Telling kids the Church allows divorce?

[TeachCatechism]

I don’t know if this is the right spot but if not, move it. Something came up the other day in religious that has me seeing red. I teach 1st grade at church and we talk about the sacraments. I told the kids that marriage is a sacrament and the church only accepts remarriages if the spouses got annulments. I said that a person can receive communion after divorce if they haven’t remarried. I was reading all of this from the book they learn from. All the other teachers were all doing similar lessons. Anyway, apparently one of the parents complained. One of the parents has been married 4 times, another 3 and anothet parent has two kids by two different men, neither she married. Now we have to tell the kids that the church accepts divorc. One of the teachers got upset and the director agreed but they don’t want to offend the parents. So many of the kids have divorced parents or the parents weren’t married. I guess I don’t get this because the church is strict when it comes to divorce. I’ve never told the kids they were lesser or that the parents were sinners and neither has anyone else. I should mention very few of the kids even attend church. In fact most of the kids who are troublemakers are from divorced parents, but am not saying the children of divorced parents are all troublemakers.

Next year I’m dropping discussing this and just mentioning the sacraments. My kids don’t understand it much anyway. One of the other teachers isn’t sure how to deal with it because she is anti divorce.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Talking about annulments seems waaaaaaay beyond what first graders need to know about marriage.

I work with adults in RCIA and it’s complicated to explain permanence in marriage and – since it’s the reality for some of them – what happens if the marriage isn’t permanent. The Church doesn’t permit remarriage unless and until the first marriage is found to be invalid by a Tribunal.

If it’s complicated for adults, I can’t imagine a six-year-old grasping the idea of validity.

 

[TeachCatechism]

Yeah I kind of paraphrased it and said it was complicated. I admit I don’t know enough about annulments, I was just reading the book. Doesn’t matter because now all classes gave to tell them the church accepts divorce. In my case, I’m able to drop it but the older teachers can’t.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Yeah I kind of paraphrased it and said it was complicated. I admit I don’t know enough about annulments, I was just reading the book. Doesn’t matter because now all classes gave to tell them the church accepts divorce. In my case, I’m able to drop it but the older teachers can’t.

The church does allow divorce and separation.

The church does accept “a second marriage” if proper procedure is followed (annulment)

None of these things are remotely appropriate to discuss with first graders though.

 

[JamalChristophr]

Talking about annulments seems waaaaaaay beyond what first graders need to know about marriage.

I work with adults in RCIA and it’s complicated to explain permanence in marriage and – since it’s the reality for some of them – what happens if the marriage isn’t permanent. The Church doesn’t permit remarriage unless and until the first marriage is found to be invalid by a Tribunal.

If it’s complicated for adults, I can’t imagine a six-year-old grasping the idea of validity.

I fully concur.

 

[Gertabelle]

The church does allow divorce and separation.

The church does accept “a second marriage” if proper procedure is followed (annulment)

None of these things are remotely appropriate to discuss with first graders though.

What Jon says

Not. Remotely. Appropriate.

Get a new book, or get a new parish. Six and seven-year-olds need to be learning their prayers, that God loves, loves, loves them, that He created the universe (including them), and so on.

If they are to learn the sacraments, they should be learning the purest expression of those sacraments. I mean, does your book also go into how a priest can be allowed to leave his priestly functions and get married?

As a divorced single mom, I would definitely have been mad after this class – not because I disagree with Church teaching – heaven forbid it! --, but that my child’s valuable time in religious education was being wasted on things way past his maturity level or concern. What are they expecting these little ones to do, go home and fix their families?

Yikes!

By the way, thank you sooooooo much for taking the time to teach God’s wee ones. I’m so sorry you’re caught in the middle of all this. Breathe deeply, pray a ton, and ask your own guardian angel and the angels of all the children in your class to help you teach. I do this all the time in my own (public school) classroom, and it really is a powerful prayer.

God bless you!

 

[pianistclare]

Before you do anything rash, call the Archdiocese and ask for a copy of their approved curriculum. See if the materials you are given to use follow this curriculum. If they don’t, you can approach the Pastor and DRE and ask why.

I’m familiar with most all of the approved Curricula from the USCCB, and I can assure you, that none of this is within the scope and sequence for First grade.

Having said this, the parents who are offended should see the priest about their situation, but being in a position to “offend” is the DRE’s problem. You should have the appropriate materials.

