Home | Join/Donate | Current Voices | Liturgical Calendar | What's New | Affirmation | James Hitchcock's Column | Church Documents | Search
Voices Online Edition
Sex Education:
The Catholic Sceneby Margaret M. Whitehead
Foreword
Chapter 1
Chapters 2 & 3
Chapters 4 & 5
Appendix & Conclusion
Chapter 1 -- Human Sexuality:Wonderful Gift and Awesome Responsibility
Chapter One is notable for its confusing and ambiguous language and use of Scripture. A quotation from the Book of Genesis about the creation by God of the first man and woman launches the chapter: "This one, at last, is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.... That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body" (Gen. 2:23-24). The text interprets the creation of Adam and Eve as follows:
From this passage, and its usage across the Christian tradition, we see that sexuality is intimately related to our vocation to love, our natural yearning for committed relationships.... Sexuality is a relational power not merely a capacity for performing specific acts (p. 8).
In fact, Christian tradition has primarily interpreted this story as describing the specific committed relationship of marriage (Adam "clings to his wife") and has equally emphasized the procreative aspects of the relationship along with the relational, i.e., Gen 1:28. However, only in Chapter 3 of the Guidelines -- 22 pages later -- do we find comments on the procreative aspects of the committed marriage relationship described in Genesis. Christian tradition has never limited love to "our natural yearning for committed relationships" and it is extremely confusing to give this emphasis.
This emphasis on the "relational" aspects of sexuality is similar to the language and concepts found in the recent book by the Canadian Oblate priest, Father Andre Guindon, The Sexual Creators: An Ethical Proposal for Concerned Christians, a work that was recently found doctrinally unsound by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.39 In his book, Father Guindon proposes a new relational standard of "sexual fecundity" (independent of "biological fecundity") and of "love":
Thus the principle regulating human sexuality would no longer be the inseparability of the unitive and procreative meanings of the sexual act, but rather the inseparability of "sensuality" and "tenderness" (pp. 66-68). The primary meaning of the "transmission of life" would be a "new quality of human life which is communicated in and through an integrated sexual experience from one love to the other" (p. 67).40
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith found this approach erroneous because it distorts the procreative meaning of the sexual act and it lapses "into dangerous dualisms resulting in biologistic or spiritualistic reductions which lead in turn to the production of a seriously distorted sexual ethics".41
Defining Sexuality
The definitions of sexuality and sex in this chapter are essential for the entire document; but they are unclear and are prime examples of the confusing presentation found throughout the text:Therefore, throughout this document, we distinguish between this broader, more inclusive and relational term sexuality and the more restrictive act-specific term sex: Sexuality refers to a fundamental component of personality in and through which we, as male or female, experience our relatedness to self, others, the world, and even God. Sex refers either to the biological aspects of being male or female (i.e. a synonym for one's gender) or to the expressions of sexuality, which have physical, emotional, and spiritual dimensions, particularly genital actions resulting in sexual intercourse and/or orgasm. (p. 9)
There are serious problems with these definitions and the way they are used throughout the Guidelines text. The first is that "sexuality" already has a meaning that connects it very definitely to sex,42 and the second is the lack of connection of sex with the reproductive functions and organs of living beings (remarkably absent from the Guideline's definitions -- "Genital actions" do still result in procreation and reproduction). This primary reproductive meaning of sexuality -- sex is found in every dictionary, throughout the literary works of the English language, and in the normal conversations and concepts of real people. The connection of the term sexuality with sex is inseparable and real. Although Humpty-Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass said, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less", in real life the meanings and connotations of words do not -- and must not -- disappear just because someone attempts to give them a new meaning.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, dealing with very similar definitions of "sexual" and "sexuality" in Father Guindon's book on human sexuality, criticized them as follows:
But to designate as sexual every expression of affection with the claim that it is inevitably marked by the sexual nature of the person is not only a confusing inflation of the word sexual, but also a violation of the elementary rules of logic. From the fact that every affective relationship is marked by the sexual character of the partners, it does not follow that every affective relationship is a sexual one. It becomes ambiguous and confusing, then, when all affective relationships, even those of parents with their children, those of celibates and so on are characterized as sexual.43
In fact, the definitions in the Guidelines are so ambiguous and confusing that the text, itself, does not consistently maintain the putative distinction between "sexuality" and "sex". For example, under the "Call to Holiness", "Sexuality" seems to mean what they claim only "sex" means:
Dealing creatively with one's own sexuality -- gender, sexual feelings, desires -- is a fundamental challenge in every person's quest for maturity and holiness. (p. 91)
In the context of these definitions, use of the adjective "sexual" in the HS Guidelines is at least as "ambiguous and confusing" as the Vatican observed in its critique of Father Guindon's book. For example, what is the intended meaning of, "Infants, children, and adolescents are also sexual persons" (p. 15)? What is "a mature, sexual person" (p. 92)? How are we to interpret a statement like the following commentary on single life?
