Comprehensive Letter to Cardinal Law

June 24, 1991

This long letter to Cardinal Law followed a conversation we had at a pro life dinner. It summarized my position (the teachings of the Church for heaven’s sake!) about sex education. I became increasingly frustrated with my conversations and letters with him and the Archdiocese of Boston. I pulled together a summary of our written correspondence, and other useful materials, with regard to the sex education issue, and sent everything to him. It was a lot of material to digest, but had Cardinal Law possessed a competent, holy, administrative staff; it would not have been difficult to clean up the sex education mess.

June 24, 1991

Comprehensive letter to Cardinal Law about the status of classroom sex education in the Archdiocese of Boston, by Alice A. Grayson

By June of 1991 I had become increasingly frustrated with my conversations and letters with Cardinal Law and the Archdiocese of Boston. I pulled together a summary of our written correspondence and other useful material to the sex education issue and sent it to Cardinal Law. Indeed, it was a lot of material to digest. However, much of it was review, and if he had acquired a competent, holy administrative staff, it would not have been difficult to clean up the problems.

June 24, 1991

Cardinal Bernard Law
2121 Commonwealth Avenue
Boston, MA 02135

Dear Cardinal Law:

Enclosed are three packets of information regarding sex education (conditioning). Packets #1 and #2 are repeats, gathered together by me, for your convenience, of our written correspondence this year. A review of #1 and #2 will reveal that I have both critiqued and endeavored to remove formal classroom sex education (conditioning) in both the public and Catholic schools of Boston. My writings contain all the reasons why sex education is an evil. Furthermore, they clearly state that dating from The Council of Trent, our church has correctly and articulately condemned classroom sex education. Lastly, my previous writing’s to you indicate that in recent years, a clever attempt on the part of modernists, has been made to change the meaning of words, and therefore by carefully calling for a stepped-up teaching of the virtue of chastity, sex education (together with its total modernists agenda) has been disguised as “chastity education” and has resoundingly successfully been entrenched in Catholic schools all over the world — Boston’s Catholic schools and C.C.D. programs are no exception.

The slick argumentation goes: Everyone knows that parents and the church want children to be chaste. The schools have always taught the virtues (chastity being one of them). Besides, look at the spiritual danger the children are in nowadays — with the rise in the divorce rate, pornography, and materialistic values everywhere. Few Catholics go to church regularly, and most married couples contracept. To say nothing would be neglectful.

Packet #3, together with this letter, is designed to beg you to take a closer look! The virtue of chastity is not being taught in the old, very effective ways — by families, by role modeling, by studying the sacraments, the ten commandments, the lives of saints, the papal encyclicals on marriage and sexual ethics, by prayer, penance, and frequent recourse to the sacraments of reconciliation and the Eucharist. If these were the ways chastity was fostered, I would be teaching and not writing to you to complain. Instead, a lie has occurred. The chastity programs — which I have reviewed are unchaste; they are a direct temptation to sin against purity. Moreover, after destroying the innocence of youth, these programs prepare youth for a further liberation from the home and the church. The programs are laced with heresies — probably the worst being a total ignorance of the implications of original sin. Our children’s consciences have been dulled, and their modesty so injured they no longer recognize sin or the need for reconciliation. Do you notice at Mass, that at communion time, everyone in the pews receives communion? Is there no one in the state of serious sin, or have we been duped?

Packet #3 contains some samples from the chastity programs which are currently being offered by the Catholic Education Office of the Archdiocese of Boston for schools and C.C.D. programs. The office contained the New Creation Series, Benziger, Sadlier, Franciscan Press’s On Becoming A Person, and St. Mary’s Family Life. My general remarks pertain to all of these programs, and in many ways repeat my critique of Understanding Sex and Sexuality by Nancy Hennessy Cooney and Anne Bingham, which I sent to you last year. (Cooney signed the pro-abortion ad in the New York Times.) They also are similar to James Likoudis’s critique of the 1990 Bishops Guidelines — Human Sexuality — A Catholic Perspective For Life-long Learning — and other critiques submitted for your reading.

