Can I Be Blunt?

The title was rhetorical.  So, yeah, I’m going to be blunt and I’m going to do it to help protect the children.  If you’re easily offended, you might not like me reiterating the crud found in this one.  Look at the link and don’t read because this one’s going to fall under the category of “You should be mad as hell and not take it anymore!”

No!  No!  No! And no

Let me be clear, I don’t just want the parents to be able to opt their kids out of this class, I want it to be completely abolished, as in wiped off the face of Catholicism.  If parents throw up their hands and say, “Well, what are we to do?”, you are partly to blame.  I expect parents to attend every single meeting on this one, and I, quite frankly, wouldn’t mind seeing you parents from the Diocese of Nashville also out there picketing the schools, the chancery office, etc., until Bishop Choby gets the message about what’s going on under his nose. Millstones should also be passed out to all employees involved with this debacle.

Parents, I don’t want to hear any whining.  I don’t want to hear about how your kids will be ostracized.  I don’t want to hear how you will be removed from the position of such and such for your local church.  I don’t want to hear you don’t have time.  If that rolled off your tongue, just grab your own millstone and head for the nearest body of water.  I want to hear battle cries on behalf of your children and grandchildren.  This is the immortal soul of your children, for goodness sake!  If you aren’t standing shoulder to shoulder with the parents who brought this to our attention, you are part of the problem.!  Sadly your children and grandchildren are going to pay for your weakness.

U.S. diocese backs Catholic school: won’t let parents opt kids out of ‘salacious’ sex-ed

 Catholic , David Choby , Nashville Diocese , Parental Rights , Sex Education

NASHVILLE, Tennessee, August 31, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — The Catholic Diocese of Nashville is backing the administration of a private Catholic school in refusing to allow parents to opt their children out of an explicit sexual education program that parents say will corrupt their children by providing them with erotic and even salacious detail. Parents opposing the course say their hearts are broken since they feel betrayed by those in whom they had placed the trust of educating their children.

Their hearts are more than broken.  If Bishop Choby allows this to stand, their parental rights are being trod upon.  It might be nice if those involved with this mess actually gave the Church documents at least a passing glance.  Why don’t we start with Gravissimum Educationis:

3. The Authors of Education

Since parents have given children their life, they are bound by the most serious obligation to educate their offspring and therefore must be recognized as the primary and principal educators.(11) This role in education is so important that only with difficulty can it be supplied where it is lacking. Parents are the ones who must create a family atmosphere animated by love and respect for God and man, in which the well-rounded personal and social education of children is fostered. Hence the family is the first school of the social virtues that every society needs. It is particularly in the Christian family, enriched by the grace and office of the sacrament of matrimony, that children should be taught from their early years to have a knowledge of God according to the faith received in Baptism, to worship Him, and to love their neighbor. Here, too, they find their first experience of a wholesome human society and of the Church. Finally, it is through the family that they are gradually led to a companionship with their fellowmen and with the people of God. Let parents, then, recognize the inestimable importance a truly Christian family has for the life and progress of God’s own people.(12)

The family which has the primary duty of imparting education needs help of the whole community. In addition, therefore, to the rights of parents and others to whom the parents entrust a share in the work of education, certain rights and duties belong indeed to civil society, whose role is to direct what is required for the common temporal good. Its function is to promote the education of youth in many ways, namely: to protect the duties and rights of parents and others who share in education and to give them aid; according to the principle of subsidiarity, when the endeavors of parents and other societies are lacking, to carry out the work of education in accordance with the wishes of the parents; and, moreover, as the common good demands, to build schools and institutions.(13)

Finally, in a special way, the duty of educating belongs to the Church, not merely because she must be recognized as a human society capable of educating, but especially because she has the responsibility of announcing the way of salvation to all men, of communicating the life of Christ to those who believe, and, in her unfailing solicitude, of assisting men to be able to come to the fullness of this life.(14) The Church is bound as a mother to give to these children of hers an education by which their whole life can be imbued with the spirit of Christ and at the same time do all she can to promote for all peoples the complete perfection of the human person, the good of earthly society and the building of a world that is more human.(15) 

Gaudium et Spes has more:

