Transcript of Presentation on 'Open Minds' Resource Given by DTMF's
Communications Director to Family Life Advisory Committee of the Waterloo
Catholic School Board
Presenter: Jack Fonseca, B.B.A
Date presented: September 26, 2007
Time: 18 minutes
Thank you for allowing us to give this presentation
tonight. Before I get into our issues with the book, I’ll start by making it
clear that DTMF strongly opposes unjust discrimination and harassment against
homosexual persons. We agree fully with section 2358 of the Catechism of the
Catholic Church which states: “They must be accepted with respect, compassion
and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be
avoided”. And I can honestly say that I would be the first to defend any gay
person who suffered unjust discrimination. But as we will point out, Open
Minds is not just about opposing discrimination. It has the potential to be
interpreted as affirming the gay lifestyle and therefore, affirming homosexual
acts, which section 2357 of the Catechism teaches “under no circumstances can
they be approved”.
Before I get into the details of the book that cause us
concern, it is necessary to provide the spiritual backdrop that will help us
understand the dangers posed by this resource.
Let’s reflect on the Gospel of John Chapter 1 verse 1: “In
the beginning was the Word: the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was
with God in the beginning. Through him all things came to be, not one thing had
its being but through him….The Word was made flesh, he lived among us…”
So the Scripture tells us that Jesus is the Word of God.
Catholics believe that the Sacred Scriptures are the inspired Word of God. This
is what we profess each Sunday in the liturgy. After hearing the Scriptures, we
say “The Word of the Lord”. And we believe as the Apostle John wrote, that the
Word is Jesus himself. The Word that became flesh. The same word we receive in
the liturgy when we hear the scriptures. This is the reason why St. Jerome, an
early Church Father wrote: “The ignorance of Scripture is the ignorance of
Christ”.
Herein lies the first major problem. To the extent that some
people may potentially be lead by the book “Open Minds” to reject Scriptural
teaching on homosexual acts, to that same extent they will have been
lead to reject Jesus. That’s something you have to consider. If as we’ve said,
Open Minds has the potential to lead students to reject Scriptural truth, to
that same extent, it’s leading them to reject Christ. Just the opposite aim of
Catholic education. That’s something to think about.
We believe that Open Minds has the potential to lead some
children to view the homosexual lifestyle as morally acceptable. That in itself
is a concern. But there’s an even more troubling spiritual problem which is not
immediately obvious. This is the 2nd major problem.
Let’s reflect on the 1st chapter of Genesis
verses 26: “Then God said let us make man in our image after our likeness. So
God created man in his image. In the image of God he created him. Male
& female he created them. And God blessed them and God said be fruitful
and multiply…”
With that Scripture in mind, I’d like to quote Peter Herbek,
a renowned Catholic evangelist, who, speaking on the push for same-sex marriage
made the following profound statement. He said “This is fundamentally a
spiritual battle. Behind the culture war is a demonic attack on the image of
God in Creation. Male & Female we have been created. And the
Judea-Christian revelation understands in that male & femaleness, the very
image of God is revealed. And the attack on traditional family, the attack on
gender, is an attack directly on the image of God.”
So there’s a spiritual battle raging over human sexuality
and the image of God revealed in that sexuality. Dr. Scott Hahn further
elucidates this point. He is a well-respected thinker in Catholic theology
which I’ll now quote:
“The Catholic Church teaches that the primordial covenant
where the 2 become 1, and the one they become expressed in the act of marriage,
isn’t just a physical oneness, it isn’t just a spiritual unity, it’s a
metaphysical oneness and 9 months later, out comes a child who embodies the
oneness that they’ve become.
So the 2 become 1 and then become 3, and yet remain 1. What
does that sound like? The Trinity. Nowhere in nature do humans reflect God, the
triune family so much as when 2 become 1 and become 3 as a result.
God has made sexuality in a sense to be the most sacred and
holy power we posses to reflect him. That’s why when we violate the principles
of sexual morality, we don’t just take something out of the holy into the
common, we desecrate something that is intrinsically holy.”
Here’s where Open Minds comes in. To the extent that any
educational resource may have the effect of affirming homosexual behaviour,
that resource cooperates in the desecration of the holy image of God. That’s
how serious the issue is. It is the holy image of God which is at risk.
Why? Because Open Minds uses certain exercises and ambiguous
language which have the potential to lead teacher and student alike, to
think of the homosexual lifestyle and by extension, homosexual acts, as being
morally neutral or morally acceptable.
That’s the key. It has the potential to lead teacher and
student alike, to think of the homosexual lifestyle and by extension,
homosexual acts, as being morally neutral or morally acceptable.
I have to point out that there are many topics in the book
which are unquestionably sound. Such as it’s lessons on racism, anti-semitism,
discrimination against disabled persons, etc. Those are wonderful things to
teach about. But other parts in the resource are seriously problematic.
Certainly, there must be hundreds of books that cover racism and the like,
without including these parts which potentially undermine Catholic moral
doctrine. The solution is simple. Just replace the book and cover homosexuality
using the Catechism.
Now let’s get into what we believe are serious problems with
Open Minds that makes it incompatible with Catholic teaching.
First of all, Catholic education must be Christ-centred.
This book is purely secular.
Open Minds has clear connections to the gay-activist lobby.
