LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

From Robert Davies re common-law unions (March '99)

I agree with Father Christensen's research into common-law relationships, that ignorance of the Catholic faith is a main culprit. The young know nothing about the cardinal virtues of temperance and chastity. I myself was forced to resign from teaching a Catholic Sunday school program for wanting to devote one period to the Old Testament Joseph's example of a chaste life. (Joseph went to prison rather than accept being seduced by Potiphar's beautiful wife.)

There is ample evidence to support the Church. Recent findings by Statistics Canada support the Church and Holy Matrimony and the idea of commitment.

The study explains that 20% of all births in 1993-94 were to common-law families, an increase of 10% from ten years earlier. It confirms that "growing trends in divorce, remarriage, and the choice not to marry at all (common-law) mean that the children followed in the study will experience changes in their family environment of unprecedented proportions as a result of their parents' changing relationships....This is significant because common-law relationships break up more quickly than marriages even when there are children."

Compare a 12% break-up average after ten years for married couples with children with the 63% break-up average after ten years for common-law couples with children (see Globe and Mail, August 13, 1998).

Common-law relationships with children break up five times more often than marriages with children. This fact should help young Catholics realize that, although the couple has the civil choice to live common-law, it is a sin and this sin has dire consequences for the couple and especially for their children.

No matter how friendly the break-up of any relationship is, the children suffer emotionally and develop school problems. Children of parents who break up, especially in the formative years, grow up to earn less in salaries, to have more problems with addictions, to suffer from significantly more emotional problems, and to experience higher rates of divorce or common-law break-up.

Statistics Canada has said it quite plainly. Father Christensen has said it quite plainly from the Church's point of view. Who says that science and faith are in conflict! Meanwhile, blessed are those who hunger and thirst for what is right: they shall be satisfied.

Curry's Corner, Nova Scotia 

From Richard Hudon re sex-ed vulgarity

I really feel for Deacon Daniel Dauvin of Killaloe concerning sex-ed in our Catholic schools (Letters, April '99, p. 7).

When my youngest daughter reached Grade 5 and my oldest was in Grade 8, I had a similar experience with sex-ed at St. Paul Elementary French Catholic School, one of the largest elementary schools in the Ottawa Valley, with over 600 children in attendance.

Both of my girls would often come home and comment to my wife, to me, or to their "baby-sitting" grandmother: "The teacher told us we should not tell you about this. She said that you're out of touch with modem education and would not understand and probably get angry for nothing. I think that this is wrong, so I am telling you anyway."

After hearing this for the fourth or fifth time and realising the enormity of what was being done, I realised that we were facing a crisis of education in our lives. My children were being taught details about sexuality and violence, worse than on TV, and all in the name of "sensitising" them to the many sexually-transmitted diseases and of learning to adapt to the times.

I took a few days' annual leave from work and marched myself to my girls' school. I obtained a meeting with the principal, and with my girls' teachers. I explained to each one that what they were teaching was anti-Catholic and perverse. I informed them that it was my right and my duty, as a Catholic parent, to intervene, and that they would be brought to court if they did not stop teaching their garbage.

I firmly told them that if they could not teach morality according to the magisterium, they should stay away from the subject. I even had to explain to them what the word "magisterium" meant.

They stopped all sex-ed programs. One teacher, who had been previously intimidated by the others, put his Rosary back up on the wall. A few teachers who were "living in sin" quit the school within a week. A number of others began doing some serious Catholic reading and teaching.

High school was much more difficult. To my astonishment, when my oldest daughter reached Grade 12, a similar scenario was enacted. This time, they were waiting for me and simply laughed it off, calling me all sorts of strange words, many of which I did not even understand. They also began to lower my girls' grades.

In desperation, I moved both of them to another school (non-Catholic) and also moved my taxes there as well.

I thought that I had the last laugh. Those had to be the worst days of my life. The trauma of having to accept their barbs and having to continuously monitor their teachers, along with my intensive pro-life work, ended up as what my doctor called a "burnout". I was exhausted, had no more friends, and it seems that I had won nothing. Despite my efforts, both my daughters had been thoroughly paganised by the school system. Neither of them, now adults, go to church or say any prayers. My youngest is now the single mother of a two-and-a-half-year-old boy. I think I am slowly dying of a broken heart! ... Something's wrong here, isn't it?

Gloucester, ON

From Kate Daffern re the conundrum of Catholic education

We hardly need reminding that the Catholic school system in Ontario has had its share of troubles of recent years. Many feel that the true "Catholicity" in education depends to a great extent on the visible presence of that quality in the educators.

As part of an effort to address this concern, the Ontario Catholic School Trustees Association (OCSTA) produced the document Witnesses to Faith (Oct. 1997), setting out the expectations which they have of those persons (themselves included) involved in the education system. The basic tenets of this document are that Catholic educators should not only be professionally competent, but should also give witness to the Gospel through the visible intergration of their faith and their lives.

