Family Association for Catholic Education

Don J. Larmour – President 334 Wollaston Rise, Saskatoon
Saskatchewan. S7J 4G5
Phone 306-373-9947

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Family Association for Catholic Education would like to gratefully acknowledge the contribution of the following individuals: Chris Gartner – without whose tireless efforts at typing and retyping the drafts of this document, it would not exist. Vera Olenick who got things started. Adrian Olenick and Rick Gartner. Msgr. Martial LeBlanc, Carl and Mary Lynn, Dorothy Abernethy, Greg and Dianne Lynchuk, Bernadette Mysko, The Emmanuel Community – Saskatoon

IC XC FAMILY ASSOCIATION FOR CATHOLIC EDUCATION NI KA

PREFACE – FAMILY ASSOCIATION FOR CATHOLIC EDUCATION NI KA

INTRODUCTION

SECTION I – MAGISTERIAL TEACHING ON FAMILY LIFE

A. Catechism

B. Marriage Preparation

SUMMARY OF SECTION I

SECTION II – CONTRAVENTION OF CHURCH TEACHING

A. Jesus

B. Chastity

C. Sexuality

SUMMARY OF SECTION II

SECTION III – SECULAR HUMANIST BACKGROUND

A. Secular Humanism

B. SIECUS Promoted Sex Education

SUMMARY OF SECTION III

CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BRIEF ON FULLY ALIVE

IC XC

FAMILY ASSOCIATION FOR CATHOLIC EDUCATION NI KA

i

PREFACE

The role of the Catholic School is to educate Catholics. This does not mean that pupils of other religious persuasions are excluded from Catholic schools by any means. However the identity and raison d’etre of the Catholic school require it to be true and faithful to itself for its own relevance and possibly its survival, with no watering down of content or compromise with anything which is opposed to what the Catholic Church teaches officially as her own doctrine and discipline, in fidelity to her Master, Jesus Christ. The education imparted in the Catholic school cannot be satisfied with being only Christian in the way this concept is being used at this point in history. It has to be fully Catholic espousing the Catholic value system taught by the Magisterium of the Church. At the classroom level the temptation is great to tackle the present social issues with a pragmatic approach and adopt the broader consensus. However, this may not be the course followed by the Catholic School system. Its primary role is to educate with a Catholic perspective; this implies much more than simply imparting knowledge through instruction, seeking, often, instant solutions for the ilks and ills of the day. Catholic education aims at bringing the pupils to think and to act with the mind of Christ as it is revealed to us both in the Gospel and is reflected by the constant teachings of the Church. In the authentic tradition of the Church, Catholic education is not a vague concept, nor is it a form of escapism from challenges, as if education was meant to be imparted in the abstraction of a given social context. Catholic education at its finest hour, throughout history, has always been bold and daring, prudent and balanced, universal and adapted, as it focused its efforts on shaping the minds and hearts leading to firm self-discipline and true freedom. Catholic education provides a vision and the means to attain it. The Catholic School would be remiss in its duty if it did not deal in depth with the issue of sexuality as one of the great gifts shared with each person, a gift upon which rests our own dignity as man and woman. The Church has not been silent on this issue. It did not lie content by only condemning abuses and cautioning against dangers and pitfalls affecting persons, be they parents, teachers or students. There is a wealth of perennial positive wisdom flowing from the Church’s constant teaching on sexuality, and how the matter is to be dealt with at the school level. It is there. Parents, students, school administrations and the clergy must not only know about it, they must make it their own, and impart it in the name of the Church. This is their responsibility as it is the right of the students to be exposed to what and how the Church teaches. In agreement with many, including concerned parents, who carefully, responsibly and impartially examined the contents of Fully Alive, we wish, regretfully, to state clearly that this program does not meet the expectations and directives as they have been consistently laid down by the Magisterium of the Church, and further, that sometimes it is in striking opposition to it. It is the merit of the present Brief to bring to the attention of all concerned some of the serious flaws which not only offend against Catholic stance but also are of questionable pedagogical value. According to the evidence ably put together in this Brief with time-consuming research and professional approach, as the program and texts presently stand, it would be unwise, in our considered opinion, and possibly misleading, to use these tools under the auspices of Catholicism as material to be used in the Catholic schools. Consequently, we humbly beg all interested parties to examine carefully this Brief and the Fully Alive text books; then in light of the Church’s position on the matter arrive at their own conclusion, before God and their conscience, for assuming their responsibility in the best interests of those entrusted to their care. May all be involved and spare no effort in providing true Catholic alternatives. There are excellent texts and programs available which are respectful of the Magisterium’s position and teaching on this matter.

Respectfully Yours in Christ,

M LeBlanc P.H.