General remarks

1. All four programs teach explicit sex information (initiation). This has been condemned by our Popes because it is based on naturalism. Ripping the veil of modesty away from our youth, private, sacred things are discussed in a manipulative class environment, with an authoritative teacher, and no escape possible for the child. The children are psychologically molested. A look at the curricula reveals masturbation, sexual processes and stages of arousal, sexual pleasure, foreplay, contraceptives, memorization of private sacred terms. A study of the glossaries I have enclosed shows that these terms are meant to be used for classroom discussion, led by a veritable stranger! Sexually explicit teaching in this manner is indifferent to erotic stimuli. This practice is very naive on the part of those who implement them, and very pernicious on the part of those who write them!

2. The philosophy of these programs is that all knowledge about sex is good; the more we know the better. Surely you understand that purity depends on lack of knowledge. Our lady murmurs “I know no man.”

3. Chastity becomes a fixation in these programs. The message to the students with its over-emphasis on “say no to sex,” is that sexual activity is not at all beneath them. In my own life, a major reason I remained chaste, was that to do otherwise was beneath my own self-image. We don’t over preach to our kids on bank robbery, or murder; nor should we over do chastity.

4. While drenching the children with chastity talk these programs preach a steady diet of “self-empowerment.” A healthy self-esteem is replaced with an unhealthy self-esteem which ignores concupiscence in man’s fallen nature. Believing that knowledge will ensure good behavior, humility as a virtue is totally passed over. One cannot “pour” self-esteem into a student, and one cannot ever forget that man sins again and again and again.

Whereas the Council of Trent cautions about “too much” being said to youth about sex, these modern programs set aside countless hours for discussion of and immersion in sexual stimuli. Unchastity is practically guaranteed by the study hours alone.

5. Having nicely ignored the affects of original sin, having raised “knowledge” to be the supreme good to be obtained from sex “education,” and having falsely redefined self-esteem to be self-empowerment, and immersed the student in a steady diet of erotic stimuli, the authors of these chastity programs being currently promoted in our Archdiocese complete the process of destruction of our children’s souls by teaching them a decision-making process known as values clarification.

Values clarification is presented to children as a concept of respect — of everyone’s personal values and of our God given freedom to make decisions. Children are praised when they use their reasoning powers to reflect on the morality of concrete situations (some of which are not moral matters at all, i.e., a choice of a gift for a grandmother) and some of which impact the core of our beings (sexual morality, honesty, etc.). Responsible decision-making is the ultimate good which the child must attain; the correctness of his decision is irrelevant. The presumption is that reason cannot fail in an arena where error and truth are presented with equal rights.

In reality, values clarification is a concept of unlimited freedom — not unlike the temptation which Satan presented to Eve and then to Adam. Values clarification affirms moral relativism and humanistic self-autonomy. Values clarification conditions the human conscience to create a personal truth rather than to detect and obey the truth which God has written in human nature and in the depths of our hearts. Right and wrong are to be decided in the marketplace of ideas rather than recognized in the identity and authority of the Catholic Church.

Values clarification is in fundamental opposition to the concept of authority. Christ, recognizing our human frailties, wisely and compassionately has given to us objective standards of what is good and what is bad for us, and a loving authority which can be trusted, when our own leanings (i.e., responsible decision-making) might send us in the wrong direction. Most especially with children, who need care and direction, values clarification technique separates (liberates) children from truth and wise sacramental authority of parents and church. It is a conditioning process of a secular humanist political agenda. I am reminded of the Rule of St. Benedict, chapter 7, “There are paths that appear to man to be straight but which lead him to the depths of Hell.”

If this scathing critique of values clarification in sex education is not sufficient, I call your attention to the religion headline in the Boston Globe on Monday, June 10, 1991. It reads, “Presbyterians will vote today on sexual values.” The vote indeed occurred, and to the relief of countless God-fearing Presbyterians, the conservatives won the vote. What they fail to realize, however, is the underlying reality that the constitutions of their faith depend on a vote. Objective truth must never be subjected to redefinition by an opinion of the majority.

6. In all of the chastity programs, promoted by the Archdiocese of Boston, — to no surprise to any wise person — there exists in the curricula — a discussion of all controversial sex issues — contraception, abortion, masturbation, feminism, homosexuality, and divorce. In the cases of specific explicit sex, any discussion of them in a group setting violates the sacred, intimate, secret realm of the person, which the class and teacher enter — without permission and without purification. As I have said over and over again, the realm of the inner person veiled with modesty, belongs to the Divine.