52. The family is a kind of school of deeper humanity. But if it is to achieve the full flowering of its life and mission, it needs the kindly communion of minds and the joint deliberation of spouses, as well as the painstaking cooperation of parents in the education of their children. The active presence of the father is highly beneficial to their formation. The children, especially the younger among them, need the care of their mother at home. This domestic role of hers must be safely preserved, though the legitimate social progress of women should not be underrated on that account. Children should be so educated that as adults they can follow their vocation, including a religious one, with a mature sense of responsibility and can choose their state of life; if they marry, they can thereby establish their family in favorable moral, social and economic conditions. Parents or guardians should by prudent advice provide guidance to their young with respect to founding a family, and the young ought to listen gladly. At the same time no pressure, direct or indirect, should be put on the young to make them enter marriage or choose a specific partner. Thus the family, in which the various generations come together and help one another grow wiser and harmonize personal rights with the other requirements of social life, is the foundation of society. All those, therefore, who exercise influence over communities and social groups should work efficiently for the welfare of marriage and the family. Public authority should regard it as a sacred duty to recognize, protect and promote their authentic nature, to shield public morality and to favor the prosperity of home life. The right of parents to beget and educate their children in the bosom of the family must be safeguarded. Children, too, who unhappily lack the blessing of a family should be protected by prudent legislation and various undertakings and assisted by the help they need. 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

227. Parents receive in the sacrament of Matrimony “the grace and the ministry of the Christian education of their children,” to whom they transmit and bear witness to human and religious values. This educational activity which is both human and religious is “a true ministry,” through which the Gospel is transmitted and radiated so that family life is transformed into a journey of faith and the school of Christian life. As the children grow, exchange of faith becomes mutual and “in a catechetical dialogue of this sort, each individual both receives and gives.” It is for this reason that the Christian community must give very special attention to parents. By means of personal contact, meetings, courses and also adult catechesis directed toward parents, the Christian community must help them assume their responsibility-which is particularly delicate today-of educating their children in the faith. This is especially pressing in those areas where civil legislation does not permit or makes difficult freedom of education in the faith. In this case “the domestic Church” is virtually the only environment in which children and young people can receive authentic catechesis.  

255. Parents are the primary educators in the faith. Together with them, especially in certain cultures, all members of the family play an active part in the education of the younger members. It is thus necessary to determine more concretely the sense in which the Christian family community is a locus of catechesis. The family is defined as a “domestic Church,” that is, in every Christian family the different aspects and functions of the life of the entire Church may be reflected: mission; catechesis; witness; prayer etc. Indeed in the same way as the Church, the family “is a place in which the Gospel is transmitted and from which it extends.” The family as a locus of catechesis has an unique privilege: transmitting the Gospel by rooting it in the context of profound human values. On this human base, Christian initiation is more profound: the awakening of the sense of God; the first steps in prayer; education of the moral conscience; formation in the Christian sense of human love, understood as a reflection of the love of God the Father, the Creator. It is, indeed, a Christian education more witnessed to than taught, more occasional than systematic, more on-going and daily than structured into periods. In this family catechesis, the role of grandparents is of growing importance. Their wisdom and sense of the religious is often times decisive in creating a true Christian climate. 

Familiaris Consortio:

36. Hence, parents must be acknowledged as the first and foremost educators of their children. Their role as educators is so decisive that scarcely anything can compensate for their failure in it. The right and duty of parents to give education is essential …

And a little more from the Catechism


  1. The fruitfulness of conjugal love extends to the fruits of the moral, spiritual, and supernatural life that parents hand on to their children by education. Parents are the principal and first educators of their children. In this sense the fundamental task of marriage and family is to be at the service of life.

  2. In our own time, in a world often alien and even hostile to faith, believing families are of primary importance as centers of living, radiant faith. For this reason the Second Vatican Council, using an ancient expression, calls the family the Ecclesia domestica. It is in the bosom of the family that parents are “by word and example …the first heralds of the faith with regard to their children.”

  3. The fecundity of conjugal love cannot be reduced solely to the procreation of children, but must extend to their moral education and their spiritual formation. “The role of parents in education is of such importance that it is almost impossible to provide an adequate substitute.” The right and the duty of parents to educate their children are primordial and inalienable.

  4. Parents have the first responsibility for the education of their children. They bear witness to this responsibility first by creating a home where tenderness, forgiveness, respect, fidelity, and disinterested service are the rule. The home is well suited for education in the virtues. 

