Tuesday June 22, 2010

No To Ontario Premier McGuinty’s Sex Education

Commentary By Fr. Alphonse de Valk

(this article is republished with permission from the June 10, 2010 edition of Catholic Insight magazine)

June 22, 2010 ( – On April 22, 2010, Premier Dalton McGuinty and his education minister, Leona Dombrowsky, announced a new sex education program for public and Catholic schools in Ontario. This plan had been prepared beforehand by then-education minister Kathleen Wynne, who lives a lesbian lifestyle with her same-sex partner.

The program for Grade 1 stipulated that children learn all parts of the human body, including all sexual parts.

In Grade 3, children would have been told they cannot be certain whether they are boys or girls. One may be a boy on the outside, but a girl on the inside or vice versa, suggested the program.

The Grade 6 program would have explained sexual perversions such as oral and anal sex, no doubt with appropriate illustrations.

In Grade 8, students would have been told that “marriage” between men and women with same-sex attractions was just as good as marriage between normal husbands and wives.

Newspapers ran opposing headlines: “No sex-ed exemptions: premier,” read one newspaper headline. McGuinty says Catholic schools must teach new curriculum” (Toronto’s Metro,April 22). “Catholic board refuses new sex education curriculum, opposes McGuinty” (National Post, April 22).

What was the truth? The Catholic school system and the bishops of Ontario had no intention of allowing the McGuinty plan to be part of their curriculum. Nor should the public schools have had such an intention.

The McGuinty-Wynne sex-ed plan for elementary schools suffered from major errors:

  1. False philosophy: It was based on the premise that information is knowledge and that knowledge leads to virtue. History shows that there is no truth to this.
  2. False statecraft : It held that the province of Ontario could tell schools, public and Catholic, what to teach without input from parents and prior province-wide discussions.
  3. False history: The province of Ontario cannot tell Catholics, who have had their own school system since the British North America Act in 1867, how they should teach ethics and morals. The Canadian Constitution says so.
  4. False information: Nothing is more harmful to children than providing them with knowledge of sexual perversions held by small sections of society who have replaced God’s commandments with their own.
  5. False psychology: Th e thinking is that educating children consists of pumping information into them and—voila!—out comes the ideal citizen. In reality, the education of children is a delicate thing. During the “latency” period, which normally lasts from ages 6 to 12, children should not be confronted with sexual knowledge at all, except by their parents and then only when they themselves ask questions.

With respect to homosexual behaviour, United Families International, on January 13, 2010, noted the following:

  • Homosexual behaviour is not a “civil right”
  • Homosexual behaviour is not genetic
  • Homosexual behaviour is not innate
  • Homosexual behaviour can have negative consequences for individuals and society
  • Homosexual behaviour is changeable

On April 23, Premier McGuinty withdrew the program because of hostile reaction from throughout the province, once Charles McVety, the president of Canada Christian College in Toronto, blew the whistle on what had for all practical purposes been a secret document. McGuinty claimed he had no idea of what the

new program contained.

However, the record shows that McGuinty is a public defender of both legal abortion and same-sex “marriage.” He opened the door to homosexual activists to do what they had announced they would do since 2007: change the school curriculum and corrupt the children.

Ontarians must not let their guard down just because McGuinty has called a halt to the program for now. This may well be temporary. Catholics should organize resistance groups among themselves.

Christian and Catholic opposition to perverted sex-ed is not just for Christians. Their opposition is based on the natural moral law given by God, so that means it is based on reason applicable to all citizens. Neither Catholic nor public schools should accept McGuinty’s wilful imposition of this program.

Some useful information …

How to respond to teachers preaching a pro-gay curriculum” carried by LifeSiteNews on February 19, 2010 lists documents issued by Parents for Democracy in Education in British Columbia.

To understand what the battle is all about, read “Domestic disturbances: The rising polyamorous culture is out to get your children.”