Tomasz Terlikowski became active in defending wellness education. She tries to convince Catholics that there is nothing incorrect with her. We're disputing his arguments.
Minister of Education Barbara Nowacka, defending her wellness education project, recalled the name of writer Tomasz Terlikowski. She stated that since specified a “conservative Catholic” as he found nothing incorrect with the program, there is no reason to protest.
The fact is that Tomasz Terlikowski is very powerfully active in introducing wellness education to Polish schools. The writer has already described this in various media, criticizing everyone who has serious allegations for this education. The problem is that Terlikowski does not appear in this case as a ‘conservative Catholic’, but as an apologist of liberal politics that tramples Catholicism. He besides uses a series of half-truths.
Terlikowski's articles on this subject can be found on his Facebook profile. I find no pleasance in discussing them; but since the thing functions in public space as a "conservative Catholic voice", it must be corrected.
What's the problem?
- Terlikowski says that the inclusion of masturbation (self-sex behavior) as a medical standard in the wellness education program is not a problem, due to the fact that it is referred to as specified in intellectual studies. “[...]in secret, I will tell terrified parents that he learns it in psychology departments besides at Catholic universities,” he wrote. We're dealing with a serious logical mistake here. Terlikowski equates teaching about masturbation as a medical standard in universities with teaching in primary school. The point is that universities give certain claims to modern learning to adults, and in school they talk in a simplified way to children. Composing 1 with another without differentiation on circumstantial content and age of the recipient is simply completely manipulative.
- The author argues that Polish children in any case frequently lead an immoral lifestyle from a Catholic perspective. He claims that children undertake premarital sex etc. Therefore, giving children sexual information at school can only help. "The sexualization of our children is not done by lessons, even specified ones, but by pornography, seduction and grooming, by irresponsible relationships. And it is to defend them from it," he writes. This is both generalisation and simplification. First of all, the fact that any children and young people commit moral offences – from a Catholic position – does not mean that everyone does it. The effort to deal with the pathology of the norm, even if it is comparatively common, is unordered. any parents cope with the upbringing of their children and the effort to face these children with sexual issues on a permissive basis (because that is Nowack's program) is depraved of what is pure. Even though a tiny number of moral students are not allowed to do so. Secondly, if children face immorality, they request to be explained that... that is immorality. The Nowacka program, on the another hand, does not depict sexual behaviour outside matrimony as a bad thing. He accepts them widely. We are so faced with an effort to “treat” 1 pathology another. Finally, thirdly, Terlikowski ignores the fundamental difference. If a kid commits a moral offense against the will of his parents, the division into good and evil, virtue and sin remains clear. If at school he hears that the extramarital sexual relation is fine – we are dealing with a blackout of this division. It's virtually perversion of moral order – and that is the essence of the problem with education Nowackabut Terlikowski does not even notice.
- The publicist claims that there is no problem with presenting sex content to children, specified as cisperity, transgenderity etc. “What is incorrect with showing children that people are different? They already know it," Terlikowski writes. Author Again completely ignores the Catholic perspective, in which specified phenomena are of course present as a certain fact, but are clearly assessed as a disorder of appropriate order. After all, Nowacka's school is not about presenting occasional problems of identity, but about presenting it as a average thing and 1 of the "paths of development" of human sexuality. Terlikowski suggests that if children inactive see LGBT people around them, they can hear that this is average at school...
- TErlikowski cites Pope Francis and his words from the Apostolic Adhortation “Amoris laetitia” of 2016, where the Holy Father wrote that the Catholic Church is not opposed to sexual education. He wrote on this subject rather generally, pointing out "healthy modesty," rejecting the presentation of contraception as "defence" before procreation, pointing out that sexuality is to be presented as a "gift of itself that will express itself after marriage." Terlikowski writes that – note – the MEN programme "in the vast majority meets these criteria". Francis so allows sexual education based on the perfect of Catholic marriage, and Terlikowski believes that Nowack's program – with transgenderism, homosexuality, contraception, abortion, masturbation and without matrimony – meets these criteria. It comments on itself...
- In 1 of his texts, the author commented on Nowacka's program: "It is not a language or a Catholic mindset, but... it is worth to be aware that Polish society is changing and there is no reason for Christian values (very narrowly understood) to be the only component shaping education." That's the problem. Terlikowski believes that since part of the society is not Catholic, Catholics should accept that their children will be forced to face non-Catholic content about sexuality. This shows, as in the palm of the hand, that for a publicist, it is not the teaching of the Church that determines education, but alternatively "pluralism" of liberal society. So much for the alleged Catholicism of his reflection.
I am not amazed that Barbara Nowacka referred to Tomasz Terlikowski as “a conservative Catholic”. She may have specified memories about his erstwhile activities, and above all – it is convenient for her. His commitment to wellness education simply gives a good pad to revolutionaries who can invoke support from any Catholics.
In Terlikowski's publications on this subject, however, there is nothing from Catholic conservatism, and there is small even from Catholicism, apart from emphasising the protection of life. We are dealing with dressing up in Catholic feathers to convince people to accept liberal communicative and thus fill Catholic minds with completely different content. It's a pure water subversion: trying to keep the old name while completely replacing what's inside.
Catholic is what remains faithful to the teachings of the Church – including bishops in Poland – and not what this or another liberal publicist announces. Giving children's upbringing into the hands of those who think about sexuality in permissive terms is – as the Episcopate pointed out – a grave evil. In the end, it is not only whether the kid is “worried” by any content or not (although it is important); it is whether the activity and action will be presented to him as good or bad. The church calls evil what liberalism calls good. There is no consent here and a choice must be made.
Liberal publicist Tomasz Terlikowski has already chosen, according to his conviction. But let us choose the teaching of the Church.
Paweł Chmielewski
