Catholic and Loving it!

Lauren said...

I think you may be overreacting a *tiny* bit - if we teach children the anatomy of their respiratory system, digestive system, skeletons etc. why draw the line at the parts of the body which, believe it or not, are not just used for sex???? If Leona had a little brother, pointed to his penis whilst you changed his nappy and asked what it was would you not tell her? Teachers are not out to sexualise your children, by the looks of this worksheet they just want to teach them the facts about their body.

+-

Amanda said...

Lauren, I know where you are coming from, but I think the point here is that its up to parents, as the prime educators of their children, to decide what and when they are ready to learn in this area particularly.
As a mum of 6 and a GP married to a scientist, we have taught our children the correct name for all their body parts and tried to answer all their questions in an honest and straightforward manner. They were all gathered around when Lucy our youngest was born at home-it was wonderful. However we know that our life and belief is rooted in the truth and beauty of The Catholic Church's teaching on sexuality and what we say to them is very much in this context. The danger with sex education in schools (even faith schools who adhere to the national curriculum) is that they are comming from a politically correct, sexually permissive standpoint, where children are inappropriately sexualized at avery young age. They think the answer to teenage pregnancy is to educate in contraception and they reduce sexual intercause to a recreational activity. This is what we are up against. Showing diagrams of penises to 9 yr olds is building towards this later. We need, as Catholic Christian parents, to reclaim our children's innocence and ensure that, as young adults they are equipped to be counter-cultural because they have been taught, in the context of a loving family, the proper expression of their sexuality and God's plan for our lives.

+-

Lauren said...

Amanda that was brilliantly put and not a bit patronising or agressive - thank you :) As a fellow Christian (albeit not a Catholic one!) I totally agree that children are being sexualised from a young age and although when I was a teacher I managed to avoid teaching sex ed (*phew*!) I would have felt very uncomfortable doing so in such detail. I also despair at the way in which sex has been reduced to a lifestyle choice rather than a God-given act of love and unity. I think it is completely admirable that you and others wish to educate your children yourselves, but unfortunately we teachers deal with children who do not come from such loving families, and grow up knowing very little about sex and reproduction, mainly because their parents are equally ignorant. They will happily believe that babies are delivered by storks, or just something which happens as soon as mummy gets a new boyfriend. This is tragic, heartbreaking and all the rest of it but it unfortunately means responsibility often lies with teachers to give them the facts, and because teachers are not allowed to give their own personal opinions on things, they are forced to give a very clinical, politically correct view.

+-

Amanda said...

I don't think its ignorance so much...I think we are living in a time of great moral darkness. We are called to be light in that darkness and to be witnesses to Christ. We need to pray for our land and our Clergy, and let the light of Christ shine from our lives. We can't "educate" this problem away.
I'm adding Christian teaches to my prayers, God bless you all & give you the courage to be different, I know how hard I find it at times!

+-

Coffee Catholic said...

You are dead right! And deffinately not overreacting in the least! Kick up a fuss ~ damn straight! Don't let anyone convince you to waffle and "be nice." Nine year old girls do not need to see diagrams of a penis! That is not nice!

What is wrong with **parents** being the ones to teach their **own** kids about sex? If the Archbishop is afraid that somehow parents (who had to have sex in order to have the kids...) somehow don't know about sex then he can offer the class to the PARENTS. You know, those parents that somehow had no idea how it was that they pro-created a child. "Oops! How'd THAT happen?"

Things are getting perverted and creepy. It's as if we've entered a big locker room and can't seem to get out of it.

+-

+1

Annie Walton said...

I have just found this website and I hope you don't mind me offering a bit of parenting advice from one who is a little further down the road than you.
Your idea that parents should have control over what their children are exposed to is a respectable one, yet sadly an unrealistic, impossible one in today's world.
Even if you could control what your girls receive in the classroom, you certainly wont be able to control what they are exposed to in the playground outside, much less the TV, internet, movies, magazines and the world in general. They will wonder about this and that, and the world will give them a lot of food for thought.
You can't wrap them in cotton wool for ever. The more you try, the more they will rebel against you and against the religion you try to give them. A loving, caring parenting style that gives them the right amount of freedom and the occasional loving fatherly word is the way forward. Let them love their faith, rather than see it's prohibitions and fears.

I wouldn't be too concerned about what they are exposed to in Sex Education classes. Your girls will wonder about the male anatomy long before their wedding nights. In fact, if wondering is all they do between now and then you can consider yourself very lucky indeed.
When they are curious, they can speculate with some sound objective medical facts, or they can make it up themselves. Either way, you don't get to set the pace. Nor do you get to chose what they learn and when.
I agree that parents should have a say over Sex Education, but in reality it's neither here nor there.

The photos of you and your family on this site are lovely. You seem like a really good man with a beautiful family. I wish you all the luck in the world.

+-

Mark Dobson said...

Hi Annie,

I don't have any children, but this doesn't quite seem to ring true.

Certainly you can't excerise complete control over what your children are exposed to, but "impossible" seems a strong word to apply so generally.