However, the curricula design of the “chastity humanists” does not stop there. In the name of “freedom of ideas,” each of these curricula, St. Mary’s being the least offensive, present every erroneous heretical, dissenting humanist thought that has ever been espoused in opposition to authentic Magisterium teaching on these subjects. The obvious sentiments of the writers are with the dissenters. Catholic teaching is pitted against these ideas in a cold sterile manner — frequently with little or no explanatory reasoning. In this manner, in the name of a “Catholic” education, Catholic truth looses the battle because of the operation of previously named strategies and the paucity of explanation of authentic Catholic teaching.

The feminist agenda in these programs seeks to form an idea of an androgynous person — calling sex roles stereotypical — thus, liberating women from the devalued role as mother and wife to compete for power and money in the business world against men.

The contraceptive agenda constitutes a “how to” course. It parallels teaching children how to rob a bank, and then advising them not to. Of course, that “responsible” decision belongs to the child.

Likewise, psychological reasons are espoused for homosexuality and masturbation. Homosexuals are not to be discriminated against — a homosexual teacher or roommate is just fine. Teachers of children are instructed, with regard to masturbation, to attend “to the causes of the disorder rather than the direct repression of the phenomenon.” That’s like asking a bank robber why he’s robbing rather than first stopping the action! The bottom line is that these actions are excused as sickness or “an alternate way” rather than labeled sinful and in need of sacramental forgiveness.

So too goes the arguments with abortion; although less so. New Creation is probably the worst. Reasons why people choose abortion, the plurality of ideas on abortion, which exist in our society, respect of individual rights, separation of church/state, all point to the author’s bias in favor of toleration of abortion — at least as a “responsible choice” which should be the right of the individual person.

It should be noted that these programs do vary as to the author’s bias on such issues as contraception, abortion, masturbation, feminism, and homosexuality. A good indication of their bias can be found in their list of source references. The worst that I have found is that of New Creation and In God’s Image. St. Mary’s program more closely reflects Catholic ethics. Nevertheless, even in St. Mary’s program, which contains some good ideas, such as the “inner private realm of the person,” St. Mary’s program is obsessed with explicit biological data, espouses family planning (implicit with an anti-child mentality) as a given (family size must be limited [see paper I wrote about N.F.P. terminology]), and is laced with self-esteem jargon and values clarification. The curricula is ignorant of the extensive writings of John Paul II with regard to the integral relationship of love with life and the theology of the body. And with all these programs, the cautions of Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII, and Pope Paul VI — are swept aside — in resources and in practice.

7. No critique of the chastity programs espoused by the Archdiocese of Boston would be complete without a discussion of the role of parents. Various explanations of the reasons why these sex-ed programs are needed are submitted by the authors. The rhetoric indicates that they serve the parents and work with them. Somehow the authors know that these programs have to “get around” the time-honored tradition of parents being the prime educator of the child. What must be noted is that the rhetoric goes one way while the action goes the other. In between the lines we are told that “some parents don’t feel comfortable teaching intimate things to their children.” Professional elitists are ever so ready to take over — with no “modesty hang ups!” Parental role-modeling is totally passed over as parents’ prime teaching tool. I ask, what is it that children have to know that strangers can teach better than those who know their individual children and with sacramental grace can teach so well? The obvious answer is not the “facts of life” — but the total restructuring of the sexual morality of the young! And toward this end, (liberation of the young from parents and the church) these programs have succeeded very well!

The rhetoric continues, “But there are so many broken homes, so many non-church goers . . . the parents aren’t doing their job!” The age we live in is fraught with spiritual and physical danger. To say nothing would be an omission.

My first response is so obvious. What’s bad for children who come from “good” homes must be far worse for children whose home life is less stable! Moreover, the church cannot just excuse parents from being parents. Divorce is not granted, why should non-parenting be made easy? Clearly, the evangelical and catechetical focus must be that of helping parents parent — but not by conditioning them on new-age philosophy, putting them down, or excusing them!

To undertake the parenting job, which is reserved for parents, is the most subtle undermining of the value of the family. It is not Catholic! The idea of a stranger teaching a young lady the intimacies of, for instance, menstruation, rather than her hearing it from the familiar lips of her mother, is robbery of the most callous order. Yet this is exactly the curricula of these programs.

It can be asked, “But what if the parents won’t or physically can’t?” My response is that all parents teach by role-modeling. The church can help parents and give them solid catechesis, and from time, to time, on an individual basis, come to their aid with individual counseling on specific matters with individual permission. That’s always been the classic way. Its validity stands. There are simply times when a trusted uncle, friend, or priest helps out in a particular family situation with the parent’s gratitude and blessing. What must be emphasized here is the individuality of the arrangement.

