Bishop Calls Current Sex-ed Program Poison
Daily Gleaner | Readers' Forum Feb 25, 2005

Note: The following is an edited version of a letter sent to Premier Bernard Lord.

Dear Editor:

I wish to express my solidarity with the many parents who have expressed serious concerns about the new program of sex education for middle school children.

I believe the best interest of children would not be served if your government were to bypass these concerns.

Parents are always the primary educators of children. If there is disagreement between a government or even professionals with parents, the views of parents should take priority.

Young people need education in human sexuality, which is God's sacred gift. Parents should provide that education, but schools, as well as the church, can complement that education. But
not every school sex education program is suitable. Some can do more harm than good.

I have followed the recent debate about the new program. I wish to call attention to a number of misconceptions therein. One is that parents opposed to the new program are opposed to sex education period. That simply is untrue. The objection is to this particular program. No one wants to keep children in the dark about the facts of life.

A second misconception is that these parents are only the "vocal few." The program's defenders repeatedly claim that most parents support the program. Yet the only evidence they
offer is a survey in which the responding parents knew nothing about the program in fact it did not even exist. The argument is a classic non sequitur and a misrepresentation of parental
opinion. Numerous community meetings have attested how widespread opposition really is.

A third misconception is that the program only teaches the facts of life. Few realize how personal the program can be, delving into the sexual experiences of the student and even his or
her family. Privacy guidelines are non-existent.

A fourth misconception is that the program promotes abstinence. Telling boys and girls that if they have oral sex or masturbate one another it's "safe sex" is not most people's idea of promoting abstinence.

A fifth misconception is that the more children this age know about all manner of sexual behaviour the better. Today's media saturate everyone, to the point of squalor, with sexual knowledge. Is that our educational model now?

A sixth misconception is that the most controversial material is out of harm's way, in the teacher's resource manual rather than the curriculum each child follows. There is no guarantee
such material will not be used in class, and it's likely it will. If even one teacher uses it, it is too much.

A seventh misconception is that there is no reasonable alternative. There is: character-based sex education. This type of approach is not just about saying "no." It is about the formation of healthy character, which involves the integration of reason and emotion as Aristotle long ago explained. It deals with the why of sex, not just the how.

A final misconception is that parents can opt out of sex education. There is no provision whatever for informed, written consent for a matter of the greatest sensitivity. Parental rights are violated.

Young people need sex education. But not this program, however well intended it may be. Unless it is withdrawn, I am convinced it will act like poison in children's lives, robbing them of respect for themselves and others.

Most Rev. J. Faber MacDonald
Bishop of Saint John