Loneliness or the yearning to love and to be loved can call us forth, challenging us to rekindle existing bonds or to seek and find new ones. The love of family and true friends can reassure us that we are loved and empower our ability to love and make new commitment [sic]. We are and remain sexual beings, whatever our state in life. Still the Church teaches that genital sexual union "is only legitimate if a definitive community of love {i.e. marriage} has been established between the man and the woman" (p. 53 - emphasis added).
This passage suggests that "sexual beings" -- even single ones -- might be missing true love in the absence of genital sexual union. That the Church "still", for some unexplained reason, teaches that "participation in nonmarital sex violates an objective norm" (p. 53), makes the teaching appear arbitrary or subject to change.
For that matter, what is meant by "education in human sexuality"? Is it just education in how to relate to others? Does it not also include all the other aspects of sex that are supposedly in a separate category? In many cases what seems to be meant by the term sexuality is really personality: "the sum total of the physical, mental, emotional, and social characteristics of and individual".44 But in other cases, it apparently means a person's sex. This confusion of language pervades the entire document.
The Guidelines are also unclear on the meaning of love and its relationship to sex. They comment on the confusion between love and sex (relating "sexual feelings" and the "call to love and be loved") that adolescents often experience, and call for a clarification: "Because love and sex are often equated, educators and parents/guardians need to explain the full meaning of love in the context of the gospels" (p.110). However, the text itself contains many confusing statements about love and sex.45 This is another important area where the guidance given in the Guidelines is not only not helpful, but is actually counterproductive.
The confusing use of these definitions also points to the "other philosophy" alluded to earlier. Although the broad definitions of sex and sexuality are not found in the dictionary nor in our culture in general, they are found in books that claim to be offering contemporary approaches to sexual ethics, such as Father Guindon's book and in sex education/family life education programs based on Freudian and Kinseyan principles,46 which are common in the public schools.
For example, in the ninth grade curriculum of the Family Life Education Program in Fairfax County, Virginia, Lesson Seven, the teacher is instructed to say to the students:
In our society, the word "sex" can be used in a number of ways. It can refer to the gender of a person -- whether that person is female or male. It can also refer to an act or behavior, such as sexual intercourse.... In this class, we are going to discuss a broader topic -- sexuality -- which includes those things just mentioned but also includes how we feel about ourselves and our bodies, our attitudes and values about sex, how we express our sexual feelings, and our attraction to others (p. 119 - emphasis added).
The secular perspective on sexuality found in this definition serves as one of the main foundations of this document. In Education Guidance in Human Love (EGHL), the Vatican document that is supposed to have inspired the Guidelines, the context and explanations of the significance of sexuality are dramatically different. The role of the Creator and the Divine plan for human beings are explained. In EGHL sexuality is not just a question of how we feel about our relations with others. Although EGHL does see sexuality as "a fundamental component of personality, one of its modes of being" (EGHL #4), this is linked to the "response to the design of God". It is "the first message of God ... and the body contributes to revealing God and His creative love ... and expresses the vocation of man and woman to reciprocity, which is to love and to the mutual gift of self ... to the constitutive vocation of fecundity47 as one of the fundamental meanings of their being sexual" (EGHL #22, 23, 24).
Jesus and the Incarnation
After defining sexuality and sex, the text offers what ought to be a Catholic position on human nature as it relates to the Incarnation of and Redemption by our Lord Jesus Christ. Here, again, is confusion. In this section of the Guidelines, the following explanation of the Paschal Mystery is given:The annunciation, birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ serve as a divine affirmation of the goodness and lovableness of humanity (p. 10).
Although, it is unquestionably true that the Incarnation does add "even greater dignity" to our corporeal nature, it does not exactly constitute "divine affirmation" (p. 10) as the text states. The writer of this statement seems to ignore the phenomenon of sin; that the reason for the Incarnation and Redemption had something to do with how unlovable we are and how much we need divine help. Other scripture passages emphasize our need for salvation from ourselves, not "affirmation" of our sinful state, for example:
For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16).
While we were yet helpless, at the right time, Christ died for the ungodly.... But God shows His love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.... For, if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by His life (Romans 4:6-10).
