Alice Grayson’s Review of the Sex Education Programs

Other programs promoted by the Religious Education Office of the Archdiocese of Boston

Thus far this letter has examined pertinent Church documents that form the Magisterium of the Church regarding sex education. It has defined sex education. It has tried to explain the underlying evils that constitute the essence of sex education, and to show that these evils are a real and mortal threat to the souls of both the teachers who teach and the students who are their victims. Beyond this, this letter has provided critique and samples from prominent nationwide sex education programs, all of which are endorsed and advocated by the Archdiocese of Boston.

Unfortunately there are seven more programs advocated at the Religious Education Office, and as mentioned before, about thirty-five nationally. (They multiply like weeds.)

Your letter (editor’s note: from Cardinal Law) has asked me to provide samples of “objectionable material.” It is reasonable that if I wish something to be removed, it would be necessary to show, by example, that the program does do what is actually forbidden by the Magisterium.

By now, however, I believe you are an educated reader. You are no longer in need of detailed analysis of what constitutes values clarification, of what is invasive, or propaganda, or how the program attacks the innocent. It is my intention to provide samples of the remaining programs with as minimal comment as possible. There is, however, an additional handicapping factor relating to the conclusion of this paper. The problem is access to the materials that I wish to review.

After one visit to St. Margaret’s Hospital (researching St. Mary’s Family Life Program), and one follow-up phone call requesting materials and dates, I was refused any access to materials or interviews. After some initial success in copying some material from New Creation, In God’s Image, and Kiernan Sawyer’s Sex and the Teenager, I was prevented from further photocopying by the nun who is in charge of the Religious Education Office. Even when I explained to her that you had requested these samples, her answer was “No!” (Her idea was that if you really wanted to know, you could walk next door and see for yourself. That’s kind of ironic because that’s exactly the suggestion I made to you a full year ago.)

Her prohibiting of photocopying was restrictive, however. I asked her why she was forbidding this, inasmuch as I explained this was to be used in research, with appropriate footnoting. Sister explained that she had received a letter from the Chancery warning her not to allow this sort of thing. I asked to see the letter. She couldn’t remember where it was or when she herself had seen it, but that she knew I shouldn’t reproduce samples from the sex-ed programs. I commented that it indeed seemed strange that parents, who are the first and prime educators of the child, to whom God entrusted the task and the necessary grace through sacramental marriage, to form the child in stature, in wisdom, and holiness, were not allowed reproduction access of the educational materials which directly affect the spiritual well being of their children. At another time, Sister seemed distressed that I was reading, skimming, and hand-copying sex-ed materials. She asked what it was that I was doing, anyway. I responded that I was reviewing sex-ed materials. Frustratedly she exclaimed, “I don’t understand why you’re doing this. The Archdiocese already has a commission looking at these materials.” I quietly murmured, “I am a parent.”

St. Mary’s Family Life Program

On February 20, 1991, I joined some other concerned parents, and visited St. Margaret’s Hospital and discussed St. Mary’s Family Life Program with its director, Dr. Eleanor Tabeek, and her assistant, Mrs. Nancy Keaveney.

I talked with Dr. Tabeek about the principle of parental subsidiarity, as described in Familiaris Consortio, whereby Pope John Paul II calls for the educator to enter “into the same spirit that animates parents.” Dr. Tabeek admits that her program contracts with the school, not the parents. (The parents have not even asked for help.) According to Dr. Tabeek, St. Mary’s suggests forms for principals to send home, but that decision is left to the principal. Nothing is checked or monitored.

Next, a parent “informational night” is held. Only a small percentage of parents attend, yet the sex course is administered indiscriminately to all children in a graded format, regardless of parents’ lack of information of the sex teacher’s knowledge of any individual child or parent’s wishes in this regard. Dr. Tabeek commented that she personally was distressed that the parents who do come, just want her program to teach their children how not to get pregnant — and that they didn’t care how — indicating contraceptives were just fine.

Dr. Tabeek is not too “high” on parents; neither is Molly Kelly. Remember? Dr. Tabeek continued the instruction that human nature wasn’t Catholic, and so, despite parents wishes, her program teaches a Catholic theology of “Natural Family Planning,” which she explained was a method of birth control. (Again, familiar? It sounds like Catholic Imperialism to me — deliberately and consciously teaching intimate matters contrary to parents’ desires.)

Dr. Tabeek explained that she was an expert on Humanae Vitae — with her doctoral thesis and all. [I told her that I too, was an educator, and of course — a parent!]

Dr. Tabeek also admits that most parents contracept, so that their role modeling basically contradicts any “good” her classes could produce. Moreover, Dr. Tabeek just doesn’t want to remember that Pope John Paul II says that the parents’ role is inalienable and irreplaceable — incapable of being entirely delegated to or usurped by others. Maybe, Dr. Tabeek forgot about sacramental grace, whereby God equips parents for their sacred vocation, and promises to “be there” to make them succeed. I think Dr. Tabeek forgets parents.

Subsequent to this interview, I have called St. Mary’s office — requesting information as to who certifies these teachers and some course dates, including students’ classes. When I didn’t receive any information, I called back, and began by first asking Dr. Tabeek the correct spelling of her name. She wanted to know why, and when I told her I was writing a letter she wanted to know “to whom?” I explained to her that was none of her business. However, her program was a business affecting children, and as a parent, I needed some information. Next, Dr. Tabeek refused to spell her name or speak with me about anything to do with St. Mary’s Family Life. Again, why can’t the faithful ask questions about the Archdiocesan programs? What truth is being hidden? If these programs are good, why aren’t they eager to share everything?

On February 20, I also spoke with Dr. Tabeek’s assistant, Mrs. Nancy Keaveney. Mrs. Keaveney explained that their program teaches ten-year old children about menstruation and male/female anatomy and physiology. Does Mrs. Keaveney think this group discussion of intimate things could violate the years of innocence as our Holy Father says? Or, is menstruation just not intimate and personal. If it isn’t, why is it called personal hygiene? Do you recall your dating years…when your girlfriend unexpectedly got her period, and needed assistance? It was a delicate event; it evoked trust. That environment of trust does not emanate from a stranger, in a classroom.

Nancy Keaveney commented on February 20, “We try not to talk about sin in regard to sexuality. We preferred to concentrate on self-esteem, and good decision making processes.” Her comments suggested a lack of understanding of intimacy, concupiscence, and the demands of the moral law with regard to God’s expectations as expressed in Revelation and the Magisterium.

During my visit to St. Mary’s, another staff member explained that teachers ask the children to bring in samples of sexual disrespect, immodest dress, names of promiscuous songs and movies for purposes of class discussion and critique. (Children just can’t escape sex immersion; not even when their parents think they are learning something at school.)

Meanwhile back at the Religious Education Office, I was able to observe that St. Mary’s Program delves into excessive detail on all methods of contraception and a myriad of sexually transmitted diseases (high school level). My older daughters have heard this presentation at Newton Country Day School in the middle eighties — before I was aware of what was really going on. Both my daughters have told me that the contraceptive lessons constituted contraceptive instruction; and contributed to their use among teens. The gist of the program is to associate sex with unwanted children, burdens, poverty, disease, and now because of AIDS, death. It’s not positive or prudent! This kind of depressing education is a straight path to the abortion clinic, and a contraception mentality in marriage.

Even, when trying to teach fertility awareness, this program falls into the anti-child mentality. I was able to hand copy only two quotes — one exhibiting values clarification and one exhibiting family planning methodology, as a right and a necessity — not at all as our Church instructs on the use of periodic abstinence.