Rudnick said in his article, and on the magazine’s podcast, that his goal in creating “Sister Act” was to “subvert the Catholic Church.” As only he can explain, “The script called for actresses of all shapes and ages, although the Disney executives still squabbled over which nuns should be ‘f***able.’”
Rudnick: “I wanted “Sister Act” to be a satire of sugary family perennials like “The Sound of Music,” “The Singing Nun,” “The Flying Nun,” and such parochial-school romps as “The Trouble with Angels” and its sequel, “Where Angels Go… Trouble Follows.” These mainstream nun movies were full of sage, older nuns who, after offering their wisdom, would die serenely off camera; with younger guitar-strumming “rebel” nuns, sometimes riding Vespas; and with feisty novices, who either had to be broken, via missionary work, or farmed out to the von Trapp compound… My plan was for “Sister Act” to subvert this sort of prissy up-lift. I wanted out heroine, Terri Van Cartier [sic], to embody raunch, sex, and the unstoppable gospel of cheap show-biz. It would be pop verses Pope; and pop in a barrage of sequins, wisecracks, and Marlboro Lights, would win.”
Title: The Politics of Pleasure in Sexuality EducationThe inclusion of pleasure and desire have been important in the vision for sexuality education for the past 20 years (Fine, 1988; Kehily, 2002; Rasmussen, Rofes, Talburt, 2004; Allen, Rasmussen and Quinlivan, 2014). This Keynote talk continues this conversation by exploring young people’s interest and ideas about incorporating pleasure within sexuality education at school. Drawing on data from focus groups and survey methods young people highlight some of the challenges facing this topic as a curricula component. Participants felt sexual pleasure was relevant to their lives and displayed a significant interest in receiving this information provided it was delivered in a particular format. Responses provide insights into some of the politics which surround the inclusion of pleasure in sexuality education. Taking into account young people’s perspectives this paper encourages an acknowledgement and interrogation of these politics and their implications for what gets ‘taught’ as pleasure in sexuality programmes.
An International Symposium: Moving Forward: Identities, sexting, schooled bodies, and the curriculum that frames us -London, Ontario -May 2016
An International Symposium: Moving Forward: Identities, sexting, schooled bodies, and the curriculumthat frames us -London, Ontario -May 22-25, 2016
The content of sexuality education provision is a contested topic internationally, with various sectors of the government, NGO’s, parents, community groups, teachers, schools and young people often in sharp disagreement about what sexuality education should aim to cover and do. This international level of contestation is apparent in recent curricular developments to the Health and Physical Education curriculum (2015) in Ontario, Canada and has provoked a public outcry and in some cases, rallies to protest the revisions to the curriculum. In light of a public discomfort toward these curriculum revisions, and in relation to wider educational and sexuality debates that may
shed light on recent events, the organizers (Dr. Michael Kehler-Western University, Ontario, Canada and Dr. Jessica Ringrose-University College London, Institute of Education, London, UK) are hosting an International Symposium:
Moving Forward, at the Faculty of Education, London, Ontario, Canada, May 22-25, 2016.
In the upcoming International Symposium researchers, teachers, and social agencies are invited to attend and submit proposals in a research-based series of conversations about the experiences of designing, delivering, navigating, responding to, revising, and researching sexualities and sexuality education curriculum.
Compulsory heterosexuality as it has been termed is often the unspoken backdrop of sex education curriculum based on reducing ‘parts and plumbing’ ‘risks’ around reproduction and disease. In this forum we, like others, challenge this configuration and seek contributions from those exploring the processes and challenges of delivering sexuality education curriculum that effectively includes for example, LGBTQI issues. We invite contributions that consider the wider range of topics that relate to and shape the content, delivery and nature of sexuality education in schools in
the context of the current awareness of non-binary gender and widespread transformations of understandings of sexualities and sexual cultures.
This event acknowledges youth identities and the ‘missing discourse of desire’ (particularly for girls) (Fine, 1998).
