The Difference Between Classroom Sex-Education and Sexual Morality
by Gregory P. Lloyd, M.A

At the basis of almost every dispute over classroom sex-education, especially in Catholic circles, lies the failure to properly differentiate, or to distinguish at all, between classroom sex-education and classroom instruction in sexual morality.

Classroom sex-education is not a practice of the saints,
it places children in the occasion of sin and has been prohibited by the Magisterium of the Church.

Public classroom instruction in sexual morality is the proper teaching to youth
of the Faith and Commandments as the law of the moral life. This classroom instruction is not only permitted by the Magisterium, it has always been expected of all Church schools.

Schools should assist parents in the formation of children in purity of morals.
Schools and their teachers act only as delegates of parents, who are the principal authorities in the education of their offspring. Parents are obliged, in harmony with Almighty God’s law, to raise their children according to the duties of their Christian state and vocation. No one has the authority to place children in the occasion of sin — which is exactly what classroom sex-ed does — or to usurp the parents’ authority.

Some conditions
Differentiating classroom instruction in sexual morality
From classroom sex-education:

Classroom instruction in sexual morality does not descend to details, or provide explicit information or dwell on sexual matters, but rather gives adequate formation using abstract norms and definitions. Classroom sex-ed descends to details, provides explicit information and/or dwells on sexual matters.
Classroom instruction in sexual morality does not isolate what is permissible to be taught from the entire catechesis in Faith and morals, but rather provides its matter in the context of the uninterrupted and entire catechesis in Faith and morals. Classroom sex-ed either integrates, or “infuses,” its program into other classes, or simply forms a separate course.
Classroom instruction in sexual morality reserves for private instruction (primarily with parents) anything else which might be necessary and opportune. A basic objective of sex-ed is to make public and open what is private and intimate.
Classroom instruction in sexual morality has for its end the strengthening of the will in holiness and the resistance to impurity. To this end, classroom instruction in sexual morality above all leads youths to the means of attaining sanctity and purity of heart and morals; namely, frequent reception of the Sacraments, prayer, devotion to Mary and the Saints, mortification et cetera. The objective of classroom sex-education is knowledge of and even expertise in carnal matters, especially under the pretext of ‘values.’

The Magisterium of the Church has passed judgment on classroom sex-ed.
The most authoritative ruling on it is found in Pope Pius XI’s encyclical on the Christian Education of Youth, Divini Illius Magistri. For the Magisterium’s teaching on what constitutes the matter of classroom instruction in sexual morality, see the Catechism decreed by the Council of Trent, in the section on the Sixth Commandment.

Sex-educators have produced courses and “programs” of study which intend
for children to dwell on matters very dangerous to modesty, often for extended period of time.As a rule, the promoters of the so-called “chastity” and “family-life” programs assert as a reason for their teaching that human sexuality is good and/or natural. However, this is a half-truth, and very dangerously false.

Those who promote sex-education “grievously err,” as Pope Pius XI teaches,
“in refusing to recognize the inborn weakness of human nature, and the law of which the Apostle speaks, fighting against the law of mind.” Here the Holy Father refers to the doctrine of original sin, specifically one of its consequences, the loss of integrity called concupiscence.

Pope Pius XI describes this dangerous falsehood as an expression of naturalism, and reproves those who try to offer “precautionary instruction for all indiscriminately, even in public.”

Pius also asserts: “Hence every form of pedagogic naturalism which in any way excludes or weakens supernatural Christian formation in the teaching of youth is false. Every method of education founded, wholly or in part, on the denial or forgetfulness of original sin and of grace, and relying on the sole powers of human nature, is unsound.” – Divini Illius Magistri

In addition to the concern of parents over the harm done to their children’s souls and formation, it is very important to note that more and more parents are considering civil lawsuits against the officials who have authorized sex-education for Catholic classrooms.

by permission of NCCL.

Gregory P. Lloyd, Executive Director
National Coalition of Clergy and Laity
621 Jordan Circle
Whitehall, PA 18052-7119

610/435-2634 tel
610/435-2734 fax
Coalition@fast.net
www.National-Coalition.org