8. To conclude the negative criticisms of chastity programs which I have reviewed, and which are endorsed by the Archdiocese, it must be said that these programs, complete with all their failures, have no way to control what is actually taught, or how, or by whom, to whom, or when. Ages, maturity, and faith perspective differ with pupils and teachers. Even the courses themselves are not properly Catholic! In reality, the individual teacher constitutes the slippery curriculum. There is no way to stop children from asking publicly such questions as, “How far can I go? What is a blow job? Can you explain foreplay? My dad uses condoms; is that what most parents do? What do homosexuals really do? How do you masturbate? Women too?” Most especially, there is no controlling the playground talk which endless hours of sex study will produce. Last year, a young boy in the Midwest hung himself to death accidentally, after learning in the playground, following a Catholic sex-ed program, that lack of oxygen increases sexual pleasure during masturbation. What a tragic waste!

9. A steady diet of “chastity” (unchastity) education presented in the classroom in the manner suggested by these programs which are condoned by the Archdiocese of Boston makes one overriding statement: Sex is everyday! It is not sacred. There is no reserve. It is removed from the Divine, removed from mystery. Dietrich von Hildebrand and his wife Alice say even more about reverence with regard to life in general nowadays. They say that the human soul is losing his sense of the sacred in everything — in the respect we pay one another, in the lack of seriousness we bring to our work, or the way we dress, and most assuredly, in the casual party-style in which we worship. In practice, in chastity programs, God has been remade “just human,” and in so doing, man has lost the sense of the Divine — both in model for imitation, as temples of the Holy Spirit, and in the Divine character which marks all of life’s meaning. These chastity programs make man forget, in the words of John Paul II, that man’s nature (inclusive of the inner secret realm) is THINE not MINE. Proper education in chastity is marked by reverence and the recognition that sex contains within itself both the mystery of the Divine and also the mystery of iniquity.

Positive and prudent

This exhortation must conclude on a positive note. Vatican II calls for it, and my maternal instincts instruct me to save the “leftovers.” More concretely, some very holy, wise, and well intentioned people have written a lot of material about the virtue of chastity, and how to foster it in our youth who are the victims of a permissive, materialistic, hedonistic, and manipulative society. Some of the materials, in some chastity programs, and certainly some lectures and some books, should be made available to our youth. Moreover, given the fact that our youth are immersed in spiritual dangers unheard of or undreamed of a generation ago, those mandated by Christ to preach and teach the values of the gospel have indeed an obligation to speak and teach. Beyond that, if done properly, parents as well as youth, will grow in virtue. So, let us consider what can be said, by whom, to whom, and how.

Anatomy and physiology of sex — together with its moral implications

At the proper times, places, and ages, known only to the parent or trusted friend or confessor, individual concrete instruction should be given — delicately and without trauma. It calls for private sharing of individual experience. It does not call for memorization of anatomy; it must be reverent. It includes the need for prayer, and the sacraments. It addresses clearly and morally, gently and respectfully, those topics now crassly treated in chastity programs — such as — masturbation, contraception, and the sometimes need of sexual abstinence in marriage for the temporary but necessary postponement of birth (i.e, see my paper entitled “Responsible Parenthood of Humanae Vitae and Natural Family Planning.”) It should include discussion of dating — the psychological/physical differences of men and women, and the concrete manner and guides by which one must conduct oneself in order to foster intimate friendship and avoid consent to illicit venereal pleasure. Sometimes this is so personal, it is better explained by written material which a person can read and then, return with questions. And certainly it would underscore the need for personal communication between the person and his or her girlfriend or boyfriend and joined prayer, as both parties recognize before God their mutual obligations.

The point to be stressed here is that concrete, explicit explanations of these aforementioned subjects are private and sacred and infinitely personal and confidential. Even the parent or priest cannot enter this realm without implicit permission of the instructee. More will be said later, but the following books are only a sampling of authentic, holy, material which children and young adults can read and parents use regarding explicit sex. The first two have imprimaturs and nihil obstats:

1. Chastity, Morality, Sex and Young People, by Robert J. Fox; Trinity Communications, Manassas, VA., 1974.

2. Chastity, A Guide for Teens and Young Adults, by Gerald Kelly, S.J.; Roman Catholic Books, Harrison, NY, 10528, 1941.

3. The third series, entitled Family Life Curriculum, inclusive of the books Sex and the Believing Boy/Sex and the Believing Girl, by Fr. John McGoey; Fidelity House, 1984 — have been endorsed by Edouard Cardinal Gagnon, past President of Pontificio Consiglio per la Familia.

