'...the responsibilities involved in raising children
are too much of a strain on a marriage...'
Loving: A Catholic Perspective on Vocational
Lifestyle Choices, Catholic high school
text
Catholic curriculum promotes anti-family agenda
DIANE DEW
| A
religion text used in numerous Catholic high schools promotes
an anti-family, feminist agenda.
Loving -- A Catholic Perspective on Vocational Lifestyle Choices, by Michele McCarty (Wm C Brown Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa) glorifies the "single life," justifies homosexuality, encourages childlessness, redefines the family and undermines parental authority. Parenthood is presented as burdensome and marriage as a restrictive bond many in today's society (the wise?) choose to do without: "... the responsibilities involved in raising children are too much of a strain on a marriage .." (p. 176) ... "In the past, both Church and society emphasized the vocational choice of marriage far more than the single life ... Today our society is finally beginning to recognize the validity of the single lifestyle." (p. 57, 59) "Homosexual orientation is not a moral wrong! Persons' sexual orientation, in fact, may be due to their genetic makeup," it reads. (p. 66) "No one knows for sure exactly when or how the institutions of marriage and family first started," the textbook reads. "We do know that no one idea of marriage has unanimously prevailed throughout history." (p. 171) Oh, really? What ever happened to Scripture? (Remember, this is a religion text, in a school not subject to government regulation.)
Then, later in the same paragraph: "...women had few rights
of their own until modern times." "The nature of family life has changed throughout human history, and it is still changing. A significant percentage of families in our society today has only one parent ... more couples than in the past choose not to have children. And more other couples are having fewer children and are waiting longer to have them." (p. 257) "Also, many women today are far better educated than in the past," the text reads, "and there is a new and growing recognition of equality between men and women in our society and in its laws... Sharing responsibilities more equally in marriage enables today's family members to break away from those more traditional family roles which were too stiff and confining..." (p. 259) Family: a new definition? "'Family' no longer means only a man and a woman who are married to each other and their children," the text reads, adding: "Catholic teaching has perhaps the best, most inclusive definition of the family in its ideal expression: a community of individual persons joined by human love and living a community life that provides for the greatest expression of individualism." (p. 259) The picture given of grownups in some of the exercises in this text is also very negative. Adults break promises, lie, tell children how to dress, never listen or understand, interrupt and "punish children unfairly," "talk about money too much," gossip, "pry into children's secrets," etc. (p. 299) Such exercises only undermine the family unit; they serve no valid purpose. McCarty's Loving text describes children as a big hassle. (And here she is, an adult, instructing students.) Student exercises present only the negative, quoting parents who say children are "not worth the trouble," an interference with parents' lifestyles. Children make a previously "attractive, fulfilled career woman" an "exhausted, shrieking, nervous wreck," it says. They take "all the romance out of marriage." Children make parents "too tired for sex, conversation or anything else .. Not one of our children has given us any pleasure ... one reason for the disillusionment ... parents find themselves financially strapped with unexpected bills ... no longer able to take romantic vacations ... have to stay up all night with sick kids ...," etc. Kids are merely an unpleasant interruption, an interference. (pp. 261, 263) "Overpopulation" and the cost of raising children are cited as deterrents to having children: "... more and more couples are postponing having children ... And more couples are choosing to limit the size of their family ... Thus, contrary to what many people believe, Catholic teaching fully supports a couple's making responsible use of family planning..." (p. 269) Follow your conscience? "Individuals can make a decision or follow a course of action sincerely believing theirs to be the morally right choice," the text reads, "even though, objectively speaking, their conscience is incorrect and their conclusion and actions are wrong. In this case, they are not guilty of a moral wrong because they are following their conscience in good faith..." (p. 272) (What about 1 Timothy 4:2; 1 Corinthians 8:7, 12; Titus 1:15!) Then several pages are devoted to