There's a guy called Dr. Ray Guarendi, whose podcasts I listened to for a while (The Doctor Is In), who never seemed to tire of saying that parents can control *everything* up to a certain age. Now that seems to go too far in the opposite direction, but he on the other hand, has raised children, so I guess there must be something in it.

With regards to what they learn in the classroom - the democratic process is still there. They have decided this way for now, but things can change. If we accept the change, then the government will just assume we're all happy with the arrangement.

Agree with you about the playground, but as for these:

TV: As long as you're around, children can't have absolute control over what's on the telly. It can be vetoed. And pretty much every cable/digital service these days has parental controls of some sort, for when you're not there.

Internet: There's software available that can restrict internet availability to certain times, or only with parental consent (which you wouldn't expect to be fallible) and/or certain sites (which everyone knows is a more risky proposition). There's a free one called Blue Coat K9 Web Protection which seems very good to me.

Movies/Magazines: a) they need money b) they need to go out. Unless they work, the money comes from you. For argument's sake, if they bought a magazine you weren't happy for them to read, you could confiscate it, and even give them back the money if you felt guilty. Apparently some parents can make their kids stay at home too (I'll admit I don't know how that one works).

Of course there are lots of apsects of life that we can't control, but to say it's impossible to have an influence seems a bit over-the-top. It's more a question of how much influence you're willing to exert, according to your parental judgement.

And I think that whether a 9-year-old who isn't obliged to study penises at school is wrapped "in cotton wool" is extremely debatable.

Neither do I understand why you think that because James doesn't want his daughters to study penises aged 9, he must also think that they should know nothing about them "before their wedding nights".

"I agree that parents should have a say over Sex Education, but in reality it's neither here nor there." - I don't really see what you mean; it looks like a contradiction in terms; Something should happen, but it doesn't matter whether or not it happens.

What it boils down to is that yourself and James have different ideas as to what a "loving, caring parenting style that gives them the right amount of freedom" actually consists of. The Church teaches that the primary responsibility for these decisions lies with the parents, not with the state, and not with schools.

+-

James said...

"because James doesn't want his daughters to study penises aged 9"

For what it's worth, I have no idea what age it will be appropriate for my daughters to study penises because funnily enough (the government can't get it's head around this) I treat them as individuals and will teach them when I think they are ready and not at some arbitary age.

+-

Simon Platt said...

Is that picture really from an approved textbook? Quite apart from the criticisms expressed here (with which I agree), it doesn't seem to be, er, accurate.

(I went to have a closer look at what I think was the web site for this "resource", but backed off pretty sharpish as my virus scanner detected a trojan. Clever software, that!)

+-

Amanda said...

Me again.
Annie, sorry, I'm sure you mean well, but you are so wrong.
I can hear you say (along with many others) "You have to live in the REAL world!" This is a poor excuse for a weak and lazy approach to parenting that gives our children up to sexually permissive secularism. This fatalism is not the right or only approach. I alway reply "Who's real world??"; it's not the one that Christians are called to be part of!
There is an increasing number of Catholic (and other Christian) parents choosing to home educate their children (its huge in the States). There are also some small faithful independent Catholic (and other Christian) schools who are true to the values and practice of the faith. By the way TV is not compulsory.
My 8 yr old in the park last week asked a much bigger boy "Excuse me, please don't swear, we'rs Christians". The boy appologised and stopped swearing.
I agree that we can't protect them for ever, but we need to jealously guard their innocence untill their characters are formed and they are grounded in the faith.
Our faith is not prohibitive, its liberating.
We need more young families like James and Ella, ready to stand up and be counted-thank you & God bless you!

+-

Mark Dobson said...

N.B. I'm loving the fact that although there's a lot of disagreement in these comments, no-one's been flinging insults around. (Even though you seem to be looking for trouble with the post itself, James)

It's almost as if we were grown-ups or something!

From the bottom of my heart, thanks for being sensible you guys.

+-

Jackie Parkes said...

[Comment removed at Jackie's request]

+-

Lauren McConnell said...

I'm with you Mark - so often I refrain from saying anything in case I get shouted down and involved in a slanging match. This debate has been well thought out and intelligently written.

+-

epsilon said...

Of course, parents can't control all contacts their children have. Let me give you an example, Annie Walton! Just one little bit of anecdotal evidence from a conversation I had today with a gentle and kind after-school club twenty-something care worker I know in leafy Hampshire:
*Boy in her care calls 8 year old girl a slut
*Boy told off and asked why he said that
*8-year-old girl had asked him to have sex with her
*Girl said it was a "private conversation" to care worker
*Father of girl totally shocked and embarrassed when told as he arrived at end of after school club session to pick up his daughter

Now, am I jumping to conclusions, or do you think this (common) example of sexualised talk among tweenagers (pre-teens) has anything to do with sex education in schools??

Wake up before it's too late - check out my posting of today re how there's a link between the past and the present...

+-

Coffee Catholic said...

"This is a poor excuse for a weak and lazy approach to parenting that gives our children up to sexually permissive secularism."

Truer words were never typed.