So get it right, Diocese of Nashville.  You are tramping all over the rights of the parents given by God.  Please, do us all a favor and go crawl back into your liberal holes and retire.  I hope whoever started this offense against Catholic morality and the family comes to a quick reckoning.

“We don’t want the Catholic school to corrupt our kids,” said Susan Skinner whose child attends Father Ryan High School in Nashville, TN and who represents a group of concerned parents. “Why can’t Catholic schools simply be Catholic?” she added.

THANK YOU, SUSAN SKINNER!  I hope and I pray that more parents take their jobs as seriously as you.  I’m sure you are bearing a big cross right now, but your reward will be great in Heaven!

School administration told parents earlier this year that students cannot be opted out from the course, suggesting that when parents send their children to school they hand over their right and duty as primary educator. 

The @#!@#$!@$# they do!  Would you mind pointing that out in Church documents, school administration?!?!?!?!

When LifeSiteNews contacted the diocese for comment on the matter, Director of Communications Rick Musacchio backed the school, stating that the course was “appropriate and necessary” and that “it is our policy that all students participate fully in all required classes.”

Appropriate and necessary in what way?!?!?!  In the kind of way that encourages STDs to all and supplies Planned Parenthood with more fetal body parts to sell?!?!?!?!  Explain yourself, Mr. Musacchio!

LifeSiteNews then reached out directly to Nashville Bishop David Choby, who is considered to be a traditional-minded bishop, to ask if Musacchio accurately represented his position. The bishop’s secretary Elizabeth Clay said the bishop was on vacation and assured LifeSiteNews that Musacchio represented the bishop and that it “is his position” that parents are not allowed to opt their children out of the sex-ed course. 

I pray this is not true and that someone just pulled a fast one on Bishop Choby.  Quite frankly, I wouldn’t put it past a liberal to do so, and it’s not like I haven’t seen it done to many good bishops before.  I certainly hope that the bishop will haul in the behinds of all responsible and give them a good Catholic education.

Well-known Catholic apologist, author, and commentator Fr. Peter Stravinskas, Ph.D., S.T.D., told LifeSiteNews that Catholic parents do not surrender their rights over their children when they send them to school.

“Parents never relinquish their rights over their children anywhere, not even in a state school where parents are able to withdraw their kids from a course or a presentation if they don’t like it,” he said.

The Catholic Church holds that it is the parents’ primary right and duty to educate their children while schools play only a subsidiary role. Pope Pius XI emphasized this point in his 1937 encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge in which he urged parents living under the Nazi regime in Germany to never surrender their moral duty to instruct their children.

Not only do they not surrender their rights, but they do not surrender their duty and responsibility to their children.  For those that do, good luck with that.

I’d like to stop and say right here that I do not think sex education is a bad thing when done in the context of the home.  Human reproduction is a beautiful thing, but when you do it in the off-handed way they’re doing it here, it reduces it to simple bodily function.  And, my goodness, this really is nothing but a guide in how to arouse someone or what birth control works best.  Yep, top-notch sexual education there, boy howdy.  Both my husband and I can do this in a way that is less vulgar and more beautiful than this piece of slop.

 “Parents…have a primary right to the education of the children God has given them in the spirit of their Faith, and according to its prescriptions. Laws and measures which in school fail to respect this freedom of the parents go against natural law and are immoral,” the pope wrote.

Pope Saint John Paul II affirmed parental rights in the 1995 document “The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality” put out by the Pontifical Council for the Family, stating that schools are “bound” to respect parents when it comes to sex-ed in school. 

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,” the pope stated. 

Darn it, I missed these quotes.  Oh, well, cut me some slack. The “educators” in the Diocese of Nashville missed every last one.

Commenting on the above passage, canon law expert Fr. Gerald Murray told LifeSiteNews that “any sex education program that is not in accord with the convictions of a child’s parents cannot be made mandatory without violating ‘the right and duty’ of the parents to control what their children are taught in this delicate and sensitive matter.”

“The school must cooperate with the parents. When the school encounters parents who object to the chosen program, the school must offer an alternative which would include releasing the student from attending that program so that the parents can provide an alternative that respects their convictions,” he said. 

Sorry, father.  This whole program should be shot and put out of its misery but the bare minimum should be an alternative..  There’s a bunch of other solidly Catholic programs out there.  This one is garbage.  How about the diocese invest in those and give one to each family?  Some of us have managed to scare them up ourselves.