1

INTRODUCTION

The Family Association for Catholic Education is an association of Catholic families whose goal is the promotion of Catholic education for Catholic children in Catholic schools. The Church has consistently stressed the need for Catholic education.1 2 3 4 This need derives from the fact that the Truth, required by mankind to live full, joyful, and complete lives, is found most perfectly in Catholic doctrine, in the person of Jesus Christ.5 6 7 Catholic education, in this context, does not mean just avoiding blatant contradictions of Church teaching.

Catholic education requires that Catholic doctrine be presented “in its purity and integrity.”8 Nor is the teaching of Catholic doctrine an option for Catholic schools, since the Catholic faithful have a right to Catholic education according to canon law.9 In addition, the requirement that Catholic education conform to

Catholic doctrine, is not restricted to just the religion course. Catholic education requires that all subjects, biology, history, reading, writing, art, family life, as well as religion, conform completely to the teaching of the Magisterium.10 11 12 13 The Magisterium is defined as the teaching authority of the Church. It is exercised by the Pope alone, or by the Bishops in conjunction with the Pope.14 The Magisterium has the authority to interpret and to regulate. Because the authority comes from Christ, pronouncements made by the Magisterium can only be altered by the Magisterium. The Magisterium does not seek to present new truths to the faithful, but rather to authentically interpret and apply the Truth which has been revealed by God in Jesus Christ. The Magisterium, therefore, speaks in the name of Jesus Christ.15 The pronouncements and prohibitions of the Magisterium, both the solemn Magisterium and the ordinary and universal Magisterium, are binding in conscience on the faithful.16 17 18

The Magisterium has made numerous statements on family life, resulting in a wealth of information describing the situation in which families find themselves, both the causes of problems, and the remedies. Given the source of this teaching, Christ himself, we of the Family Association for Catholic Education wish to stress that we are not in any way opposed to family life education. On the contrary, we believe that the Catholic family can greatly benefit from education on family life in the Catholic schools. However, we also firmly believe that family life education which is not in conformity with the Magisterium, rather than helping families, will prove to be destructive to them. Our analysis of Fully Alive has therefore focused not on whether we like the program, but rather on whether it conforms to the Magisterium. Our conclusion is that it does not. This conclusion is supported by other individuals and groups from across the continent. The Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. has assessed Fully Alive. Its doctrinal assessment states that Fully Alive is “unacceptable,” that Fully Alive’s presentation is not Christ centred, and that Fully Alive makes only indirect references to the Divinity of Jesus.19

Father Alphonse DeValk of The Interim says:

Fully Alive’s component appears to me to be contrary to custom, modesty, reason and Church teaching. Fully Alive’s ‘secularity’ then is not ‘morally indifferent’ or ‘neutral’ with regard to religious values. Rather, it is secular because its designers, on principle, decided to treat the subject of family life education without the direct light of faith. (20)

Monsignor Vincent Foy writes:

Teachers are victims of Fully Alive. They are asked to teach a course that is essentially anti-Catholic. They are asked to show attitudes which desensitize children to sexual talk and images. They are asked to invite discussion of subjects which should not be discussed and to invite disclosures which ought not be made. (21)

Father John McGoey writes:

In reality Fully Alive is a seriously flawed document filtered through SIECUS (Sex Information and Education Council of the United States) sexology! The experience of many Catholic educators is limited to St. Jerome’s [College in Ontario] humanist mentality which has nothing in common with the moral doctrine of the Catholic Church . . . Concerned believing Catholics recognize Fully Alive as unworthy of Catholic schools. (22)

This brief will 1) describe Magisterial teaching on family life, 2) will show how Fully Alive does not conform to the Magisterium, and 3) will show the philosophical background to Fully Alive.

SECTION I: MAGISTERIAL TEACHING ON FAMILY LIFE

INTRODUCTION:

In order to discuss the merits of any particular family life program, we must first attempt to define what is meant by `family life education’ in general, and ‘Catholic family life education’ in particular. The term ‘family life education’ has been used in many ways. Randy Engel, in her book Sex Education: The Final Plague, describes how the leadership of the International Planned Parenthood Federation debated changing the name of `sex education’ to `family life education’23. Eventually the proponents of the term `family life education’ won, resulting in the term being generally introduced as a euphemism for `sex education’. SIECUS (Sex Information Education Council U.S.), founded by the leadership of Planned Parenthood and based on the philosophy of Secular Humanism,24 has continued to promote naturalist-based sex education under the name of `family life education’. This naturalist based approach has been firmly denounced by the Church.

The Catholic view of family life is significantly different from that of SIECUS. The Church has consistently understood the need for support for families and as such has made many statements on family life. Catholic teaching, however, does not make a distinction between life in general and family life. The family life program, which is part of the schools overall goal of formation, is merely focussing on a specific part of formation for life in general. The focus still needs to be on Catholic formation, rather than simply on information. An example of this would be the topic of sexuality which, to be Catholic, needs to be dealt with in the context of the 6th and 9th commandments on chastity and purity.

