be open to that? Or is the bishop not willing to budge on the test part? Or vice versa?

I’m now focusing on the kiddos here

these are exactly the kinds of situations where kids come home and when asked what they learned will say something like, “Uncle Marty’s going to hell.”

Or worse-- “I’m going to hell” … because the kid in class has SSA feelings and doesn’t know what to do with them.

This is definitely an area that requires great care, and if parents have opted out we do not know their own child better than they do and must step back.

We also need to be careful about “requirements” placed on confirmands that are not in line with the canons on the sacraments. Denying the sacrament is serious.

 

[woolycaterpillar]

what if their parents won’t tell them anything?

 

[TheLittleLady]

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”.

Sorry @Pup7, it won’t remove you on the reply thingy!!!

So, there was an opportunity to open a respectful, adult, dialogue there about the teachings of the Church. Sadly, I have seen these instances when parish staff/volunteers get confrontational and lose a great evangelization moment.

Chances are that on both sides there are assumptions.

One side assumes that these parents want to ignore Church teachings.

The parents may not understand the fullness of Church teachings.

They need to be assured that their kid is not going to be told “your mommy and daddy are big fat sinners who will go to hell because one of them was married before” or “your Uncle Tommy is a horrible pervert sinner going to hell because he is gay”.

When they hear that the Church teaches that we treat every person with dignity and respect, heck, I had the “my parents are divorced” “my parent is trans” “my mom had her tubes tied” questions over and over.

I answered that the Church does have moral truth, and that in a perfect world no one would ever fall, fail, make a mistake, sin. That the beauty of the Church is we get to be part of a community of people in every part of their journey to heaven. That no one is turned away because they sinned, failed, etc.

I’d bring it down to that I love my son. That if my son committed a horrible sin, a horrible crime, if he murdered someone, that I would still love him and that I would go to prison to visit him every day. Or, if he told a lie, or if he cheated on his taxes or cheated on his wife, I would love him. That does not mean I think his sins are good, but, judging souls is up to God. That my job is simply to love everyone and do my best to answer questions about God with compassion and respect.

Never once had a parent complain or a teen who did not look visibly relieved that I did not waggy finger them.

Could you maybe go back to the parents, ask them to come to a “Roundtable Q and A with Father Jones”. They can bring up concerns, he can answer with compassion and sensitivity.

 

[1ke]

I wouldn’t make the announcement (you’d be singling them out), I would get the materials directly to the parents, and when the children didn’t show up to the next week’s class, then the teacher should say, “They are doing this piece of class with their parents” and move on

Well, yes, of course. I believe the parents already have it.

 

[1ke]

heck, I had the “my parents are divorced” “my parent is trans” “my mom had her tubes tied” questions over and over.

I haven’t had trans, but I’ve had the others, plus Uncle-is-gay, sister got pregnant, and more.

 

[bquinnan]

They can learn at home, but must pass a proficiency test. If they don’t complete the process, Confirmation can be delayed.

This seems reasonable to me. That ensures that the candidates have been “properly disposed” while respecting the parents’ right and duty.

The parents don’t like it.

I’m curious, do you know what the parents think should happen instead? That the parents are free to “home school” on this topic seems like a reasonable solution.

As for the kids being caught in the middle, I’m afraid there isn’t always a way around that.

 

[SuperLuigi]

What would happen if someone wanted to opt out about a session about welcoming the stranger or helping the poor?

 

[JimG]

I doubt that any of the opt out parents have concerns about abuse. I think that they either do not accept Catholic moral teaching themselves and thus do not want their children to learn them, or they know Catholic morality but do not practice it, or have family who do not practice it, and so do not want their children to learn that family members are violating Catholic morality. They may not want them to know that sex is reserved for marriage, that extramarital and premarital sex is wrong, that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman, or other aspects of Catholic morals.

And yet, they want their children to be Confirmed in the Faith. It’s paradoxical.

Confirmation is not essentially a sacrament which requires education. It can be given immediately following Baptism, or in the 3rd or 4th grade. We have in effect used it as a means of educating children in the Faith, but that is not essential. Perhaps the solution is simply to confirm earlier.

I think the problem is not one of education; it is one of unbelief. And that is a shame, because children ought to have the right to learn the truths of the Faith.

But unbelieving parents want their children to be confirmed. I don’t know why. But that is where the problem lies.

 

[1ke]

“properly disposed”

properly disposed means you are in a state of grace.

suitably instructed is what you are looking for, I think. But remember, a confirmand does not need to know everything about the faith to be “suitably instructed” Because in that canon what they need to be principally instructed in is the sacrament they are about to receive. Proximate preparation for the sacrament is about the sacrament. Sacrament prep is about the sacrament. Religious education is not the same as sacrament prep. Morality is a great topic for religious education, but not actually for sacrament prep. A child in a sacrament year should be receiving religious education appropriate to their age AND sacrament prep. they are two different things. A kid who misses whatever lesson in religious education can still be SUITABLY INSTRUCTED for the sacrament of confirmation.

And a proficiency test for sacramental preparation is really beyond the pale.

We test kids in our diocese in 4th, 8th, and 10th grade for knowledge assessment but NOT as a bar that must be jumped for a sacrament. Sacraments confer grace. Passing a knowledge test is NOT a prerequisite for sacramental grace.

 

[CilladeRoma]

I don’t disagree with you however, my Bishop does and this is his call.

 

[Pup7]

We also need to be careful about “requirements” placed on confirmands that are not in line with the canons on the sacraments. Denying the sacrament is serious.