Group or by Parent

Couple-to-Couple League (Foundation for the Family, Inc.; Cincinnati, OH 45238) was formed initially to implement the teachings of Humanae Vitae with regard to fertility awareness and responsible parenthood. Recently it has produced 3 educational film series, for different ages and maturity:

1. Springtime of Your Life
Practical reasons for chastity which can even be used in non-Catholic settings. Its subject matter is not sex, per se, but rather the freedoms which chaste living offers. Sexes should be separated for viewing.

2. Looking Ahead to Marriage and Family Planning
Practical chastity reasons, contraceptive, and natural family planning introduction for high-school seniors, college students, and young adults. The sexes should be separated for viewing.

3. New Dawn
For engaged couples and young adults who are interested in learning about responsible birth regulation.

The best part of this series is that it approaches sex with reverence, with practical reason, with important information, and important theological references. It is designed to be used in public settings in part, and continues the dialogue for Catholic settings so marked. With the right teacher and the right group, and with the right permission, all three of these series can be classroom presented. Contraceptive information is not presented graphically as “tools” to decide about or be used, but rather abstractly discussed as an expansion of the teaching on Humanae Vitae. Fertility awareness is presented as something married couples need to know. If couples need to, for a period of time, they can postpone the gift of collaboration with God to form new members of the body of Christ. Likewise, they can use the laws of fertility to ask for God’s gift of a baby. There is nothing erotically stimulating in this series; nor does it fall pitfall to the weakness of the chastity programs critiqued earlier. In a word, it is not sex initiation or conditioning, it does not liberate the child from the authority of the church or the home, instead it binds . . . and roots . . . Most importantly, Foundation for the Family places fertility awareness in the service of God. Children are seen as a treasured gift; as that which is desired — collaboratively with God’s will. However, for those times, when a new birth will cause unnecessary hardship, God is presented as the brilliant provider and protector of the family by his design of fertility.

Group instructions on matters related to sex

The teachers

Peter, the successors to the Apostles, and those appointed by them by mandate to share in the holy ministry of forming souls for Christ, need to collaborate with and reinforce the teaching of parents. In the paraphrased words of Fr. Mark Calagari, “Children are surrounded by spiritual dangers, unheard of a generation ago. To say nothing is an omission, especially when the church has learned so much about marriage and modern family life in recent years.” He is correct.

The ground rules are, that group teaching must be done with the express informed permission of both parent and child. Furthermore, the teacher must be a person of true Catholic faith (the oath of fidelity should be taken, and present no obstacle). The teacher must be a person of deep prayer and one who is personally a loving, compassionate person. How does one find such a person! The answer is “rarely,” and by testimony of those who know the person well. The teacher must be willing to answer tough questions about his faith, his prayer life, and his Christian witness. Virtue is caught more than taught.

What can be taught in a group

Given proper pedagogical method and assessment of intellectual and maturity level, what can be taught is the whole, two thousand year old rich teachings on the sacrament of marriage as a witness of Christ’s love for His church. The subject matter is a subcategory of religion, because matters related to sex relate essentially and substantially with a sacrament. Moreover, fostering a virtue (chastity) is something which concerns grace and gift, prayer and the sacraments — interaction with God.

What cannot be discussed openly and publicly is concrete matters of explicit sex which invade the sacred private realm of the person. Some of the same subjects spoken of in generic terms, designed to increase understanding, and by nature not erotically stimulating, is appropriate. To cite an obvious example, all classes of religious education speak of the sixth and ninth commandments, and this is quite different from sex instruction on the act of intercourse.