teaching on various contraceptives, some information of which is incorrect. Condoms, for example, do not have a 90-97% effectiveness rate. (Even Planned Parenthood's published statistics are lower!) When parents pay big bucks to send their child to a parochial school, is this what they expect their child to be taught? In religion class? Or are parents unreasonable to expect that a school should live up to its name? What will it take to hold such institutions accountable? A lawsuit? Isn't it false advertising, when promotional pamphlets describe a school as dedicated to certain standards, but those precepts are in fact undermined and ridiculed? This is especially serious in sex education and matters of morality. Bishop: responsible Scripture holds the bishop responsible for overseeing the spiritual instruction of the children of God: "for they watch for your souls." (Hebrews 13:17; 1 Peter 5:2) "I will require My flock at their hand ..." (Ezekiel 34:10) The Loving text was banned several years ago from Catholic schools in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. Why is it being used in Milwaukee and elsewhere? In the introduction to Believing, another text by the same author, the teacher is instructed "to keep in mind that it is not his or her duty or obligation ... to determine for students what their life-beliefs and religious convictions will be." Rather, teachers are to merely "act as guides," the author writes, "in exposing the students to the different aspects and implications of the various belief choices ... merely offer ideas..." "Thus, it cannot and should not be presumed," the author writes, "that the point and purpose of teaching these students a course on religious belief is to convince them of certain 'truths' or to make them into committed, adult religious believers." Scripture warns about the coming of false teachers in the last days. From whom do you suppose the writer of these texts obtained her credentials? Is she the product of another liberal Catholic institution that failed to raise up a standard? Where was/is her bishop, commissioned to "watch over" her soul, who will one day give account to God for all those she has influenced? © DIANE DEW in The Standard 1/31/93 |
"... it is the responsibility of the diocesan bishop to regulate such education and be vigilant over it." (Canon 804.1) "The diocesan bishop has the right of vigilance over ... Catholic schools located in his territory, even those schools which have been established or are being directed by members of religious institutes..." (Canon 806.1) "The conference of bishops and the diocesan bishops concerned have the duty and right of being vigilant that in these universities the principles of Catholic doctrine are faithfully observed." (Canon 810.2) In "the appointment of teachers to Catholic universities ... (they must be) outstanding in their integrity of doctrine and probity of life; when these requisite qualities are lacking they are to be removed..." (Canon 810.1) "... to remove or to demand that they be removed if it is required for reasons of religion or morals." (Canon 805) "The local ordinary is to be concerned that those who are assigned as religion teachers ... be outstanding for their correct doctrine, their witness of Christian living..." (Canon 804.2) .
.
They teach the "doctrines of men" (Matthew 15:9; Mark 7:7; Colossians 2:22) and devils (1 Timothy 4:1), not the "doctrine of Christ" (2 John 9) If it is the "doctrine of God" (Titus 2:10), it will in every aspect correspond with the written Word of God, the Bible. (Isaiah 8:20) Teachers of "divers and strange doctrines" (Hebrews 13:9), who use the scriptures but twist their meaning (2 Peter 3:16), make no distinction between right and wrong (Ezekiel 22:26). Often their motive in ministry is one of monetary gain. (Micah 3:11) Because people without a solid foundation in the Word can so easily be led astray (Matthew 24:24), "handling the Word of God deceitfully" (2 Corinthians 4:2) will be met with severe punishment. (James 3:1) Scripture warns of the coming of false teachers and instructs the church to deal with them: Deut. 13:1-3; Mat5:19; 7:15; 15:2-20; 16:12; 23:2-33; 24:23-26; Mark 8:15; 13:21-23; Luke 11:38-52; Acts 15:11, 24; 20:28; Gal1:7; 1 Tim. 1:3-7; 6:3-5; 2 Tim 3:13, 14; 4:34; Tit 1;10, 11; 3:10, 11; Heb 13:9; 2 Pet 2:1; 2 Jn 7:10; Jude 1:4; Revel 2:14, 15
.
1 Tim. 4:2 "Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron." 1 Cor. 8:7 , 12" Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled... But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ." Titus 1:15 " Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.". |
|
MAIN PAGE
_____________________________________________________________________
© Copyright 1998 Diane S.
Dew
All Rights Reserved
Diane Dew o PO Box 340945 o Milw WI 53234