That’s the same lobby which has been pushing same-sex marriage legislation in
the US. Let’s examine some of the evidence which suggest this book is being
used by the gay lobby to promote their agenda of normalizing homosexual
behaviour:
# 1) Open Minds is sold on the website of GLSEN
(Gay,Lesbian,Straight Education Network), one of the
most influential gay lobby groups, and one of the biggest advocates of
legalizing same-sex marriage in the USA. They’ve even produced a curriculum for
advocating SSM in schools. Their own documents reveal that their goal is far
beyond achieving tolerance or safety. They have said in an October 1, 2000
publication: “The pursuit of safety and affirmation are one and the same goal…”.
And they don’t just imply affirmation of the person, but of the lifestyle. An
example in the article talks about “welcoming LGBT students to bring their
same-sex dates to the prom”. If GLSEN believes this book furthers it’s goals,
shouldn’t that be a sign to us that it’s incompatible with the goals of
Catholic moral teaching?
[go to slide – GLSEN]
# 2) The author, Nancy Schniedewin is a proponent of getting
pro-homosexual curriculum into schools. She co-wrote an article with Karen
Cathers of the GLSEN, that same lobby group. The article is titled “Becoming
Allies for Each Other: An Inclusive Approach for Confronting Heterosexism in
Schools”.
[go to slide – Becoming Allies]
Now the content of the book itself. We don’t have time to cover
all the objectionable parts. Here are a few:
# 1) It presents a fictitious construct called
“heterosexism” which has the effect of painting all persons who disagree with
homosexual acts as hateful towards gay people. The main flaw is that it does not
distinguish between the person and the behaviour. It does not leave room for
loving the sinner while denouncing the sin.
Nowhere does this book include a clarification that
Christianity does not oppose homosexual behaviour out of “fear and hatred”. It
does not explain the natural law reasons for the Church’s opposition. By the
absence of this explanation, it has the effect of insinuating that religious
people also oppose homosexual acts out of fear and hatred. This is potentially
corrosive to the faith of Catholic children who, lacking clear Catholic
doctrine could be lead to accepting that “all opposition” must be rooted in
“fear and hatred”. Section 2357 of the Catechism is absolutely required to
provide a balanced perspective.
Section 2357 reads:
Where is this section is contained in Open Minds? It is not.
The absence of the Church’s clear reasoning is a serious problem.
Without that reasoning, people may be lead inadvertently to rejecting the
Biblical position on homosexual acts. Students must be exposed to the full
moral doctrine of the Church and it’s absence in Open Minds makes the book
inappropriate. In case you think this concern is “alarmist”, let me show you
how the gay lobby makes no distinction between religious belief and hatred. Let
me show you how they use terms like “homophobia” and “heterosexism”.
[go to slide “Rome – Where the
Hate Is”
from www.equalmarriage.ca, April 2007]
# 2) Open Minds suggests to teachers several classroom
exercises which portray the homosexual lifestyle as morally neutral. These
exercises are completely devoid of Christian or Catholic moral teaching. As
such, there is a risk that the homosexual lifestyle portrayed in the exercise
may be perceived as morally acceptable.
For example, the Grandfather’s Tape has a gay grandfather
describe how he was more attracted to men, divorced the boy’s grandmother and
then fell in love with another man. Where is section 2357, 2358 and 2359 of the
Catechism taught in this exercise? The Catechism’s framework is absolutely
necessary to eliminate the risk that a child may view the homosexual
relationship as natural and morally acceptable.
This next exercise is designed to lead children to question
whether the 2 women that Laura lives with are lesbians. The exercise, if used,
will expose Catholic children to a positive portrayal of lesbian relationships.
The lesbians here are portrayed only in positive terms: “kind”, “responsible”,
“fun” which is an obvious attempt to normalize the lifestyle. It implicitly
suggests that homosexuals raising children are a normal “family structure”,
which clearly contradicts Catholic teaching based on natural law and Scripture.
It would be imprudent, perhaps even negligent, to expose kids to lesbian
relationships without also including the church’s moral teaching. It is
necessary to include the Catechism’s explanation that while the acts are
intrinsically disordered and contrary to natural law, we are still called to treat
these persons with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Truth is not the enemy
of love. The two can, and must be presented together as the most compassionate
way forward, as the Catechism does so well. That is lacking in Open Minds, and
therefore makes it inappropriate for Catholic education.
The book contains many other portrayals of homosexuality as
morally neutral, and totally devoid of Scripture or the Catechism’s teaching.
In the absence of the Church’s teaching, this presentation of the homosexual
lifestyle carries a risk of leading some children and teachers to think of
homosexual acts as acceptable. As a result, the child may eventually reject the
Church’s teaching on homosexuality as “outdated”, “ignorant” or “just plain
wrong”. In essence they would be rejecting Scripture, and to the same extent
that they reject Scripture, they’d be rejecting Jesus. That’s too high a cost.
It makes Open Minds grossly incompatible with Catholic moral doctrine. We
submit that this book needs to be removed immediately.
To that point, we present these petitions which contain
signatures from 460 Catholic parents, requesting the same.
Finally, I
would like to ask a question. Is there any protocol in the FLAC program which
ensures that the complete teaching of the Church regarding homosexual acts is
taught to students?
With this question, I conclude our presentation. Thank you.
| 