Even local public schools allow parents to opt their kids out of objectionable course material. Tennessee state law (Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-1301 et seq.) requires public schools to notify parents in advance of sex-ed programs and to obtain written consent for a student to participate in or opt-out of the program. 

This is how it is even in California!!!  Does the Diocese of Nashville realize it’s now WORSE than the California public education system with regards to parental rights?  Uh, hello!!!  Who in the heck wants that distinction?

In 1931, the Holy Office following the lead of Pope Pius XI decreed that Catholic institutions must reject classroom sex education, stating that “no approbation whatever can be given to the advocacy of the new method [of sex-ed] even as taken up recently by some Catholic authors and set before the public in printed publications.” In 1951, Pope Pius XII reiterated this teaching, warning that the “problems” of sexual education must not be “pushed aside.”

Look, we all don’t live on farms anymore, so everyday examples in nature are not as common. I get it.  I appreciate a good sex education program.  I do not mind my children learning age appropriate material (and that’s different for each child).  I also like supportive programs such as great chastity and virtue talks that are just fine for a school/group setting.  What I don’t want is anyone teaching sex and love to my children but me (or, for my boys, my husband).  Is it my favorite thing to do?  Nope, but parents need to put their big kid pants on and deal with it like the mature guides they’re supposed to be.  Parenting is not nor has it ever been about being comfortable .  Why would we ever think a teacher could do this better than we could? 

Father Ryan High School’s ‘Human Sexuality’ course

The “Human Sexuality” course taught as part of the Father Ryan High School’s Theology I and II course offers graphic images and erotic sexual details concerning male and female body parts. Some of the problems in the course include [WARNING: Explicit content.]:

Students are taught that the male and female “mature genitalia will react to sexual stimulus in a similar way.”

They are shown a picture of a spread-eagle vagina with names for every part. The picture is shown again in a test question where children have to label all the parts.

Oh yeah, this is should be done in a school setting with teens (even co-ed) and by a teacher rather than a parent who raised them.  Even better?  Yeah, let’s test them on it, too.  Please.  (Sarcasm mode off)  I don’t know how I ever made it through life without being tested. I mean, how did I ever get these kids, much less have a healthy relationship with my husband?  Miracles never cease.  (OK, sarcasm mode wasn’t completely off.)

At one point the sex-ed states: “Like the scrotum, the outer lips swell slightly with stimulation; in their stimulated state they pull back and expose the Inner Lips.”

Students are taught the pleasure points of both the male and female reproductive organs, learning about “erotic nerve endings” that react to “sexual stimulus.”

They learn about an “aroused” clitoris and average penis lengths during erection.

Because, well, you know, if you don’t know all of this in high school, how will you ever get along in life?  Yes, let’s have the teens study and contemplate this.  Ought to help at the prom.  Sigh.

At one point, the sex-ed states that the word “testes” is derived from the practice of two men swearing an oath while holding each other’s testicles.

Oh, come on.  I’m all for etymology, but doesn’t it seem like a 12-year-old boy wrote this? I mean, did they go over the etymology for all of the body parts, or just the ones that bring to mind homosexual behavior?

Students learn 10 different forms of contraception, including withdrawal, the condom, the diaphragm, spermicides, the birth control pill, the intrauterine device, birth control implant, depo-provera, tubal ligation, and vasectomy. A test question asks children to name and compare all the different methods as to how they function.

To be fair, the link given by Lifesite News skips some pages. That said, based on   statements provided in the part we saw like, “The pill can increase a woman’s chance of contracting a sexually transmitted disease (STD)”, I seriously doubt that the program went over the horrors of the more than 30 STDs that can be contracted and their horrible outcomes (most occurring to women and their children) resulting from contracting these.  I will also say that the descriptions of the forms of birth control and their possible hazards were very lacking and inaccurate.  By the way, how, exactly, do you think teens are going to use the information provided?  Hmmm?  Did the faculty ever stop to think that maybe they might use it to pick the most effective one against pregnancy?  Pregnancy, however, is not a disease.

At no point in the entire sex-ed supplement does the word “sin” appear, nor are there condemnations of the grave sexual sins of masturbation, fornication, and other sins against the virtues of chastity and modesty. Abstinence is given a passing glance and children are directed to external resources for more information on the practice.