Proper age (young)

K-17

For younger children, I recommend a study of a series like Fr. McGoey’s Family Life. Fr. McGoey has written material for both parent and classroom teachers which focuses on very important concepts for a child to be cognizant of even at the age of five — that really form the intellectual foundation for a successful marriage when the child becomes an adult. His frame of reference is a person’s relationship with God, and how this affects his interpersonal relationship with family members and friends. It is a course about character building and its relation to suffering and self-mastery (i.e., totally distinct from the new-age self-esteem). Fr. McGoey gradually increases complexity of understanding in discussing the role that feelings, emotions, and truth have in forming the physically, emotionally, and spiritually mature young adult. His pedagogy, which employ classic principles of psychology, is superb in helping the young person to distinguish the difference between love and sex which has become so blurred in today’s society. As an adult, I am still formed by Fr. McGoey’s teaching — that one’s relationship to one’s spouse is never going to be better than one’s relationship to God. Even in kindergarten Fr. McGoey begins to teach children how to live a marriage of rich spiritual intimacy by explaining the difference between giving and receiving. It’s just true that sometimes parents don’t conceptually (although they do by role modeling) think about these things, and as Americans we are blessed and grateful to have a program by Fr. McGoey which can contribute to formation and foster reverence toward marriage. Another example of his wisdom is his insight, “To live without food and water is impossible; to live without love is impossible; to live without sex is only inconvenient.” Fr. McGoey masterfully explains to youth that the difference between consecrated celibacy and consecrated marriage is not so great. The celibate has conjugal relations with no one; the married person has conjugal relations with no one in the world except one. Fr. McGoey makes the youth ask the obvious, fundamental question: If my date is not chaste before marriage, if he can’t control himself, then obviously, why will he be faithful or chaste after marriage? Self-mastery, prayer, the sacraments, and the loving person make it possible for a person to live a meaningful chaste life, whether single or married.

Already discussed is the Couple-to-Couple League material. Two of their flyers deserve special credit, and are enclosed. I believe every teen should have them. They are “Reflections of a 17-Year Old” and “Practical Reasons for Chastity.”

Abortion

An explanation of the evil of abortion should be explained to children according to their age level. If done properly, it further forms children in a love of purity and understanding the sanctity of human life. The Archdiocesan Pro-Life office recommends use of the “Life Before Birth Series” slides by Neilson. The flyer “First Nine Months of Life” is a companion to it, and on a younger grade level, “You are Special” is a lovely leaflet. Older youth benefit from “The Silent Scream.” There are lots of excellent pro-life audio visuals. I personally believe that every lecture on abortion should include a gift of the tiny eight-week fetal model produced by Christian Womanity, Pleasant Hill, CA, 94523. Love and life are intimately connected and nothing teaches that more concretely than the tiny, beautiful fetal model. A “Letter to Parents at Home” (enclosed) is also a powerful teaching tool of pro-life, pro-family, and chastity. (On a personal note, teaching about abortion, like teaching about sex — is most effectively done at home. My years spent with Pregnancy Help, the pro-life literature which clutters my shelves, the posters, the hours spent saying rosaries outside abortion clinics, have taught my children that life, including their own, is very precious, and that they are unconditionally loved.)

Teens and young adults

The books mentioned before, Chastity Morality, Sex and Young People by Fr. Fox, and Chastity, A Guide for Teens and Young Adults by Gerald Kelly, S.J., contain much material which supplements Fr. McGoey; portions of which lend itself to classroom discussion. Their focus is the virtue of chastity — and as such, discusses friendship and dating, charity and self-discipline, the meaning of sex as sacred and therefore, belonging in marriage only, the meaning of sacrifice and self-giving, holiness and spiritual intimacy of spouses. Theologically, these books underscore the need of prayer, and the sacraments. Practically they discuss the sinfulness of impurity and how to avoid temptations of sin. They foster a love of children, as the supreme gift of God to the couple and, skillfully teach to youth that children themselves, are the teachers of parents in what constitutes love and self-giving because of what children call them to do.

Another book, by William D. May, called Sex and the Sanctity of Human Life, treats the same subjects for the young adult or college student. There are several more… Recommendations abound from Catholics United For Faith (New Rochelle, NY), Human Life International (Gaithersburg, MD), and Couple-to-Couple League (Cincinnati, OH).