He was wounded for our transgressions; He was bruised for our iniquities ... with His stripes we are healed (Isaiah 53:5).
Even concerning the most important doctrines of the Catholic faith, there is no certainty that a genuinely "Catholic perspective" will be maintained in the Guidelines.
Precious Gift and Awesome Responsibility
In this section the writers stress that sexuality is a gift from God that can be used for good or ill, and that each of us is responsible for guiding this gift toward "personal maturity and interpersonal commitments" (p. 10). Surely this is inadequate. Surely the bishops did not intend to suggest only an objective based on secular psychology for the use of this divine gift?After some discussion of the sin of Adam and Eve -- attributed to "human insecurity,48 pride and selfishness" -- the "reality of original sin" is connected to the fact that "the gift of human sexuality also can be abused, sometimes intentionally, sometimes through immaturity or ignorance" (p. 11). These "errors in judgment" are said to impact negatively on "one's psyche, human commitments, and relationship to God" (p. 11; emphasis added).
Finally, after Original sin and sexual sin have been essentially neutered by this psychological language, a rather weak statement of the traditional teaching about our true condition appears:
It is a fundamental belief of the Christian tradition that, left to our own efforts and without grace, we are unable to overcome sinful temptations and to attain our personal and eternal destiny ... only through the Incarnation and redemption of Jesus Christ can we achieve true holiness, able to overcome temptation. (p. 11)
However, no mention is made of the specific means by which people overcome sin and temptations -- such as prayer, the sacraments, obeying the Commandments (which are not mentioned anywhere in the text), and ascetical practices -- although this would have given far more concrete guidance on how to use one's gift of sexuality responsibly.
At this point in Chapter One -- in view of the strangely limited understandings of Scripture, Redemption and other doctrines; the inadequate statements of Catholic belief; the secular definitions and goals for sexuality; and the absence of references to Catholic devotional and sacramental aids in overcoming sin and temptation -- the reader has not found a convincing or coherent presentation of fundamental concepts of the Catholic faith.
This inadequate presentation of Catholic doctrine in the Guidelines gives rise to serious questions about the knowledge, aims, and motives of the document's actual author or authors. (The reason for not revealing the author(s) was that this would permit readers to focus on the document itself, not on its authorship). Regrettably, the bishops did not review this document with sufficient care before allowing it to be issued with their authority as a pastoral document and as a source for teaching children and adolescents. Even if the Guidelines may not be mandatory, and even if they do not carry the full weight of an official "pastoral letter", the perception will inevitably be that it represents the intention of the bishops. Their authority will be invoked, as teaching materials based on the Guidelines are prepared.
The Sexual Revolution and Sex Ed Programs in All Schools
The next two topics of Chapter One seem to reflect the point of view of the proponents of the "sexual revolution ... beginning in the mid nineteen-fifties and continuing to the present", rather than the "Catholic Perspective":Believing that societal values and mores were the product of an overly restrictive, somewhat anti-body bias, proponents of this revolution advocated a greater appreciation of the beauty, pleasure and goodness both of being sexual and of expressing oneself sexually. It was suggested that being more open and candid about sexual feelings and desires might liberate people from what some felt were inordinate fears and unfounded taboos.... While victims of the former sexual repression might develop negative self-esteem and inordinate guilt about sexual inclinations themselves, victims of the newer sexual revolution mentality tend to become easily involved in promiscuous or recreational sex. Our [the bishops'] underlying concern is that any holistic or Christian discussion of sexual morality must be grounded in a more personal appreciation of human dignity, of the value of life itself, and of the depth, complexity, and responsibility attached to human interpersonal relationships, including their sexual dimension. (p. 12, emphasis added)
These comments on the "sexual revolution" have little connection to what its proponents were really thinking and doing during this period. There was no gentle concern about "anti-body bias"; no authentic appreciation of the "goodness" or "beauty" of sexual expression. Objective good and bad disappeared for many of the revolutionaries, and were replaced by the "if it feels good, do it" mentality. In fact, there was sweeping rejection of all religious, moral, family and traditional social values. Rather than "beauty", there was a direct promotion of fornication ("free love"), open marriage, divorce, abortion, drug use and self-indulgence. The cost to society of these views has been incalculable.
In the context of the sexual revolution's "new morality," any kind of guilt was considered "inordinate" and unnecessary -- and so was any kind of objective morality or transcendent truth. People were "liberated" from their marriage vows and their sexual health rather than from "inordinate fears and unfounded taboos" concerning sex. Although many people then and now did not and do not feel repressed by accepting and living up to Catholic sexual norms, and were joyful not to be "slaves to sin", the revolutionaries' view influenced many in our society and in the Church. Subsequent events have proven that moral health has more than a passing connection with physical health -- even with life itself.