Students are not taught how willed sexual sins cut off the life of God’s grace in the soul and jeopardizes one’s eternal salvation.

So, in other words, not only is it lacking in portraying the physical dangers of sex outside of marriage, it also skips the spiritual and moral risks.  Bravo, Diocese of Nashville.  Bravo.  Like I said, some people have engraved millstones waiting for them.

Former Texas abortion clinic owner Carol Everett has gone on record to state that the push for detailed sex-ed has its roots in the abortion business more than forty years ago where a “market for abortions” was created by getting kids interested and hooked on sex through explicit sex-education. Explicit sex-ed continues to be developed and pushed on teens by abortion giant Planned Parenthood. 

Exactly! I have researched many of the programs put into the public schools.  This one rivals those devastating programs.

Fr. Stravinskas reviewed some of the more graphic details of the curriculum, calling it “salacious.” He wondered why such details were included in a class devoted to theology. 

To those liberals reading right now and whining about the Church not liking science or sex, grow up.  You’ve just never bothered to read things like “Theology of the Body”, nor have you engaged in a natural family planning course.  The Church, as it’s always been, is on the cutting edge of science.

As part of the course, students are also given the book Growing toward Intimacy by Bob Bartlett. The book is published by Good Ground Press run by the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet in St. Paul, MN, a liberal religious order that has links on its website to pro-abortion and pro-homosexual organizations, such as Equality Now and the Matthew Shepard Foundation.

Bartlett’s book quotes often from Richard Rohr, a Franciscan priest and theologian who is deeply involved in the New Age, whose retreats involve men getting naked and leaping over fires, and who openly dissents from Church teaching on contraception, the ordination of women, and homosexuality.

A chapter of Bartlett’s book titled “Learning to Touch in America” quotes the pro-homosexual priest Rohr who states: “We seem to like or even need to be touched, to be reminded that we are alive or that we matter to one another.” Pro-family advocates have warned parents that breaking down a young person’s natural inhibition to being touched by strangers is a common grooming technique employed by sexual predators.

In Growing toward Intimacy, students also read about a counseling session for a married couple where they read that the average couple engages in 2-3 hours of sex a week. They are taught to debunk “sexual myths” involving erection, lovemaking, sexual activity, pregnancy, orgasm, climax, and masturbation. At one point students read a story about teens joking about “orgasm” and not knowing what it means. When in the story one friend admits that he does not know what the word means, another friend tells him, “Go look it up,” suggesting to the students that they can go online to look up sexual words that they are curious about. In other places, students read stories about men visiting prostitutes and teens engaging in sexual activity. The book also contains pictures of teens kissing.

Wow!  Sounds just like what I want my kids reading. Grrr…! I can’t find anything on this book. No ratings anywhere.  I did find the chapter titles so here they are for you to peruse.  They were obnoxious enough:


 1 Sex Is Not Just a Biological Need

 2 The Sexual Revolution: Who Won?

 3 An Intimate Faith, an Intimate God

 4 Two Myths About Sexuality

 5 Intimacy With Our Bodies and Ourselves

 6 The Wonder and Power of Touch

 7 Bonding

 8 Learning to Touch in America

 9 Intimacy

10 Unhealthy Patterns of Intimacy

11 Using People Hurts

12 Integrated Intimacy

13 Aphrodisiacs, Drugs, and Sex

14 But If We Really Love Each Other

15 People Who Care

My first thought is that it sounds like a “how to” book. (Actually, that’s my thought on the whole program!)   I usually avoid books published by the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet (I actually know some of them), and I really avoid anything by Richard Rohr.  HUGE red flags!  I know, Wikipedia.  That said, the footnotes are from many solid publications.  Just the quickest thing I could find with a litany of his stupidity.

Honestly, I can’t understand it.  There are so many good programs to choose from and they settle on this rubbish.

LifeSiteNews emailed Bishop Choby’s spokesperson Rick Musacchio the above details of the sex-ed that parents find problematic, asking him if the diocese still stands behind its original statement about refusing to allow parents to opt out of the sex-ed. Musacchio doubled-down on the original comment, calling the above presentation “inaccurate in subtle but important ways,” adding that the curriculum is “taught in a manner that reflects the beauty and dignity of the human person, the role of man and woman in God’s plan for married life, and the proper role of natural family planning, all in full conformity with Church teaching.”

