Loading ...
While on our field trip to Ithaca College last weekend, Iacobus and I found a lovely informational pamphlet prepared by the Diocese of Rochester and written by a “contemplative nun”: Talking with your 6-8 year old about HIV/AIDS. Why the Chaplaincy at Ithaca College offers this particular pamphlet, I have no idea - but Iacobus and I were both horrified.
Apparently, the State of New York mandates an HIV/AIDS “education” for each grade. The pamphlet explains: “In grades K-3, a public school AIDS/HIV curriculum would not differ greatly from a Catholic perspective. Emphasis is on developing attitudes, knowledge and behavior that contribute to self-worth, respect for the body and good decision-making skills.” That’s wonderful.
The pamphlet also has suggestions of “activities/strategies for the home”. My favorite is the first:
Using wrapping paper, trace the outline of your child’s body to create “The Wonderful Paper Me.” Invite your child to label various parts of the body and what they can do with that part. Display the “Wonderful Paper Me” as a reminder that God has given us our bodies to enjoy life by using our gifts and giving our love to help others.
Rarely does the Diocese of Rochester fail to impress me. We also found there a prayer card for the Ithaca College Catholic Community, with some modernist image of a sun and dove on it, which begins thus: “O Divine Gift-giver, I stand beneath the endless waterfall of your abundant gifts to me. . . .” Doubtless, they looked long and hard for one with the gift of poetry to write that line.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
The following is a personal reflection:
This form of “teaching” has always led me to believe that the authors of such think Catholics are stupid.
And in fact…many Catholics are. I think these “teachers” are aware of this; thus, they actually take advantage of Catholics’ ignorance and use it to promote views that fundamentally deny the teaching magisterium of the Church and encourage modernism. They do it subtly because if they went full bore they would get caught. That is how modernists work…check out Pope Pius X’s “On the Doctrine of The Modernists.”
Since someone may comment that I should give reasons; here are some. I think the fundamental problems with the “Paper Me” are:
1) The emphasis appears to be on the “eros” love which I believe is inappropriate for 6-8 year olds. The emphasis should be exclusively focused on the “agape” love (willing the good of the other regardless of enjoyment) which is the basis of our judgment. JPII even stated that “agape” love is what sanctifies “eros” or erotic love:
“This love has been called ‘agape’ and agape brings the eros to completion by purifying it” (General Audience, June 6, 1984).
2) The proper understanding of “agape” love is that it does not always result in enjoyment (mentioned above). Jesus states:
“But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same? So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:44-48).
3) The means to which one loves another is not achieved through reflection on oneself; rather, it is acheived by looking outside oneself. Authentic “agape” love starts and ends with the other.
I was doing some looking into the new Encyclical of the Holy Father. I would like to add that:
“On the other hand, man cannot live by oblative, descending [agape] love alone. He cannot always give, he must also receive. Anyone who wishes to give love must also receive love as a gift. Certainly, as the Lord tells us, one can become a source from which rivers of living water flow (cf. Jn 7:37-38). Yet to become such a source, one must constantly drink anew from the original source, which is Jesus Christ, from whose pierced heart flows the love of God (cf. Jn 19:34)” (Deus Caritas Est, December 25, 2005).
It is clear that love extended must come from the original source; that is God. Reflecting on body parts is to me reducing this theological virtue of love. After all, a body part is not able to love. And authentic love combines the dimensions of “eros” and “agape” in a total self-giving of the person, not a body part!
My goodness! Aren’t we reading an awful lot into this little activity? The children will probably have noticed by age 8 that they are corporeal beings; I don’t think you’ll destroy their ability to ever love correctly by addressing that fact.
And as far as primary education goes, I was educated in Boulder Valley Public Schools, an ideal breeding ground for modernists, awash in political correctness, and I don’t recall anything objectionable about bodies/AIDS/sex being taught to me in the early grades. We mainly talked about our five senses, and other such innocent subjects. Oh, and we also watched one of the “good and bad touching” movies every year, which seem to have been done reasonably well. I remember my teacher telling us, “If you have no idea what this movie is talking about, then just don’t worry about it. It’s not aimed at you. If you do want to talk to me after the movie, stay behind a few minutes at recess.”
I could see that the films were getting at something, but I couldn’t figure out what it was, so I took her advice and didn’t give them another thought. On the whole we got through school pretty safely, at least until middle school when they started preaching the virtues of “safe, protected sex.” What’s the worry here?
Clara, you’re not failing to condemn “The Wonderful Paper Me” as a grand tool of Freemasonic, modernist conquest, are you??
John Boy and everyone else here were in lock-step until you brought in this dissenting opinion in favor of the “The Wonderful Paper Me.”
; ))
I humbly submit to your more finely tuned sensibilities. All I’m saying is that I don’t quite get it.
Hey I came back to see I’ve moderately incited some comments; always a pleasure.
I think in all honesty Clara does have a point…and yes I was reading in on things.
The bottom line here, though, is that the methodology or concept of using body parts to love others needs to be further clarified. This is because you may use body parts to do things that are objectively wrong but are means for enjoyment (but look at all the folks saying “I love him/her” and they make use of body parts immorally). Teaching a child to base his/her concept of love on using body parts is to me (in the words of Simon Cowell on “American Idol”) “completely and utterly horrible.”
Ok, last one; take it as a joke:
Clara seems justify the “Wonderful Paperman heresy” on the basis of the child’s innocence…
“Rarely does the Diocese of Rochester fail to impress me.” —Iosephus
That’s even more funny.
OOPS!
“Clara seems [to] justify the “Wonderful Paper [Me] heresy” on the basis of the child’s innocence…
Censor me!
M. troll,
It’s not worth the effort. It’s rather pathetic, in fact, that you feel the need to attempt to vandalize a dumb internet blog of people whom you claim to disdain.
aw c’mon. come out and play.
Delete me.