The Guidelines' description of the Sexual Revolution, unhappily, seems to owe more to the views of one man, Alfred C. Kinsey, than it does to the "Catholic perspective". Kinsey promoted the idea of being open to all kinds of sexual expression in all kinds of situations: "The distillate of Kinsey philosophy ... is that every type of sexual activity is natural and thus normal, and should begin as early in life as possible".49
The Kinsey research on male and female sexuality published in 1948 and 195350 had a tremendous impact on American culture and moral habits. Kinsey's view of "normative" sexuality became imbedded in many areas of society and education even though his research has been recognized by serious scholars to be seriously defective and biased, both in the interviewing procedures used and in the samples of people interviewed:
It has long been recognized that one of the greatest faults of the Kinsey research was the way in which the cases were selected: the sample is not representative of the entire U. S. population or of any definable group in the population. Some respondents were specifically chosen because they were delinquents, criminals, or sex offenders; most of the remainder were ... college educated. (emphasis added)
Public School Sex Education
The Kinseyan philosophy was behind the growth of the sex education phenomenon in the public schools, and now is influencing the Catholic schools. The comprehensive sex education programs in the public schools received their chief impetus from the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) which was founded in 1964 by Dr. Mary Calderone, a former head of Planned Parenthood, to carry out the educational mission of promoting the Kinsey philosophy of sex.With this in mind, and with the knowledge that most public school sex ed/family life education programs actively promote contraception and non-marital sex, and avoid taking a moral stand on almost every type of active sexual expression, it is amazing that the Guidelines for a proposed Catholic sexuality education are so bland about public school programs. This document mentions cooperation with public schools several times without making it clear either what the problems are or what type of cooperation is envisaged. The Guidelines authors evidently assume that these secular programs have actually helped young people to lead moral lives, so the writers are willing to involve Catholic schools in this type of education with only a gloss of "values based on faith".
In fact, many parents have been fighting these programs in the public schools and need all the help they can get, especially from the Church. It is also true that some U. S. bishops have opposed aspects of these programs, which include condom distribution and school health clinics that provide contraception and abortion referrals for students.
The first chapter of HS guidelines concludes with the following statement:[We] hope that ... God's abiding love and grace, shared with us in and through the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and now made available to all humanity through the Spirit who dwells in human hearts, and who acts in a special way through the Church and the sacraments, we can now live and love responsibly as male and female. (emphasis added)
This seems to suggest that there is a subjective way, in addition to the "special way" of the Church, for all humanity to be saved. It is less clear what humanity is being saved from -- sexual irresponsibility?
NOTES:
39. Origins, "Theologian Asked to Explain Sexual Ethics Views," by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in a Note dated January 30, 1991. Feb. 13, 1992, Vol 21: No. 36.
40. Ibid., p. 575.
41. Ibid., p. 575.
42. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged; Flexner, Stuart, Berg and Hauck, Leonore Crary, Editors; (Random House, New York, 1987, p. 1755): "Sexuality 1. sexual character, possession of the structural and functional traits of sex. 2. recognition of or emphasis upon sexual matters. 3. involvement in sexual activity. 4. an organism's preparedness for engaging in sexual activity."
43. Op. Cit. Origins, p. 575.
44.Op. cit., The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, p. 1445.
45. Some examples from the text include:
"In the fullest and richest sense, the gift of sexuality is both the physical and psychological grounding for the human person's capacity to love." (p. 9)
"First, human sexuality, a core dimension of the human need to love and be loved, is a gift from God which commands appreciation, wonder and respect." (p. 13)
"Because early adolescents are becoming more aware of the power of their own sexuality, educators need to help them understand that the human person is called to experience and express love by means of the body in appropriate and respectful ways." (p. 106)
"However, their [older adults] sexuality needs-to love and to be loved, to touch and to be touched-remain throughout life." (p. 114)
These examples are representative of the approach to discussing love and sex throughout the text.
46. Whitehead and McGraw, pp. 5-24. See also Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People, Judith Reisman and Edward Eichel, Lochinvar-Huntingdon House Publication, Lafayette, La., 1990. See also: Marjorie Rosenberg, First Things, Dec. 1991, "The Mindless Self: Freud Triumphant," pp. 16-22: "Still Freud's idée fixe, his sexual theory has penetrated as deeply into contemporary culture as have Darwin's views. By locating the central problem of existence in the struggle between the instincts of the individual and the restraints of society, Freud was positioned for an unremitting use of his intellectual faculties to denigrate the mind in favor of sex." p. 16.
