SSPX School in Canada Respects All Sexual Orientations


From p. 45 of the policy handbook for the SSPX’s St. John Bosco School in Calgary, Canada:

"To ensure that all members of the school community work together in an atmosphere of
respect for the dignity of all persons, this policy is adopted to ensure that each student
and staff member is provided with a welcoming, caring, respectful and safe learning
environment that respects diversity and fosters a sense of belonging.

The Board will not tolerate harassment, bullying, intimidation or discrimination of
students or staff as provided for in the Alberta Human Rights Act or the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms which includes discrimination on the basis of an
individual’s actual or perceived differences, including sexual orientation, gender identity
and gender expression."

The SSPX argument will be that, in order to have schools in Canada, we are forced to comply with these measures.

No doubt this is true.

But the real question is: If in order to have schools, the SSPX is forced to comply with the most basic and fundamental violations of the natural law, would it not be better to have no school at all, than one which inculcates moral indifference (all the more insidious as such indifference would feign having the moral authority of rigorous Catholic traditionalism)?

See the entire document here (and you had better download it quickly):


How/Why the SSPX offered a pinch of incense to the gods:


That is why if the SSPX wants to start a school they must be completely independent from the State if it is going to dictate what is to be in their policies or even in their curriculum. As my wife told me, better not to have a school than to cave.

As far as I know the school in Ontario does not have to have such a policy. Their school is completely private from the province.


Here is an excerpt from the article posted above:

Alberta Education has commanded faith-based schools to scrub references to such terms as “truth” from their “Safe and Caring” school policies or risk losing funding and/or accreditation.

Even a statement such as “ We believe men and women were created in the image of God, after His likeness, and therefore have transcendent, intrinsic worth ” is deemed “unwelcome, uncaring, and/or disrespectful” in Alberta Education’s detailed feedback to several Alberta schools.

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), representing parents and dozens of schools in a constitutional court challenge against the Alberta government, issued a news release today that condemns the latest bullying tactics by the Ministry of Education.

As stated by John Carpay, “In the name of ‘diversity’ [Minister of Education] David Eggen is attacking the constitutional right to have thoughts, opinions and beliefs different than his own.”

Carpay continued, “This is a naked and aggressive attack against the Charter rights and freedoms of every citizen, and designed to intimidate schools which are now asserting their Charter rights in court. These bullying tactics are what you would expect in a repressive third-world dictatorship, not in a functioning democracy that respects the rule of law.”


A bit of a clarification – I am not sure if the Calgary school is publicly funded.


From the school’s policy on p. 45:

To achieve this goal, the Board requires that its schools and staff and students promote
a welcoming, caring, respectful, safe learning environment that respects diversity and
fosters a sense of belonging in accordance with the rights of staff and students under the
following legislation and as reflected in School’s procedures:
• Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
• Alberta Human Rights Act.
• Alberta Bill of Rights.
• School Act.
• An Act to Support Gay-Straight Alliances


I can foresee the inevitable defense:

“We included these provisions in our school policy, but we don’t really believe them, nor do we intend to enforce or implement them.”


Perjury and deceit are not exactly priestly qualities, and give the wrong example (i.e., ends justify the means), particularly to the children, who have enrolled in the school primarily to have solid character traits imparted to them via upholding Catholic moral, spiritual, and doctrinal principles.

Such a worldly approach, therefore, is working at cross-purposes.

How explain to the children why the early martyrs refused to offer incense to the Roman gods, if it is perfectly acceptable, by example, to say one thing, and practice another after all (i.e., Were the early martyrs fools who wasted their lives needlessly, when they could simply have offered incense, and interiorly thought otherwise, or recanted later)?


Clearly, it would be better to have no school at all, than one in which it is necessary to make a scandalous public and official declaration of moral indifference.

But the SSPX is in free-fall now, and worldly thinking rationalizes all compromises as prudent.


This is what I don’t understand. Why does the SSPX feel that it must get into the business of education?Obviously the Church has always done so but if you have to accept these type of policies then it is better to be honest and not open up a school. Help families then who are homeschooling. Does material growth (more chapels, schools etc…) equate to blessings from God?