We seek to open up a dialogue that “constitutes young people as sexual subjects with the capacity for, and right to, positive experiences of sexual desire and pleasure” (Allen, 2004, p. 152)
We invite abstract submissions that address as starting points this range of suggested topics on sexuality education, although topics are not limited to this brief list:
–Feminism and gender equality in sexuality education -Health and Physical Education, pedagogy
-Rape culture and lad culture -Producing/disrupting/interrogating
heteronormativity across youth throughcurricula
-Dress codes and sexual harassment in school policy and practice -Schools as site for the (re)production of sexual identities
-LGBTQI and non-binary identities, Embodiment and experiencesat school
-Sexting, technology and youth identities
-Sexuality education and non-binary sex/gender -Sexual surveillance and violence of/against youth
-Digital technology and youth sexual cultures -Sexual subjectivities, religion, morality
-Youth voice, desire and pleasure –The “myth of childhood innocence”
-Adolescent, youth bodies, school bodies, body image -Negotiated parental, familial, school responsibilities of sexuality education
-Bodies and the curriculum that names and frames youth -Teacher’s challenges with curriculum contentand delivery at school
-Competing/antagonistic discourses of youth sexual identities
PS: stand-by for a future post on this international organization:
Remember, the ICE resources (as bad as they are), only provide a little commentary and supplementary material to the basic Wynne/Scandals/BenLevin sex ed. OPHEA is the main provider of actual lesson plans. The “catholic” school boards are paying members of OPHEA.
Apparently, saying boys and girls is too “gendered”. The children will learn about people with penises and people with vaginas! Grade 5s!
Why was Boyle replaced? Who made the decision? Why the secrecy? How much is Pemberton costing?
The poor history of the OCSB “Christian” community day continues. In past years, they have spend $50-70K on a half day conference (ends around 1:15pm on a Friday) and they always have a dissident speaker.
This fall (2016), it is will be Fr Greg Boyle, who supports so-called gay marriage, gay adoption and “women priests” (infallibly declared impossible by the Church)
They are partnering with a $10,000/yr basketball academy to being it to Notre Dame NDHS. How many of the academy kids will be Catholic? 10%? 20% Are ANY of the Academy execs practising Catholics? Why did the OCSB press release no mention the promotion of the Catholic faith once?
2. When demanding an exemption from CARFLEO/OECTA Religion classes, please remember to include the notice that no admin, teacher or guidance counsellor should talk in any way to your child about this matter. This is only a matter between parent and Principal. In fact, regardless of whether your child takes religion class or not, goes to Public or “catholic” school, a note should be sent to the Principal etc (and kept on file) that there should be NO meetings with any guidance counsellor and child without a parent present.
Guidance counsellors are often “attack vectors” that divide a parent and child. We have heard several stories about this and felt the need to warn parents.
A few year ago, several OCSB high schools would use social media to announce their presence at the March for Life. Usually, some of the schools would send 5-15 students. A poor showing.
This year, St Matthew’s was the only school tweeting about the events. We give high praise the 11 students for going! You are wonderful!!
But, 11 students out of 1000 children? 0.1%!?
There are over 15,000 OCSB high school students. Hundreds of them go to see pro-abort Justin at We Day. But March for Life?? Almost nil.
OECTA had their retirement dinner gala last night – at the same time as the Prolife Rose dinner with the Archbishop and others.
St Peter’s had their Oscars evening – at the same time as the Youth Prolife Gala dinner
SPK Teacher Scott Searle (of sending children to Ohio to campaign for Obama fame) and Dr Joe “Chaplain” left for a field trip with children to Boston. Last year, Dr Joe was busy with a “Diversity Day”. The Year before was the Cantley Can drive. March for Life always seems to coincidentally conflict with something. hmmm
All in all, a dismal prolife showing by the Ottawa “Catholic” school board.
Yes! Camp Micah is a welcoming and inclusive community that values and celebrates diversity. Gender neutral washrooms are found throughout camp. We have gender neutral sleeping spaces available. We are dedicated to being a positive and safe space for every participant.
Many of the MPs either attended Catholic school or their children attended Catholic school including Charlie Angus, Anthony Rota and Todd Doherty.
Filomena Tassi is a past board member of both St. Joseph’s Hospital and the Catholic Youth Organization, and she also served as a Catholic School trustee. Filomena was also the recipient of the 2010 Brian Halferty Award – presented by the Catholic School Chaplains of Ontario (CSCO) for exemplary service.
Charlie Angus, with his wife, ran a Catholic Worker House for the homeless in Toronto during the 1980s. Terry Sheehan has more than 20 years of involvement with the Huron-Superior Catholic School Board in Ste. Sault Marie.
Did the CCSTA use their time with MPs to appeal for unborn babies? sick people near the end of life? Nope. It was back-slapping rah-rahs all around to keep the CINO (Catholic in Name only) schools gravy train going.
Remember this when you march for Life on Thursday. The CCSTA are not your allies!
Even though ICE provides some Catholic “commentary” on sex ed, the fundamental sex ed curriuculum is the same for public and “catholic” schools and OPHEA provides the teaching tools and resources. OPHEA is funded by public and catholic boards
Heather has developed over 40 resources for H&PE, and was involved in the development of Ophea’s Human Development and Sexual Health lesson plans, which were developed in consultation with H&PE curriculum consultants, educators representing public and Catholic schools from urban and rural regions of Ontario and through the engagement of subject matter experts and community partners representing public health and community health organizations.