Lastly, those people who have been involved with fertility awareness and responsible birth regulations (Natural Family Planning [I hate the term]) have made a huge contribution to the general topic of “positive and prudent” sex education. Fr. Mark Calagari is probably their most articulate spokesperson. I have only listened to his audio tapes, but I’m sure he has written literature as well — at least in lecture form! His lectures contain valuable information for young people to think about — some of which is classroom discussible. His frames of reference are papal teachings, and spiritual and physical intimacy. He explains to young people that sex is a language, it conveys meaning. His point of departure is Pope Paul IV’s definition of a proper and prudent sex education

“Parents need to foster an education to help the child and adolescent, without inhibiting or repressing them:

1. Become gradually aware of the power of developing drives awakening within them;

2. Make these drives an integral part of their developing personality;

3. Control the increasing strength of these drives;

4. So as to achieve and feel affective and sexual maturity to Prepare for the Gift of Self;

5. Through a love that will give to that gift its true dimension in an exclusive and definitive manner.”

Skillfully, Fr. Mark Calagari shows students that outside of marriage the language of sex means something different — something less than total unconditional self-surrender. He explains that sex outside of marriage is essentially selfish, and that damage is done even when young people don’t think about sin. He teaches when young people eventually marry, there will be a need to deprogram other meanings of sex, like, “I like you,” or “I like you more than the last person,” in order to reprogram sex’s proper holy meaning!

Mark Calagari is a master at teaching youth about all the wrong reasons young people choose sex as an improper expression of a wrong meaning.

Mark Calagari also is most brilliant when he discusses with young people what abstinence has to do with love in sacred marriage. I am reminded of G.K. Chesterton’s quotation, “The proper form of gratitude is some form of self-restraint.” Fr. Calagari teaches that although some spouses may never have to limit family size, all spouses will experience times which call for sexual abstinence — sickness, travel, workload, etc. He teaches that dating, and also abstinence times in marriage is when couples have to learn how to express deep personal love without sexual gratification. Dating is the time to learn the language of “I love you” — by sending flowers, doing dishes, and expressing physical affection which does not lead to intercourse. If it isn’t learned in dating, it frequently is never learned in marriage. Sex, isolated from other ways of communicating unconditional love quickly, loses its essential, self-giving primordial meaning. Spiritual intimacy never develops.

Dr. Janet Smith, from the University of Dallas, also contributes to young people’s understanding of marriage and sexual intercourse as an expression of conjugal love. She lectures (and is currently writing a book called — Humanae Vitae a Generation Later) about the essential connection between the procreative and unitive expression of conjugal love. She cites studies which trace the connection between divorce and contraception: 1) With contraception children are often postponed, and in their absence, it is easier for couples to divorce with no common bond of responsibility. 2) In the absence of children, women usually work, becoming financially independent, and so the mutual need of wife for husband and of husband for wife is thrown out of balance. 3) Contraception allows for infidelity while ducking its corresponding responsibility of childbearing. Young people have all been touched by divorce in one form or another, and they are very interested in discovering its causes.

Dr. Smith reveals to youth that although they may wish to date lots of people, there’s very few whom they could say, “I would be proud if this person were the mother or father of my children.” Youth understand that bonding and babies are linked — they grasp the truth, and beauty, of St. Augustine’s three goods of marriage. These three goods, indissolubility, fidelity, and children, are God’s protective blanket which he wraps around the family — the domestic church.

Janet Smith articulately explains the difference between romantic love and conjugal love — the former being always pleasant (a fantasy of perfection), the latter embracing every kind of feeling, rooted as it is in the commitment of the will to bind oneself to complete and total self-giving. She invites young people to contemplate the usually untalked of truths of married love — such as the spouses’ graced opportunities to comfort one another in the bad times — to be attuned to suffering and its redemptive meaning expressed by love. Like Fr. McGoey and Fr. Calagari, Dr. Janet Smith speaks of children as a joy, whose presence in the marriage helps to form all family members in holiness and the virtues. Janet Smith beautifully explains that periodic abstinence in marriage is an expression of conjugal love which helps couples appreciate the goodness of each other, the goodness of fertility, and the goodness of God. In today’s hurried world, children would not necessarily realize the sublimity of God’s plan for love and life, unless they paused to reflect on it prompted by formal teaching such as Dr. Janet Smith’s commentary on Humanae Vitae and prior church documents.