47. Op. cit., Origins, Feb 13, 1992; re Father Guindon's views of "fecundity," the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states that the following are among "a number of serious and fundamental disagreements, not only with the more recent teachings of the Magisterium, but also with the traditional doctrine of the church" (p. 575):The author intends to offer the church a personal contribution toward the development of a new doctrine regarding what he calls "sexual fecundity," proposed as "a contribution toward the construction of an alternative to the unsatisfactory fecundity-fertility view"
(p. ix). (Origins, p. 575) Corresponding to this enlarged notion of sexuality is the author's proposal of a new and more fundamental understanding of "sexual fecundity" which is to become the basis for illuminating "all the instances of sexual interaction" (pp. 66-67). This new criterion of reference is presented as independent of "biological fecundity," which traditional Catholic moral teaching, it is claimed, mistakenly assumed to be the only norm. Thus the principle regulating human sexuality would no longer be the inseparability of the unitive and the procreative meanings of the sexual act, but rather the inseparability of "sensuality" and "tenderness" (pp. 66-68). (Origins, p. 575)As this analysis of Father Guindon's terminology by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith shows, it is important to have clear definitions of the terms used in the Guidelines. Some experts within the Church do not give ordinary terms ordinary meanings and the resulting confusion can create havoc in catechetics.
48. "Human insecurity" is a novel quality to be attributed to Adam and Eve before the Fall and it is hard to see how it fits with the Scriptural and doctrinal teachings about Adam and Eve.
49. Op. cit., Reisman and Eichel, p. 117.
50. Kinsey, Alfred C., Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Philadelphia, W. B. Sanders Company, 1948; and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, 1953.
51. Turner, Charles F., Miller, Heather G., and Moses, Lincoln E., Editors, AIDS, Sexual Behavior and Intravenous Drug Use, Committee on AIDS Research and the Behavioral, Social, and Statistical Sciences, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1989, p. 82.
52. SIECUS Report, May-July, 1982, p.6: "Few people realize that the great library collection of what is now known as the Kinsey Institute in Bloomington, Indiana, was formed specifically with one major field omitted: sex education. This was because it seemed appropriate, not only to the Institute but to its major funding source, the National Institute of Mental Health, to leave this area for SIECUS to fill ... that was designed to implement a planned role for SIECUS -- to become the primary data base for the area of education for sexuality."
53. Origins, Catholic News Service, Washington D. C.; September 26, 1991, Vol. 21:No. 16, "... condom distribution plan is 'another sign of the ongoing moral decay of the city of New York', said Monsignor John Woolsey, family life director of the archdiocese of New York. Brooklyn's Bishop Thomas Daily also condemned the condom program" (p. 250). Origins, January 9, 1992, Vol. 21: No. 31, Archbishop Thomas Murphy, Seattle: "I must oppose any plan that includes the general distribution of condoms in schools" (p. 503). Anthony, Cardinal Bevilacqua, Philadelphia, describes the decision "to begin a condom distribution program in public high schools as "reckless, tragic and morally irresponsible ... [and] therefore, I am calling on all parents with children in the public school system to choose the "opt-out" provision of this program." (p. 503)
Foreword
Chapter 1
Chapters 2 & 3
Chapters 4 & 5
Appendix & Conclusion
**Women for Faith & Family operates solely on your generous donations!
WFF is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Donations are tax deductible.
Voices copyright © 1999-Present Women for Faith & Family. All rights reserved.
PERMISSION GUIDELINES
All material on this web site is copyrighted and may not be copied or reproduced without prior written permission from Women for Faith & Family,except as specified below.
Personal use
Permission is granted to download and/or print out articles for personal use only.Quotations
Brief quotations (ca 500 words) may be made from the material on this site, in accordance with the “fair use” provisions of copyright law, without prior permission. For these quotations proper attribution must be made of author and WFF + URL (i.e., “Women for Faith & Family – www.wf-f.org.)Attribution
Generally, all signed articles or graphics must also have the permission of the author. If a text does not have an author byline, Women for Faith & Family should be listed as the author. For example: Women for Faith & Family (St Louis: Women for Faith & Family, 2005 + URL)Link to Women for Faith & Family web site.
Other web sites are welcome to establish links to www.wf-f.org or to individual pages within our site.
Back to top -- Home
Women for Faith & Family
PO Box 300411
St. Louis, MO 63130
314-863-8385 Phone -- 314-863-5858 Fax -- Email
You are viewing an archived page on our old website. Click here to visit our new website.