Recently, concerned clergy, parents and educators have approached me regarding present and proposed radical sex-education programs. I have written this statement in response.
Comments on Sex Education, Updated March 12, 2015
First, I would like to state that, regarding educational guidance in human love, group instruction in biological details is contrary to Church teaching. Modesty, chastity, respect for parents, sin, the means of grace and the formation of conscience are proper content to be considered in the classroom.
I wrote a booklet “From Winnipeg to Fully Alive” in protest against the Fully Alive program when it was first introduced in Catholic schools in Ontario (see article under Catholic Education section at http://www.msgrfoy.com). This was a critique/condemnation of the published edition of this sex-education program at that time, in 1992. Apparently, there is an updated 2012 version of the Fully Alive program used in Ontario Catholic schools now, but I have been too ill to critique that current edition. There are teachers who simply would not and still do not teach the Fully Alive program and I have received complaints from parents about it just this week.
Do I have anything to say about Ontario’s radical sex education program?
I recently signed a petition at http://www.lifesitenews.com to protest the introduction of Kathleen Wynne’s sex education program. I am opposed to this explicit sex-education curriculum that Liberal and lesbian Kathleen Wynne would like to implement in September of this year. Parents across Ontario are still petitioning that it not be introduced in schools. Taxpayers’ dollars should not go into corrupting children and stealing the innocence of our students. Wynne’s program violates Judeo-Christian morality and the religious beliefs of Ontario parents. Studies have shown that classroom sex-education is concomitant with an increase in teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, promiscuity and fornication, abortion, and spiritual devastation.
The curriculum victimizes children by desensitizing them in the sacred and private area of sexuality. I see it as a form of sexual abuse. On March 3, 2015, Lifesitenews reported “The new elementary school sex education curriculum just unveiled by Ontario’s Liberal and lesbian premier, Kathleen Wynne, is a ‘disaster,’ and amounts to ‘sexual abuse,’ according to psychotherapists interviewed by LifeSiteNews. ‘Any action which sexualizes a child before he or she is ready is sexual abuse,’ said Dr. Robert McDonald, a retired psychotherapist and medical doctor. ‘Therefore so-called sex-ed for children before puberty is an act of sexual abuse.’”
I would not endorse the current 2012 Fully Alive family resource, for theme three, grade 3 (7/8 year olds) describing the marital act in detail, including male and female genitalia.
I am edified to hear that Archbishop Prendergast has spoken out against it. Many are petitioning members of parliament to stop this program from being implemented. I hope this will happen. I am not certain if Kathleen Wynne threatened to withhold funding from Catholic schools if they do not go along with some inclusion of her program.
I was told Cardinal Collins recently stated that updates for the implementation of Wynne’s program will only be made to the existing family life education program, in line with Catholic teachings. (As noted above however, in 1992 I wrote my critique of the Fully Alive program used in Catholic Schools at that time. Just yesterday, I received complaints from concerned Catholic parents who believe the program is still inappropriate and are therefore withdrawing their children from the Catholic school system. Even a program with a local bishop’s Imprimatur is not guaranteed to be suitable for children and youth).
Besides Catholic schools that are obligated to uphold Catholic teachings, children who attend public and private schools need to be protected against such an evil indoctrination into sinful behaviours. Wynne’s radical sex-education program does not respect the latency period and is harmful to children. It will lead to corruption in society and further demolition of the family.
In light of the current threat of Kathleen Wynne to introduce more radical sex education, I would like to state some of the principal teachings of the Church on sex education:
- “Sex education, which is a basic right and duty of parents, must always be carried out under their attentive guidance, whether at home or in educational centers chosen and controlled by them. In this regard the Church re-affirms the law of subsidiarity, which the school is bound to observe when it cooperates in sex education.” (Familiaris Consortio, 37)
- “Education for chastity is absolutely essential.” (ibid.)
- “Christian parents, discerning the signs of God’s Will, will devote special attention and care to educate in virginity or celibacy as the supreme form of that self-giving that constitutes the very meaning of human sexuality.” (ibid.)
- “The Church is firmly opposed to an often widespread form of imparting sex information dissociated from moral principles.” (ibid.)
- “The fact remains ever valid that in regard to the more intimate aspects, whether biological or affective, an individual education should be bestowed, preferably within the sphere of the family.” (Educational Guideline, n. 58)
- “Speaking generally, during the period of childhood, it suffices to employ those remedies which produce the double effect of opening the door to the virtue of purity and closing the door upon vice.” (From the encyclical of Pope Pius XI)
These teachings and guidelines of the Church are not followed in radical sex-education.
On March 5, 2015, lawyer Gwen Landolt, released a press release from Real Women of Canada, exposing that Kathleen Wynne and Lis Sandals, Minister of Education, lied to the public and covered up that Benjamin Levin, who was recently convicted of being a child predator, was in charge of the new sex-ed curriculum. Gwen Landolt stated: “This curriculum is not acceptable and should be withdrawn so that it can be properly reviewed and allow parents opportunity to be consulted on its contents.”
What else can be done about the present and potential future problems?
More families who are able to do so could decide to home-school.
Cardinal Ambrozic stated that parents or guardians are free to have their children withdrawn from the existing family life education (Fullly Alive) program.
“It’s actually in the Education Act that a parent has the right to withdraw their child from content they don’t want their child to receive,” Education Minister Liz Sandals said in an interview with the National Post. However, the fallout and spreading of the teachings of this program across the curriculum, makes it virtually impossible to enforce a total exemption.
For Catholics who cannot homeschool, an exemption form could be completed at the school and/or parish level, perhaps inserted in school or parish bulletins. As noted earlier, I have not read or critiqued the current family life education (Fully Alive) program used in Ontario Catholic schools, or any proposed updates or editions, so I don’t have a right to and cannot consent to give my own endorsement of it.
For public or private schools, parents or parental guardians can and should exercise their right to protect and remove their children from Wynne’s program by signing a waiver to have them exempted from attending sex-education classes. A letter could simply be provided by or submitted to the school principal and a copy given to the child’s sex-ed/family-life/phys-ed and health/teachers, to note the names of students to be exempted.
Exempting students from sex-education programs:
For example, a form letter could be used:
Dear Principal ________________,
I _______________ (name of parent or guardian) hereby request that the following students __________________ (names of students) be exempted from the sex-education curriculum and classes.
Signature of Parent or Parental Guardian
Msgr. Vincent Foy, Canon Lawyer, Former Director of Catechetics, Archdiocese of Toronto