When Planned Parenthood offers with public dollars its own "theology of the body," if you will (warning: this is some vulgar stuff), any alternative distribution of government money suggested by religious citizens is called a violation of the separation of church and state.
So, it seems safe to say that if the federal government were paying for a wide distribution of John Paul II's Theology of the Body to America's teenagers, the strong church-state separationists would be calling it a clear violation of the First Amendment. Thus, according to the "enlightened" understanding of our present legal regime, when the federal government underwrites PP's lessons, which answer precisely the same questions about human sexuality answered by John Paul II, then church and state are playing their appropriate roles, and theology remains, as it should always remain, in the back of the secular bus.
But that does not seem right. For if Planned Parenthood can be given public money to proselytize for its philosophical anthropology to the nation's children, then why should not religious citizens be allowed to do the same? After all, if each group is offering contrary answers to the precisely the same questions--questions whose answers depend on one's philosophical understanding of the nature of man--why is one "non-religious" and the other "religious"?
The "establishment clause," sadly, has become a means by which militant secularists may disenfranchise certain citizens based on a metaphysical litmus test that is applied capriciously.