More on the topic found on a link on the St John Bosco School Welcome page of the school titled “Welcoming and Caring Policy”

Can anyone explain what this means as found in the document above? Is it some kind of disclaimer?

Nothing in this policy is to be interpreted so as to limit or be a waiver of the St. John Bosco Private School Board’s rights and powers pursuant the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to maintain the denominational character of Catholic schools. If any of the provisions his Policy conflict with the St. John Bosco Private School Board’s rights and powers pursuant to the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to maintain the denominational character of Catholic schools, the St. John Bosco Private School Board’s rights and powers pursuant the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to maintain the denominational character of Catholic schools will govern.


Wow, this document is worse than the other one!!

It foresees things like transsexual clubs and support groups at the school:

“(a) If one or more students attending a school operated by a board request a staff
member employed by the board for support to establish a voluntary student organization,
or to lead an activity intended to promote a welcoming, caring, respectful and safe
learning environment that respects diversity and fosters a sense of belonging, the
principal of the school shall:
i. immediately grant permission for the establishment of the student organization or the
holding of the activity at the school, and
ii. subject to subsection (d), within a reasonable time from the date the principal receives
the request designate a staff member to serve as the staff liaison to facilitate the
establishment, and the ongoing operation, of the student organization or to assist in
organizing the activity.”


"i. For greater certainty, the principal shall not prohibit or discourage students from
choosing a name that includes “gay-straight alliance” or “queer-straight alliance”.


This is indeed the crux of the problem.

The Neo-SSPX is not interested in publicly and officially professing the Faith.

They would rather perform the “experiment of modernism”.


Does anyone know what SSPX priests are at St. John Bosco School in Canada?


There are four priests in Calgary at the moment. I dont know which ones exactly are involved in the school. Fathers Herkel and Riccomini perhaps?


I am told the docs have now all been scrubbed from the school website (as predicted, though fortunately they remain downloaded in this thread above).

But no explanation given for implementing such a perverted and demented policy, nor any announcement notifying the public that they have rescinded said policy.

The presumption therefore is that the policy remains in effect, but the SSPX does not want to draw attention to it.


There can be no justification for even having such a policy in the handbook. If the liberal government in Alberta is demanding those things be put in the handbook the SSPX should have said NO!

They only scrubbed the docs because someone pointed it out. What kind of conviction is that?


Yes, just like with Fr Wegner’s latest letter:

Last week, he told the world it was too easy to blame V2 as the cause of the abuse scandal, and the outrage set in, so he wrote a new letter in which V2 IS the cause of the scandal:

Apparently, the agreement-chasing SSPX is only traditional when forced to be so by public outrage.


I am tired of duplicity.

“I know nothing at all about the art of falsehood, dissimulation, and pretence, which is the centre of political activity and the mainspring of human prudence. That which I have on my lips I have in my heart. I hate duplicity like death.”

  • St. Francis de Sales


Louis Verrechio has posted Fr Couture’s announcement that the offensive inclusiveness policy has been removed from the school website (with Fr Couture blaming the government for having imposed it, as predicted above, rather than having expressed his shame at the SSPX having accepted it in the first place), and is prematurely equating this removal with a rejection of the policy itself (a rejection contained nowhere in Fr Couture’s announcement).

It is possible such is the case, but again, no such rejection is contained anywhere in the announcement.

Some are making that rash presumption because, after the announcement of the policy’s removal from the website, Fr Couture expresses his hope the school will be able to finish the academic year, as well as operate next year, this must mean the District has rejected the policy itself.

Will you excuse me if I am a bit leery of the branding campaign’s mastermind, and prefer to hear/read him say so, before making such a presumption?


Stated differently:

I see the part where, because (and only because) the school’s policy was exposed to the public gaze, it was removed from the website;

And I see the part where Fr Courure blames the government for the Society’s having accepted the terms of their perverted policy;

And I see the part where Fr Couture expresses his hopes the school will be able to function in the future.

But could someone point me to the part where Fr Couture states that the policy is no longer in effect at the school???