Dr. Donald DeMarco has many books and papers which reflect the wisdom gained from married couples practically “living out” sacramental marriage. When one thinks about teaching young people about marriage and sex, Dr. DeMarco’s insights regarding the Blessed Virgin demand special mention. He writes that Our Lady was both Virgin and Mother and then traces how in modern society, neither of these qualities are valued. He discusses the work of mothers as the most essential work of mankind — that of formation of souls, and he correctly values Mary’s virginity as the macro-example of self-giving and reverence for the truth. Moreover, all young people need to be reminded, at home, in school, and in Church, of Mary’s particular deep love for each of her children. She guards them jealously, like a mother hen, and through praying the rosary and wearing the scapula, she personally protects them from the ravages of sin, inclusive of impurity. Children need to know that they need only implore her help. As a mother of four children, I am personally astounded at how many young Catholics do not even know the prayers of the rosary; nor have they even heard of the scapula tradition! This part of chastity formation could be handled by speakers from the World Apostolate of Fatima, as well as by all good teachers, good priests and religious, and good parents, of course.

It is also worth commenting that a very simple but important education in chastity happens when priests and religious wear their clerical and religious garments, respectively. It is a statement which sets them apart from the lay person, and the way a lay person lives out chastity. It is a statement on the meaning of consecrated celibacy — not unlike “restraint” of the sexual function before and at times during marriage. God, not sex, is number one. By non-use, rather than use, one places oneself at the service of unconditional love. Consecrated celibacy is the flip side of consecrated sexual intercourse — both reflective of total self-giving. When religious cloths are abandoned, the message of distinction of roles is diminished or lost, and as such, an opportunity to teach is also lost.

Conclusion

The above material clearly indicates that there is available some very good and very holy material that scholars can put into the hands of parents, teachers, and children which will enrich their family life now, and later, in future families. It is a classroom supplement to the role modeling and personal instruction which occurs in the home. It should foster virtue and reverence for life and for God.

What has been described above as “proper and prudent” instruction in matters relating to sex is absolutely distinctly different from the kind of sex-education (conditioning and values restructuring) programs which operate in the Archdiocese of Boston and other dioceses in the United States. Although not being used in Boston, Colleen Mast’s Sex/Respect and Love and Life Series, and also Teen Aid are two more examples with which I am familiar, of spiritually damaging programs.

Human Life International, Catholics United For Faith, and Randy Engle have written critiques of these and others. My purpose in writing this epistle is explain the reasons why these Catholic sounding programs are really spiritually damaging and to urgently request their removal. My second purpose of course was to show that it is not necessary to throw the baby out with the bath water. Other people than parents can and should contribute to the spiritual formation of the child. In the cases I have cited, these people have made an enormous contribution.

What remains to be done is a very difficult and delicate task. A huge Archdiocesan administrative machinery is in place, absolutely blind to the pernicious design of the secular humanists from such organizations as Planned Parenthood, and AASEC(T) — who have successfully infiltrated the Catholic educational network. I hope I have revealed the liberation agenda underlying the Catholic rhetoric in these programs, and that those who read this letter will want to change things and reclaim our rightful Catholic heritage.

Our Lord has said that He is the Way, the Life, and the Truth. He has also said that those who follow Him will need to carry His cross. There is no question with regard to sex education in our Archdiocese, to do what is right and true will mean that you, as bishop, will carry a heavy cross. In the end this cross will be your salvation — as well as salvation for countless little ones, and their parents. Take comfort that the truth does not require the Catholic school to say nothing. On the contrary, there is a plethora of holy, good material as illustrated in the latter part of my letter.

However, a huge reeducation process for the leaders of our Archdiocesan programs must happen. You are just bound to face opposition and ridicule. Nevertheless, if I were you, I would first try to work with these leaders convincing them of the need for change and practically trying to save the good parts of some of their programs or perspectives which really serve youth and their parents fostering understanding, and real virtue. I’d enlist their aid in using the good texts — or others — in conjunction with parents. Especially, I would stress source materials — the encyclicals and papal addresses and declarations — I would ask them to lead the turnaround, but under the wise guidance of someone like Bishop Riley, or James Likoudis, or Paul Mankowski.

When it comes down to the truth, our church is one of confessorship and martyrdom. We confess the truth and are willing to die for it. The alternative is the millstone around our necks.

Sincerely,

Alice A. Grayson

P.S. Not specifically intrinsic to sex education but relevant nevertheless, I also believe that the Catholic school should be informing students about the technique of values clarification, the manipulative conditioning processes operating in the American classroom, new-age philosophy and the occult, the political agenda of homosexuals and feminists, the liberal secular humanism philosophy behind abortion and euthanasia, and finally, the operation of atheistic materialism as the number one value of the American socio-political culture. This indeed would be a service to good families, who now do this essentially by themselves.