See Al’s comments over at Amy’s blog. The parents who objected to the Diocesan implementation of this program are clearly on solid ground. Here’s a church document for you, Eric:
The Truth and Meaning Human Sexuality, November 21, 1995
“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 centres chosen and controlled by them. In this regard, the Church reaffirms the law of subsidiarity, which the school is bound to observe when it cooperates in sex education, by entering into the same spirit that animates the parents”.[69]
While some would say Good Touch, Bad Touch is a safety program, its content makes it a sexual education program as well. The parents have primacy with respect to sex-ed. They also have a responsibility to protect the innocence and the latency period of their children. By all means, write the Diocese, call the Chancery Office, harangue your pastor and parochial vicars, but know, parents, it is up to you to educate your children in this regard. It is up to you to determine if you child is old enough to be taught about human sexuality, and one of the key considerations is not only are they old enough to understand sexuality in combination with Christian moral principles as taught by the Church. If you are not comfortable with this program then opt out. If I had 1st grade children I wouldn’t want them to go through this under any circumstances.
Paragraph 66 of the same document:
Each child’s process of maturation as a person is different. Therefore, the most intimate aspects, whether biological or emotional, should be communicated in a personalized dialogue.[99] In their dialogue with each child, with love and trust, parents communicate something about their own self-giving which makes them capable of giving witness to aspects of the emotional dimension of sexuality that could not be transmitted in other ways.
Paragraph 78:
It can be said that a child is in the stage described in John Paul II’s words as “the years of innocence”[106] from about five years of age until puberty – the beginning of which can be set at the first signs of changes in the boy or girl’s body (the visible effect of an increased production of sexual hormones). This period of tranquillity and serenity must never be disturbed by unnecessary information about sex. During those years, before any physical sexual development is evident, it is normal for the child’s interests to turn to other aspects of life. The rudimentary instinctive sexuality of very small children has disappeared. Boys and girls of this age are not particularly interested in sexual problems, and they prefer to associate with children of their own sex. So as not to disturb this important natural phase of growth, parents will recognize that prudent formation in chaste love during this period should be indirect, in preparation for puberty, when direct information will be necessary.
The document should be read in its entirety by every parent.
By absolute right, it should be up to the parent. Sadly, though, society (and other children) don’t always sit in the wings and wait for you to discern that your child’s mature enough to handle it. If I decide that my child shouldn’t sit through something with his/her class, I imagine it’d only be a matter of minutes before my kid got the gist of it from a friend.
Sal, I wish you would read what I typed instead of responding to what you think I typed. Let me quote myself:
“I have no opinion on whether ‘Good Touch, Bad Touch’ is appropriate for kids or contradicts Catholic values.”
I still have not formed an opinion. I would like to see the materials for myself and decide whether it’s appropriate for children, specifically my children. You’ve met all of my kids: do you really think I’d expose them to danger?
I’m well aware that Paige and I have the duty to educate our children about sex. I do not know how this program arrogates that right to itself. (By the way, I have read “Truth and Meaning” in its entirety, too.)
To stay on message, whatever the problems of the curriculum, it does not excuse uncharitable actions or blasphemy.
Eric, I wasn’t writing in response to exactly what you said but rather commenting on the program and the role of parents in general. I didn’t mean to sound argumentative. It wasn’t clear to me what you took to be blasphemous about the parents’ reaction. I wasn’t responding to that regardless.
Incidently, the Diocese wouldn’t allow you to see the material for yourself without a school employee or Diocesesan social worker being present. I mean, they wouldn’t let you take the whole thing home to view it at your leisure.
I know you and Paige are the very model of Catholic parenthood – I don’t think you would put your kids at risk. The fact is that most parents aren’t as well catachized as you.
I’d find a program where parents are educated about how to teach their children to know what a good tough is vs. a bad touch. Unfortunately, I don’t believe such a program would fulfill the requirements of the safe environment program agreed to by the US Bishops. The elephant in the Chancery is, in fact, that the Diocese probably can’t get insurance coverage for potential future sexual abuse settlements with implementing a safe environment program in line with the other Dioceses in the US.
I’m sorry, but I think it’s sheer sophistry to claim that this program contradicts the passages cited or more generally that it is a “sex ed” program. Those objecting to it are not on any sort of solid ground at all. Knowing what parts of your body ought not generally be touched is not the same thing as receiving information about sex acts and the like.
Sorry, I misunderstood you, Sal. Next time I see you, I’ll give you a gentle kiss on the forehead.