However, on February 10 of this year, the then-president of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association (OECTA), Marshall Jarvis, sent out a memo to his members to the effect that Witnesses to Faith was a "tremendously intrusive" document. Expectations such as "that they (Catholic educators) continue to be in communion with and participate in the life of the Church, not having left it explicitly or implicitly," are described as "idealistic." OECTA members are further apprised that "non-conformers" may be subjected to a tribunal of trustees, a body referred to by Mr. Jarvis as "quasi-judicial" and "a return to the Inquisition." All OECTA members were advised to eschew not only "any form of involvement in proceedings under the Witnesses to Faith document as such may be prejudicial to your rights" but also "not to be involved in the development of the Witnesses to Faith policy of the school board." Teachers and other OECTA members who dig their heels in and follow this advice can rely on full union suppor t if there are problems with the school boards in this respect.

One may be forgiven for wondering how the separate schools of Ontario can expect to retain their "catholicity" if the teachers' union not only presents the trustees' document in a negative light but also directs its members to actively avoid involvement in any policies relating to it. In the past year OECTA and OCSTA found themselves on opposite sides for most of the Bill 160 conflict. Many parents feel that now is the time for some healing to start among the participants in Ontario Catholic education. The Witnesses to Faith document sets out criteria for Catholic educators which would give parents the reassurance that their children's teachers will cooperate with the home in passing on the faith to the students. One wonders exactly what is the OECTA leadership's problem.

Thornhill, ON

From Hugh Ballantyne re schools

A recurring theme in Catholic Insight is the urgent need to fight for the preservation of our Catholic schools. What planet are you living on? There are no Catholic schools in either Quebec or Ontario. We lost them long ago. We have institutions called "catholic schools." They should be rebuked, both by the bishops and by you.

Fergus, ON

Editor: We are not giving up just yet. See article "OECTA: leaping toward apostasy?", pages 16-19.

From the Diocese of Prince George, BC, re an eyewitness account of a liturgy:

Father... held a communal reconciliation service last night which has to be the most "creative" one he has come up with yet. In the past, we have been asked to step forward as we do at Communion, and tell the priest one single fault. He then annointed our palms with oil and sent us on our way. But this one was even better. On Sunday, Father explained that all sacraments are meant to be celebrated in the midst of, and with the assistance of, the "community". He then went on to explain that we always have our families present for baptism, First Communion, marriage, etc., and that it is appropriate for us to "celebrate the sacrament of reconciliation as families." Can't really argue with that. We always go as a family. Apparently, though, he meant this quite literally. Last night, Father encouraged entire families to come forward to receive the sacrament. That is, he wanted family members to confess their sins in front of all the members of their family, to be reconciled with their families first, and then with God. Can you imagine? I don't know about you, but I hardly think that I could be very truthful and forthcoming in my confessions if my kids were listening in. I asked (my child) how he/she would feel about such an arrangement, and he/she said, "No way!"

Name withheld

From Giuseppe Gori, leader of FCP party, on culture of death and hypocrisy

The culture of death, evoked in America by violent and pornographic shows and videos, by the atrocity of partial birth abortion (specifically wanted by Bill Clinton), and by the use of violence and war sanctioned by the state, has again manifested its ugly face in a tragedy in a "normal" neighbourhood near Denver.

I would like to point out the hypocrisy of Mr. Clinton in quoting St. Paul and asking people to pray for the victims of the massacre. It is he who denies children the right to recite Christian prayers in schools. It is he who leads the attack on morals and family principles, the only safety net that helps prevent teen-age violence.

How long will he continue to use the media to fool the people?

Acton, ON

From W.J. Ottenbreit on FCP and Reform

The editor's comments about the Family Coalition Party (April 1999) prompt serious reflection. Both that editorial and the Reform Party's success in the past federal election make it timely for pro-family supporters to decide whether they ought also to support this party.

Some say that while Reform may be commendable in certain respects (e.g., many of its candidates state pro-life convictions), its stipulation that MPs must vote according to the expressed will of their constituents leaves doubt about how "family-friendly" it really is. Others believe that Reform is a real hope for the Canadian pro-family movement.

First and most important, Reform is viable. It is the first "third party" to serve as the federal opposition. Sound policies are more important than viability, but without a supportive government to carry them out, our political efforts will not go far.

Second, Reform appeals to what is good in all Canadians. Canada is not a Christian nation, perhaps never has been. It would be unjust to lay upon non-Christians the disciplines of Christianity. But all Canadians were created by God and instilled with a knowledge of natural law; this they can be called to observe.

Third, Reform shows potential to be a good government. Its policies already support the family (e.g., tax reform for families, denial of special "rights" for homosexual persons). They will have a broad base of support.

Also, referendums force voters to accept responsibility for their decisions. If there had been a referendum on abortion 30 years ago, it might have been accepted, but we would have seen our very real culpability. It is important that things be seen as they really are.

The Reform practice allows us to move away from the dictatorship of party, while retaining the benefit of a party in gathering together those of like mind. The problems in this nation cannot be fixed by legislation alone. For one thing, they require structural changes, some of which Reform already advances. For another, each Canadian must be touched by true family values.

With hard work by committed individuals across Canada, the next federal election should see a Reform government.

Calgary, AB