If we actually *parent* our children then we can protect them from unholy influences. TV? Well, if it's a threat to your child's soul then throw it out of the window. Children don't need to have unsupervised access to the internet or unsupervised use of mobile phones. They don't need to be hanging out unsupervised at the houses of children who's parents don't have the same beliefs.

The ultimate goal is heaven. If we want our children to get there, we have to never let up guarding them from evil. Children can still enjoy a rich, full, life and learn everything that they need to learn, minus the ad-lib smut. God will hold *us* accountable if the souls of our children are lost because of poor parenting.

+-

Matthew Doyle said...

Welcome to the Catholic Church today. A church with its windows wide open and welcoming "modern man". It is hardly surprising that this sort of thing is being proposed in Catholic schools. In fact, dodgy R.S. have been teaching heterodoxy for the last 40 years. Incidentally I learnt a lot of my early pre-teen sexuality from the playground. Presumably you won't be able to shelter your child from that - how many Catholic schools make sure its intake is 100% pure??

I have become incredibly cynical about the official party line on this - in a church which is far too concerned about fitting in and building bridges with other faiths than preserving any sort of Truth in morality. Look to the magisterium, and traditional catholic teaching. You can always home-school; I'm sure your family has the character and intelligence to make that work. That's what I interpret from the quoted vatican text you quote in the later post.

+-

James said...

"I learnt a lot of my early pre-teen sexuality from the playground. Presumably you won't be able to shelter your child from that"

Playgrounds... Are they safe? Couldn't a child fall over and hurt themselves?

+-

James said...

Sorry, my previous comment wasn't very constructive.

I agree with your cynicism about the party line and I understand the limitations on my ability to control what my daughters come in to contact with. None of that relieves me of the duty to try anyway nor will any of it remove a shred of responsibility from the shoulders of our Bishops who should also be trying anyway instead of selling out on my behalf.

+-

Jackie Parkes said...

[Comment removed at Jackie's request]

+-

James said...

Also Re: Homeschooling... It's worth pointing out that even if I were to homeschool all my children I would still have a right and a duty as a Catholic to insist that Catholic schools act according to the teaching of the Church.

Even if I had no children I would have this right and duty. The gulf that lays between parish life and school life (are the two connected at all?) is testament to how un-Catholic our schools have become.

+-

Amanda said...

Jackie, I've looked at your blog and you have all my respect, your family is beautiful. The "disadvantages" of home schooling are often more perceived than actual, especially if you have a deacent sized family & make an effort to link up with other, like minded, home schoolers. Most teachers are fairly anti home schooling in my experience, but if you think about it, herding our children into small rooms with 29 other children the same age as them, for 6 hrs a day, is fairly unnatural, don't you think??

+-

Jackie Parkes said...

[Comment removed at Jackie's request]

+-

Rod said...

Congrats to all. A lovely site and worthwhile exchanges. While I'm passing through, on the vital topic of Sex Ed, we have written on the subject very many times over the years in Christian Order magazine. Ten years back, as this curse was ratcheting up in Eire, we did a special edition in response to desperate requests for assistance from Irish parents. We printed an extra 3,000 copies for Irish distribution. Only this week I passed on a spare copy of that edition to a young Aussie student teacher (a recent convert to the Faith) who was deeply upset by the Sex Ed he was being asked to teach 7-year-olds. He has found it a valuable compendium, covering so many aspects (e.g. he had never heard of the Latency period) and explaining much to him. (We included a terrific Q&A piece based on the Vatican's superb Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, put together by Mothers Watch, USA). Here are a couple of my own articles (editorial and article under my pen-name)from the many we crammed into that number, the only ones online at this stage. Browsers might find them useful. As for Vincent Nichols (heavy sigh...), we are back to square one, as my other article below explains.

Keep the Faith!

Rod

WAKE UP IRELAND! (1999)
http://www.christianorder.com/editorials/editorials_1999/editorials_feb99.html

SENSUAL CATECHESIS (1999)
http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_1999/features_feb99.html

ON THE WESTMINSTER SUCCESSION AND THE FEAR OF GOD (1999)
http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_1999/features_aug-sep99.html

+-

Lisa said...

I can see why you're concerned about Vincent Nichols, and the sex ed stuff, but he became Archbishop of Birmingham whilst I still lived there, and through things like the Birmingham Catholic Youth Service / Pilgrimage to Lourdes / Pastoral Letters, etc. I came across him / stuff he's said quite a lot, and generally I've found him to be what James'd call a "Good Egg" - so hopefully he will actually DO something worthwhile in terms of the Church.

+-

Mike said...

Rule of thumb: If it seems inappropriate to put something in a thought bubble above an Archbishop's head, then it's probably inapropriate to show it to little girls without their parents consent. Got it? Good.

Both seem entirely inappropriate; but what you have done is offensive also. I am in support of your concerns but I think you've gone too far with the picture.

You have complete control over the picture... I think it weakens your point to post that insulting picture, though it's shock value will attract many of your die-hard readers.

+-

Mark Dobson said...

It seemed a bit too much to me, and I think it's fair to call me a "die-hard" reader.

+-