One has to wonder if Rick saw what we saw.  The dignity of the human person is more than “Here are the parts of the body.  Here is how they are stimulated.  Here’s what happens when they are stimulated.  This protects from some STDs and these don’t.  And here is a list of birth control.”  Talk about separating the procreative and the unitive.  And, again, why would I want you to explain this to my children?!?!

‘Fighting a Goliath’

Concerned parents say they are dumbfounded at the resistance they have encountered at all levels in the exercise of their rights and duties as primary educator.

Skinner told LifeSiteNews that when parents first addressed their concerns to school administration, they were told that the school is “proud” of its curriculum and that the administration did not share the concerns raised. Parents were told that the sex-ed was “necessary” for students. They were told on various occasions that opting their children out was not an option. When parents approached Bishop Choby, a 1965 graduate of the school, with their concerns, they were unable to secure a meeting with him. 

Yeah, this is no bueno all the way around.  I don’t think we can really hang this on Bishop Choby at this point, and, hopefully, this LifesiteNews article will be the first spotlight on the people who I suspect are probably worried about attention on this.  If I were them, I’d also be worried about their jobs, because you do not want to tangle with the moms.  What were they calling us a few years back?  Grizzly moms?  I’m sorry, you just don’t get to tell some of us what your plans for our child when we disagree, and you certainly don’t tell us our rights as Catholic parents are usurped by your authority.  You shouldn’t say that anywhere, but I’m also just going to go ahead and say that you REALLY don’t do that in the south.

“We feel that we are fighting a Goliath. Everywhere we go, we’ve been roadblocked. Nobody is taking our concerns for our children’s spiritual well-being seriously. And the competent authorities seem to have no problem in overriding our rights and duties as parents,” Skinner said.

My money is on the Skinners and their friends.  Like I said, the worst thing you can do is to tick off a faithful, Catholic mother.

Parents at first asked the school to simply delete the problematic content. When the school went on to revise the curriculum (for instance, deleting the price list for contraception and changing a few of the pictures) but kept the objectionable content in, parents felt betrayed by the trust they had placed in the school. LifeSiteNews contacted school president James McIntyre and school principal Paul Davis by phone and email for comment, but did not receive a response by press time. 

Wow!  Really don’t want to see the pictures they swapped out.  Full color, maybe?  Oh, and if I were a teen, taking out the price of the contraception would really make me think twice about using it.  Yeah, that would make it all better.  Not!  Scrap it.  You take out the questionable content and you’ve pretty much done that.

“We feel like the sex-ed curriculum basically amounts to a ‘wink and a nod’ to student sexual activity, especially when the curriculum gives them an exhaustive contraception list and tests the students to make sure they know how all of them function,” Skinner said.

Yes, it does amount to that. She nailed it.  For heaven’s sake, people!  When in the heck are you going to stop the “We know you’re going to do it, so here’s how to not get caught!” Guess what?  The second they cross over that line, there will be consequences.  Spiritual, emotional, and physical consequences will occur the second they go there, no matter what you teach them.  Heck, you can even teach them that, and they might still blow it.  That said, you teach them anything to the contrary, and you are teaching them that they might just be able to get away with sin having no consequences.  Good luck with that.  If there are parents who are backing this program, you’re just complete jerks who probably haven’t taken responsibility for your own sins, or you’re just complete wimps and are more worried about what people think rather than the salvation of your own children.

“The culture at Father Ryan’s shouldn’t be the same as the anti-culture outside its doors. You can’t make saints unless you set the bar high, but when it comes to sexual morality, suddenly there is no bar,” she added. 

I like this lady. She should start a blog!

Parents are now asking that the entire sex-ed course be scrapped. They say they would prefer a program that teaches chastity, self-mastery, and abstinence — all from an authentically Catholic perspective — such as the program YOU: Life, Love, and the Theology of the Body developed by best-selling Catholic authors Jason and Crystalina Evert.

Psh.  That’s just a little too logical.  Teach self-mastery, chastity, and abstinence?!  In a Catholic school?  Who would think of that?  (Yes, heavy dose of snark toward whoever started this ridiculous plan.)

“There are so many aspects of the school that we love, but they shouldn’t teach this to our kids. It’s the parents’ right to teach their kids about such sensitive matters. We don’t want our kids seeing images of penises and vaginas. This will only corrupt them. We want the program gone,” states the group of parents.