I’m going to assume that wasn’t directed at me, as not once have I said “deny them confirmation”.

these are exactly the kinds of situations where kids come home and when asked what they learned will say something like, “Uncle Marty’s going to hell.”

Or worse-- “I’m going to hell” … because the kid in class has SSA feelings and doesn’t know what to do with them.

And that is precisely what I meant.

That post was about trying to find a way to not single out the kids, keep their feelings as intact as possible, and also keep the parents and the bishop happy.

 

[1ke]

What would happen if someone wanted to opt out about a session about welcoming the stranger or helping the poor?

then they opt out.

The parents are ALWAYS the primary educators of their children in the faith.

 

[Pup7]

I don’t disagree with you however, my Bishop does not and this is his call.

My guess is a parent is going to go over his head.

 

[SuperLuigi]

It wouldn’t be the first time…

 

[1ke]

I’m going to assume that wasn’t directed at me, as not once have I said “deny them confirmation”.

right, I was just expanding on your comments

 

[Pup7]

Forgive me.

 

[AndrewAxland]

What happened?

Yes, I’m upset. The mere thought that there are people in the Church who think they have any right to disrespect parents’ decisions in this extremely sensitive matter makes my blood boil, as does the fact that they are exposing the Church to further legal risks. It pains me that so much of my donations over the years have gone to pay victims and attorneys instead of constructive causes having to do with the mission of the Church.

Seriously, you’re A-OK with the OP’s apparent lack of respect for the parents’ explicit request? With her uncharitable second-guessing of their motives? With her bloated sense of self-importance and lack of servility? With her apparent refusal to bug off when she has been unambiguously told to?

She has been explicitly told by ten sets of parents’ that they do not want her to provide instruction in this area. I may not agree with their reasons, not that my opinion counts, but I absolutely respect their right to make whatever decision they think is best for their children, and that is a matter that is solely between them and God, not for some mere catechist. And I absolutely respect the Bishop’s right to decide whether these children are to be confirmed, without him being second-guessed, either.

I would have thought by now that everyone connected with the Church would have learned their lesson as well a bquinnann has.

Jesus was quite explicit about what to do when you encounter those who do not want to hear your preaching: Shake the dust off your sandals and let Him take care of the matter as he sees fit. Your job is done. Move on.

 

[Norseman82]

these are exactly the kinds of situations where kids come home and when asked what they learned will say something like, “Uncle Marty’s going to hell.”

Or worse-- “I’m going to hell” … because the kid in class has SSA feelings and doesn’t know what to do with them.

If I were divorced and remarried without an annulment (on either side), I wouldn’t want my kid told that her/his parents were living in sin and mostly I wouldn’t want my kid to be the target of other kids. Mostly because my marital situation honestly isn’t anyone else’s business.

Here’s the problem - they will come to that conclusion on the Sunday where the gospel reading is where Jesus says that divorce and remarriage is adultery. Will the kids be barred from going to Mass now?

When you sign your kid up for boxing lessons, you have to realize that the kid will have to learn to throw a jab and duck a punch. When you sign your kid up for swim lessons, you have to resign yourself to the fact that he/she will get wet and you will have to dry out the swimwear. Similarly, parents should realize that when they put their children in Catholic school and sacramental preparation, they will be taught Catholic values. Now, it’s one thing if the Catholic program is teaching something questionable, heretical, or age-inappropriate (one poster mentioned the controversy over Christopher West), but anything else is delusional on the part of parents and I agree with the posters who say that if they don’t want their children exposed to true Catholic teaching, why are they putting their children in Catholic schools and sacramental programs in the first place?

 

[Pup7]

Yes, I’m upset. The mere thought that there are people in the Church who think they have any right to disrespect parents’ decisions in this extremely sensitive matter makes my blood boil, as does the fact that they are exposing the Church to further legal risks. It pains me that so much of my donations over the years have gone to pay victims and attorneys instead of constructive causes having to do with the mission of the Church.

Seriously, you’re A-OK with the OP’s apparent lack of respect for the parents’ explicit request? With her uncharitable second-guessing of their motives? With her bloated sense of self-importance and lack of servility? With her apparent refusal to bug off when she has been unambiguously told to?

First thing - I have an appreciation for the statements in your first paragraph above. I’m actually starting to wonder why that’s your central issue and where all your anger seems to be coming from.

Second thing - I think you’re out of line in the second.

The OP came here looking for advice on what to do as she is actually the one in the middle here. She hasn’t shown a lack of respect for the parents, shown she’s not going to “bug off”, she’s not been uncharitable in the least. She’s frustrated, she’s worried because she’s responsible to the bishop and the priest - and the kids, for that matter - and as we’re meant to be a bunch of like minded Catholics with a similar belief system, we are her venting point and where she turns for advice. She’s flustered and concerned. She doesn’t want to upset the parents and at the same time she has a job to do. She’s probably pretty sure this is going to go all the way to the archdiocese and she’s worried it will be seen as her fault. (Ever fear for your job when you know fundamentally you’re done nothing wrong?) She’s frustrated because for her this is key to being Catholic and she’s been entrusted with passing this on to these kids. Owning up to my own shortsightedness (from the parent’s point of view) it didn’t initially sink in that an “irregular situation” could make a kid the butt of jokes and rude questions from others. I would hate to see that happen to a child. Maybe Cilla didn’t think of it that way (I don’t know - I’m only commenting) - but she’s hardly been as terrible as you make her out to be.