Catholic Curriculum Promotes Anti-Family Agenda
p.26
by Diane Dew, copyright 1994

A RELIGION TEXT used in some Catholic high schools promotes an 
anti-family, feminist agenda. "Loving - A Catholic Perspective on 
Vocational Lifestyle Choices" by Michele McCarty (Wm. C. Brown Co., 
Dubuque, IA) 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 that 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 that lacks a strong, mature love" (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. 59).

"Homosexual orientation is not a moral wrong! Persons' sexual 
orientation, in fact, may be due to their genetic makeup" (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). Whatever happened to Scripture? (Remember, this is a religion 
text, in a school not subject to government regulation.) The same 
paragraph states: "Women had few rights of their own until modern 
times."

The feminist agenda is alluded to elsewhere in the text: "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. . . . Some are single parents by choice. . . . 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).

The family is redefined, purportedly by the Catholic Church: "'Family' 
no longer means only a man and a woman who are married to each other 
and their children. . . . 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). McCarty's source for the "Catholic teaching" 
with "the best, most inclusive definition of the family" is "Human Life 
in Our Day," a 1968 statement by American bishops in response to 
"Humanae Vitae."


Some of the exercises in this text picture adults in a very negative 
way. Adults break promises, lie, tell kids how to dress, never listen 
or understand, interrupt, and "punish children unfairly," "talk about 
money too much," gossip, and "pry into children's secrets" (p. 299). 
Such exercises only undermine the family unit; they serve no valid 
purpose.

"Loving" describes children as a big hassle. Student exercises present 
only the negative, quoting parents who say kids are "not worth the 
trouble," an interference with parents' lifestyles. Children make a 
previously "attractive, fulfilled career woman" an "exhausted, 
shrieking, nervous wreck." 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 . . 
." 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" (p. 269).

"Loving" also tells students that it's not morally wrong to follow your 
conscience, even if your conscience is improperly formed.

"Individuals can make a decision or follow a course of action sincerely 
believing theirs to be the morally right choice, 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?

Several pages are devoted to teaching students about various 
contraceptives; some of the information is incorrect. Condoms, for 
example, do not have a 90% to 97% effectiveness rate. (Even Planned 
Parenthood's published statistics are lower.)

Is this what parents expect when they pay to send their child to a 
Catholic school? Is this what they expect their child to be taught in 
religion class? 

What will it take to hold schools accountable? Scripture holds the 
bishop responsible for overseeing the spiritual instruction of the 
children of God: "For they watch over your souls" (Hebrews 13:17; 1 
Peter 5:2). 

Several years ago the "Loving" text was banned from Catholic schools in 
the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. At this writing it is still being used 
in Milwaukee.

As noted in a letter by Margo Szews to the Parent Advisory Committee of 
Milwaukee's Pius XI High School in 1985, some of the student exercises 
outlined in the text, "if they were to take place in a public school 
receiving federal funds, would require parental permission . . ." Yet 
trusting parents are unaware of the teaching their children receive.


In the introduction to "Believing," another text by McCarty, 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. 

According to Church Law:

"It is necessary that the formation and education given in a Catholic 
school be based upon the principles of Catholic doctrine; teachers are 
to be outstanding for their correct doctrine and integrity of life" 
(Can. 803.2).

". . . it is the responsibility of the diocesan bishop to regulate such 
education and be vigilant over it" (Can. 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 
. . ." (Can. 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" (Can. 810.2).

In "the appointment of teachers to Catholic universities . . ." 
teachers must be selected who are "outstanding in their integrity of 
doctrine and probity of life; when these requisite qualities are 
lacking they [the teachers] are to be removed . . ." (Can. 810.1).

"The local ordinary [bishop] is to be concerned that those who are 
assigned as religion teachers . . . be outstanding for their correct 
doctrine, their witness of Christian living . . ." (Can. 804.2).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------