Ontario's proposed sex-ed program prepared by active lesbian...

Canada: Educating children in immodesty and perversity

The plan, as this article details, is extremely graphic and was prepared by Education Minister Kathleen Wynne, who lives a lesbian lifestyle with her same-sex partner. The goal is to desensitize children with graphic descriptions of sex and "alternative lifestyles" while robbing them of their innocence. The proposed plan would constitute an act of violence and child abuse and a usurpation of parental rights.

Christians [and others of good will who oppose homosexuality] who object to their children being indoctrinated in perversity, will not be allowed to opt out. The persecution intensifies.

This is extremely disturbing. Vatican II teaches us that, in raising children, the responsibility of parents is primary: "Since parents have given life to their children, they have a very grave duty to educate them, and so are to be recognized as their primary and principal educators" (GE, No. 3). And Pope John Paul II, explaining the conciliar teaching more fully in Familiaris consortio No. 36, says that: "The right and duty of parents to give education is essential, since it is connected with the transmission of human life; it is original and primary with regard to the educational role of others, on account of the uniqueness of the loving relationship between parents and children; and it is irreplaceable and inalienable, and therefore incapable of being entirely delegated to others or usurped by others."

Canon Law is also very clear on this matter. Canon 793, 1., states that: "Parents as well as those who take their place are obliged and enjoy the right to educate their offspring; Catholic parents also have the duty and the right to select those means and institutions through which they can provide more suitably for the Catholic education of the children according to local circumstances" and Canon 1136 says that: "Parents have the most serious duty and the primary right to do all in their power to see to the physical, social, cultural, moral and religious upbringing of their children."

This inalienable right of parents has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court. In 1922, the State of Oregon attempted to enact legislation that would have forced all children to attend the public schools within that state. But the Supreme Court overturned that decision and established that "The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."

The proposed sex-ed program constitutes child abuse. Why are the media in this country not covering this story? I thought they were concerned about the welfare of children?


"Another abuse occurs whenever sex education is given to children by teaching them all the intimate details of genital relationships, even in a graphic way. Today this is often motivated by wanting to provide education for 'safe sex', above all in relation to the spread of AIDS. In this situation, parents must also reject the promotion of so-called 'safe sex' or 'safer sex', a dangerous and immoral policy based on the deluded theory that the condom can provide adequate protection against AIDS. Parents must insist on continence outside marriage and fidelity in marriage as the only true and secure education for the prevention of this contagious disease.

One widely-used, but possibly harmful, approach goes by the name of 'values clarification'. Young people are encouraged to reflect upon, to clarify and to decide upon moral issues with the greatest degree of 'autonomy', ignoring the objective reality of the moral law in general and disregarding the formation of consciences on the specific Christian moral precepts, as affirmed by the Magisterium of the Church. Young people are given the idea that a moral code is something which they create themselves, as if man were the source and norm of morality.

However, the values clarification method impedes the true freedom and autonomy of young people at an insecure stage of their development. In practice, not only is the opinion of the majority favoured, but complex moral situations are put before young people, far removed from the normal moral choices they face each day, in which good or evil are easily recognizable. This unacceptable method tends to be closely linked with moral relativism, and thus encourages indifference to moral law and permissiveness." (The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, Nos 139, 140).