I ran into something similar when my Kindergarten teacher was trying to explain the Trinity to the kids. I asked her how in the world did this come up in conversation. It’s not in the book or the guidelines for her class. She had no answer except for “she brought it up” and so from there it descended into a ridiculous conversation with 5 yr. olds about “Jesus being his own dad”.
Big surprise she’s not teaching Kindergarten for me anymore. We have these things presented in an orderly fashion at age appropriate times for a reason. We’re not here to confuse the children.

Get the info you need and go from there.

 

[UbiCaritas]

What Jon says

Not. Remotely. Appropriate.

Get a new book, or get a new parish. Six and seven-year-olds need to be learning their prayers, that God loves, loves, loves them, that He created the universe (including them), and so on.

If they are to learn the sacraments, they should be learning the purest expression of those sacraments. I mean, does your book also go into how a priest can be allowed to leave his priestly functions and get married?

God bless you!

Right. I can totally see teaching 6 and 7 year olds about the sacraments; after all, 7 is a typical age for First Reconciliation and Communion. Sacraments, fine–a very good idea, in fact. All the potential problems that can arise when a sacrament is mistreated…not so much. I’m morbidly curious as to who on earth thought this was a good idea for 6- and 7-year-olds. I mean, in the context of instruction on Confession, does this book suggest that you should explain to them precisely and in detail what the various popular sexual mortal sins are so that they’ll know to avoid them/confess them if committed in the future?

 

[TeachCatechism]

I try to avoid anything social because at that age they shouldn’t be discussing those issues. I just briefly went over the topic because it’s in the book, as in it is a sacrament. Now they want all teachers to tell the kids it’s always acceptable because of the parents complaining. I love teaching but am getting annoyed with the parents. They don’t attend church (well many of them don’t), many kids are late to class, and many complain over everything. Very few of the parents ever do anything for the church and the joke is once the kids make communion we won’t see them again. However they are paying so that’s why their complaints are listened to.

 

[phil19034]

I think it is very important to teach about annulments, but not to 1st graders.

I do think this it’s important to teach to teens AFTER they learn about Chasity.

 

[Vico]

…

Are you allowed to state what the Catechism has, that it is a grave offense and immoral, but can be tolerated in some situations?:2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.176
If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:
If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.177

2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.

2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.178

 

[Jon_S_1]

Are you allowed to state what the Catechism has, that it is a grave offense and immoral, but can be tolerated in some situations?:2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.176
If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:
If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.177

2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.

2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.178

I’m sure the six year olds will soak this up!

 

[TeachCatechism]

Don’t think I can teach them that. Way too involved. Luckily no one asked me about divorce and I went into that there are many kinds of families.

 

[Vico]

I’m sure the six year olds will soak this up!

Don’t think I can teach them that. Way too involved. Luckily no one asked me about divorce and I went into that there are many kinds of families.

Ok. But I meant my summary, but gave the details from the Catechism:

“that it is a grave offense and immoral, but can be tolerated in some situations”.

 

[1ke]

I try to avoid anything social because at that age they shouldn’t be discussing those issues. I just briefly went over the topic because it’s in the book, as in it is a sacrament.

What book series has the topic of annulments and receiving communion after divorce in the first grade?

Now they want all teachers to tell the kids it’s always acceptable because of the parents complaining.

I would never, ever teach that. It is not true.

 

[12345678]

What book series has the topic of annulments and receiving communion after divorce in the first grade?

I would never, ever teach that. It is not true.

This! I would clearly tell the people in charge of you that you will not, under any circumstances, teach something that is not what the Church teaches. If they insist, I would go to the pastor and then the diocese. This cannot happen.

 

[JimG]

I agree that these children are too young to be discussing these topics.

And yet it occurs to me that the are apparently not too young to have been subjected to the reality of divorce.

 

[Vico]

I agree that these children are too young to be discussing these topics.

And yet it occurs to me that the are apparently not too young to have been subjected to the reality of divorce.

Catholics must be prepared to discuss what marriage is at an early age. Children lean the ten commandments early and two have to do particularly with marriage.

Back in 2006 there was new about a public school in Lexington, Massachusetts about parents upset about the fact that their second-grade son was read a fantasy book about two princes getting married, in a school class. The teacher said that since same-sex marriage is legal in that state there is no way to opt out.

wnd.com/2006/04/35786/#82gwT9ugYGA4FwOA.99

 

[pianistclare]

As I stated before,

ALL of this could be avoided by sticking to the Teacher’s Edition of the Children’s textbook, and not side-stepping into personal stories from the children or others.

There’s a reason why they give you many ways to present a lesson in the teacher’s manual. To avoid just these occurrences.

 

[TeachCatechism]

That’s the thing, I was reading the book yet some parents got offended by either me or someone else since other teachers were reading something similar.