Susan Skinner’s husband Jason agrees that the situation is regrettable.

“I have no doubt that the school is trying to do what they think is best for the students, and expect they would say the same of me for my children. I’d like to think our views of theology are similar if not identical. But when it comes to sex education, it appears we have irreconcilable differences of opinion,” he told LifeSiteNews. 

Call me jaded, but you don’t institute this crud if you’re thinking about what is best for the kids.  Sounds like someone has an agenda a mile long.  Again, I have no problem with high schoolers learning about their bodies or how they function, but I don’t agree with teaching them and encouraging them to have sex, which, sorry, is what this program is all about.  I missed the self-mastery part.  Was that in the “The Wonder Power of Touch” or “Touching in America” chapters of Bartlett’s book?

People! Did you have this education when you were in high school?  Think about it. If you did, did it help you to lead a chaste life and love the beauty of sexuality?  I was taught how to put a condom on a banana in my Catholic high school.  Yeah, that was oh so helpful for me in self-mastery, chastity, and abstinence, not to mention intimacy in marriage.  I always felt sorry my parents spent such a pretty penny for that message.  Sigh.

Now, if you parents taught you zip, don’t you think that maybe it would be a tad bit healthier to answer all the questions you had in the context of morality with your children?  Do you really think that should be left up to someone who would likely not be willing to give your kid a kidney if they needed it?  No way!  You can do this way better!

“The minimum request made of the school was to opt our children out of this material just as public schools in most states are legally required to permit. Regrettably, this minor accommodation was deemed unacceptable. I just don’t understand why the only options available are to violate our conscience or leave the school completely.  What sense does this make for either party? How is this right and just?” he said. 

I’d go as far as to say it’s a violation of Canon Law!  Seriously, you are not at the beck and call of the teachers.  They are at the parents’ beck and call and are to assist them.  They’re not there to rule the roost.

Can. 793 §1. Parents and those who take their place are bound by the obligation and possess the right of educating their offspring. Catholic parents also have the duty and right of choosing those means and institutions through which they can provide more suitably for the Catholic education of their children, according to local circumstances.

Can. 796 §1. Among the means to foster education, the Christian faithful are to hold schools in esteem; schools are the principal assistance to parents in fulfilling the function of education.

  • 2. Parents must cooperate closely with the teachers of the schools to which they entrust their children to be educated; moreover, teachers in fulfilling their duty are to collaborate very closely with parents, who are to be heard willingly and for whom associations or meetings are to be established and highly esteemed.

I’m pretty sure that the Skinners weren’t heard willingly.  They definitely don’t want your means of educating their children.

Please do the action items below.  If you aren’t heard and do not receive a favorable response, get out of your comfort zone and make your voice heard.  I don’t care if you have to paint some signs, get it done for the kids!

Action item: View the petition asking the Catholic Diocese of Nashville to support parental rights here.


Most Reverend David Choby

Bishop of Nashville

Ph: (615) 783-0761


Father Ryan High School

President James McIntyre 

Ph: (615) 383-4200


Principal Paul Davis

Full response from Diocese of Nashville’s Director of Communications Rick Musacchio to LifeSiteNews’ questions:

LSN: Why does Father Ryan insist on teaching graphic sex ed class when a number of parents object to the material?

Diocese of Nashville: Human sexuality is so fundamentally important to an individual’s identity and relationship with God that it must be taught in light of sound theological foundations. It is not sufficient to present it solely as a biological process. Presenting the material in the context of a moral theology class is most appropriate and necessary.

You should be teaching the procreative and unitive aspects of the marital act.  I must have missed the labeling of body parts in Humane Vitae, Theology of the Body, or Amoris Laetitia.  I mean, if it’s good enough for the kids…  Heck, I don’t even remember getting that list in marriage preparation, and that would have been in the context of marriage!  Then there was our NFP class.  Funny, I don’t remember it there either, and there was a boatload of information about how the human body works!

Think about it.  We are giving our high school students information we don’t even pass along to our engaged couples.  Doesn’t that seem a tad bit off to you?  Maybe I’m naïve.  Maybe I’m a prude, but despite my lack of not receiving quite as thorough an indoctrination as is being proposed for the teens of the Diocese of Nashville, I had a lot of fun learning about some of the marital embrace with my husband!  Imagine that.  Two naïve kids figured some things out all on their own and were none the worse for it.  Sarcasm aside, I’m reasonably sure that’s the case with many in my generation.  Why is it that we think we must give these kids way too much information when they shouldn’t be acting on it?