Who was engaged in the development of Ophea’s HD&SH units?
The HD&SH lesson plans were developed in consultation with school board H&PE curriculum consultants, and educatorsrepresenting public and Catholic schools from urban and rural regions of Ontario. In addition, community partnersrepresenting public health organizations, community health as well as topic experts (such as The Sex Information& Education Council of Canada [SIECCAN], Planned Parenthood Toronto, and CAMH Health Promotion Resource Centre) were engaged in the development and review of all materials.
“The first thing would be to familiarize themselves with the new curriculum,” suggests Gérald Pezet, an H&PE teacher with a French Catholic school board. The HD&SH component of the H&PE curriculum includes a wide range of topics and concepts; from sexual development, reproductive health, choice, sexual readiness, consent, abstinence and protection, to interpersonal relationships, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, gender roles and expectations, affection and pleasure and body image.ii “Of course, they could also go on the Ophea Teaching Tools website and access the lesson plans so they aren’t reinventing the wheel,” Pezet adds.
Check out the video below (particularly from 5-13mins). Contraception toolbox, genderbread man, etc
Remember: The curriculum is the SAME in both public and “catholic” schools.
2015: Liz Sandals: The curriculum is the same in public schools and Catholic schools—this is the Ontario curriculum. In the case of the Catholic schools, they also do a lot of curriculum development through an organization called ICE, which is the Institute for Catholic Education, and that’s the Catholic teachers, the Catholic principals, the Catholic directors—it’s all the stakeholders in the Catholic education system. The Bishops are represented there too. So we work with ICE on the development of their curriculum. They will make some components of the curriculum part of their family life course.
In terms of (what) your parents would want to know, the Catholic trustees, the Catholic teachers, the Catholic principals, the Catholic directors have all been quite supportive of the curriculum.
Liz Sandals has also said this:
2015: ” that while the Catholic school system will be able to provide “commentary” on the government-mandated sex-ed through its own family life program, it won’t be allowed to change anything and must “deliver” the sex-ed as written.”
It is a well written document – almost as good as Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality: Guidelines for Education within the Family (December 8, 1995) (TMHSGE)
It quotes Veritatis Splendor, talks about natural law, sin, gender dysphoria, Theology of the Body, Courage apostolate, COLF, etc etc.
Some brief independent quotes:
“Understanding gender as a mere social construct, thus, proves deeply incomplete and dissatisfying. It is imprecise and misleading, and does not express accurately how the various dimensions of the human person are integrated in the work of human growth.”//
As the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith firmly and rightly notes: “Departure from the Church’s teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral.” Continuing, the Letter acknowledges the fundamental importance of this guiding vision: “Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral.” In essence, these are but the words of Christ himself, who said: “You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (John 8:32).
Ultimately, we speak of persons experiencing a same-sex attraction, or persons who are navigating questions of gender or sexual identity. In the developmental stage of adolescence in particular, these experiences may be episodic or transient. They may also persist past adolescence. Speaking of “sexual orientation” or founding a person’s identity in labels such as transgender in the adolescent stage of development is therefore particularly problematic and should be avoided. Not only does it fail to reflect the possibility of episodic or transient same-sex feelings or gender confusion that can accompany this period of human development, but, more generally, it tends, in a manner similar to all labels and categories, to reduce the human person to one exclusive characteristic.
Sadly, the ICE documents do NOT follow the Bishops’ document at all. They simply say that OHRC definition of gender ID is different than ours. The Bishops calls what the govt believes to be imprecise and misleading (ie WRONG). Why won’t the ICE and the school boards teach that it is wrong and why? They are not teaching our children the truth!
Read the Bishops’s statement and then the Fully Alive document and you will see how dissatisfying the ICE document is. As well, we know the Fully Alive document is only commentary and the actual curriculum is from Wynne/Scandals/BenLevin. It is even worse.
And CARFLEO supports the GenderBread model for teaching and OECTA marches in Gay Pride parades.
Although the Bishops wrote a good document, it is not worth the paper it is written on – ICE/OECTA/CARFLEO/Wynne have come up with actual teaching documents that totally contradict the Bishops’ document. The souls of our children are in grave danger.
Bratina is a Liberal MP who has promised to vote against any prolife bills in Parliament.
He supports abortion so much he voted for a Hamilton city council motion to try to take away free speech rights from prolifers. Pesky photos of aborted preborn babies are so problematic. Apparently Bratina has no problems of holocaust photos or graphic photos on cigarette packs. But dismembered fetuses is too much for him.