Saint John Paul II has given the Church a great gift, stressing the importance of its teachings on the sanctity of life and insisting that young adults be formed in light of these teachings. Those same imperatives are reflected in Pope Francis’ recent exhortation Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love). Presenting a clear, accurate explanation of human sexuality in the context of theology class not only helps students understand the nature of their own human identity, but also serves as the basis for an understanding of the Church’s teaching on marriage and of natural family planning.

Oh, how I’d love to use something a little stronger than hogwash, but it’ll have to do!  I have children of varying ages, and we didn’t use this lesson plan nor did we farm it out to teachers to teach our kids about sex.  You don’t get a family that values the sanctity of life more than ours, who all pretty much work year round in various aspects of the pro-life movement.  Sorry, there’s a difference between accuracy and an overly graphic (some would suggest pornographic) explanation of human sexuality.  I mean, a little common sense please.  Let’s remember the etymology of testicles.  “Yeah, peeps! It was common for men to hold each other’s’ family jewels.”  Oh, and let’s get those rulers out so we can measure…. Yeah, you get it.  

I’m reasonably sure this isn’t what either pope had in mind! What’s the tip-off? I just went through the materials for all six  units of the Pontificum Consiium pro Familia’s program “The Meeting Point” and there’s nothing even close.  It’s not a “how to” program. Guess what?  For all the flaws it may have (not debating any of that in this post), it actually mentions sin.  The only “sex” lesson I could find in it was the beautiful biology video “The Odyssey of Life” which is a digital animation of sperm reaching egg and fetal development. I’d already seen that one.  Maybe I missed it but missing were the lessons on sexual stimulation.  You’d think if that’s what they wanted to portray, they would have done it, Rick.

It is always good to regularly review materials used in our schools. Father Ryan High School reviewed its materials in light of suggestions that were brought forth by a few parents and made a number of changes in the presentation based on their suggestions.

Not enough, my diocesan spokesperson friend.  Not enough!

LSN: Why will the school not allow the parents to opt their students out the class?

Diocese of Nashville: The full curriculum taught in our schools is developed in keeping with guidelines of the USCCB, under the supervision of our local bishop, and designed to meet recognized academic standards in all subject areas. It is our policy that all students participate fully in all required classes and in any elective classes in which they choose to enroll. Theology classes are an essential element of the curriculum. 

So, you’re not usurping parental authority and making sex ed part of the required curriculum?!?  Again, way to outdo California, Diocese of Nashville.

LSN: Does the school actually hold that parents hand over their right as primary educator when they attend your school?

Diocese of Nashville: Quite to the contrary. Our schools actively engage parents as partners in the education of their children. The schools are always open to address parents questions related to any area of the curriculum and to provide materials to assist families so that they may participate fully in the education and formation of young people. We want parents to understand that the entire curriculum has been developed in conformity with Church teaching and presented by faculty committed to presenting all subject matter in keeping with those standards.

Uh, you most certainly do require parents hand over their rights if you are making sex ed required.  Asking their input and then telling them to take a flying leap is quite contrary to letting them decide what they want to teach their children in the sphere of morality.

When LifeSiteNews presented the diocese with a list of concerning material in the sex-ed course, asking if the diocese still stood by its comment, Director of Communications Rick Musacchio responded:

Diocese of Nashville: Your presentation is inaccurate in subtle but important ways. On the whole, it presents a view of the material covered in the class that is lacking in completeness and accuracy. After careful review of the materials covered in the Theology course at Father Ryan High School, the Human Sexuality curriculum is taught in a manner that reflects the beauty and dignity of the human person, the role of man and woman in God’s plan for married life, and the proper role of natural family planning, all in full conformity with Church teaching.

There’s more?! Please, no!  Can I make a suggestion?  Put your materials completely on-line for all to see.  Let’s do! Then we can ALL judge whether it teaches the subject “in full conformity with Church teaching” and the “dignity and beauty of the human person”, or if it’s just another “You’re going to fail so here’s how not to get caught”, or worse, a “how to” program.


*Parents – If you are looking for good “sex ed” material, go to one of the many Catholic homeschool curriculum sites or Catholic Answers for good resource suggestions.