A distinction needs to be made here between individualized formation in the home, and classroom based formation in the school. The intimate details of human sexuality, both biological and emotional, need to be presented in an individualized and personalized setting.252627282930 A classroom is neither personalized nor individualized and therefore, by its very nature, is incapable of providing the setting required for the proper presentation of this material. The following discussion deals with what is appropriate for the classroom.

The topic of human reproduction is usually included in secular family life programs. From a Catholic perspective there are two issues related to the classroom discussion of this topic: chastity/abstinence at the younger grades, and marriage preparation in the older.Chastity /abstinence and the faith foundation on which they are built are catechism subjects. Catholic family life education therefore contains two components: Catechism and Marriage Preparation.

A) CATECHISM

The Church has always considered the family to be central to society and to life, teaching that, “The family may be regarded as the cradle of all civilization . . . ,”31 and that, “The future of humanity passes by way of the family.”32 The family is thus seen as the basic building bloc of society. Family in this context means father and mother joined together in the sacrament of Christian marriage with children. The Church also stresses that the foundation of the family is marriage.33 The cornerstone, however, first for life, and second for marriage, is the Gospel message of Jesus Christ as Pope John Paul II has emphasized:

The Redeemer of man, Jesus Christ, is the centre of the universe and of history.34
The church is deeply convinced that only by the acceptance of the Gospel are the hopes that man legitimately places in marriage and in the family capable of being fulfilled.
Willed by God in the very act of creation, marriage and the family are interiorly ordained to fulfilment in Christ and have need of his graces in order to be healed from the wounds of sin and restored to their beginning, that is, to full understanding and the full realization of God’s plan.35

Consequently the decisive answer to every one of man’s questions, his religious and moral questions in particular, is given by Jesus Christ, or rather is Jesus Christ himself… 36
People today need to turn to Christ once again in order to receive from him the answer to their questions about what is good and what is evil . . . Consequently, the man who wishes to understand himself thoroughly-and not just in accordance with immediate, partial, often superficial, and even illusory standards and measures of his being-must with his unrest, uncertainty and even his weakness and sinfulness, with his life and death draw near to Christ.37
Jesus Christ, the centre of the universe, the redeemer, the healer, is thus the starting point and the foundation for life as well as marriage. As a result, He is also the starting point and foundation for family life. The school contributes to this process by making Christ central to Catholic education. “Christ is the foundation of the whole educational enterprise in a Catholic school.”38 With Jesus Christ as the starting point for our faith, the Pope explains that “faith is a lived knowledge of Christ, a living remembrance of his commandments, and a truth to be lived out.”39 Faith also has a moral component which must not be ignored. What we believe is reflected by how we live. These components must not be separated, as explained by Pope John Paul II who says:

No damage must be done to the harmony between faith and life: the unity of the church is damaged not only by Christians who reject or distort the truths of faith but also by those who disregard the moral obligations to which they are called by the Gospel.40
The attempt to set freedom in opposition to truth, and indeed to separate them radically, is a consequence, manifestation, and consummation of another more serious and destructive dichotomy, that which separates faith from morality . . . We are speaking of a mentality which affects, often in a profound, extensive and all-embracing way, even the attitudes and behaviour of Christians, whose faith is weakened and loses its character as a new and original criteria for thinking and acting in personal, family, and social life. In a widely dechristianized culture, the criteria employed by believers themselves in making judgements and decisions often appear extraneous or even contrary to those of the Gospel.41
The connection between faith and morality is further explained by the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The way of Christ leads to life; a contrary way leads to destruction. The Gospel parable of the two ways remains ever present in the catechesis of the Church; it shows the importance of moral decisions for our salvation: There are two ways, the one of life, the other of death; but between the two there is a great difference.42

The principal precepts of moral life are expressed in the Ten Commandments.43 In addition, two other relevant points result from faith in Christ and the Ten Commandments. These are actual sin and original sin. The breaking of the Ten Commandments is sin, which results in the bondage and death from which Christ came to free us.44 The cause of sin is our fallen nature “inclined to evil,” which results from original sin.45 These three major points must be considered further.

Original Sin:

Due to the fall from grace, mankind now has a nature “inclined to evil.”46 The Magisterium has stern warnings about disregarding this aspect of human nature:

Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action, and morals.47
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.48
As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the domination of death; and inclined to sin.49
At the same time, when teaching Catholic doctrine and morality about sexuality, the lasting effects of original sin must be taken into account, that is to say, human weakness and the need for the grace of God to overcome temptation and avoid sin.50
The fact that we have a fallen nature, weakened and inclined to sin, is extremely important to understanding issues such as marital breakdown, social injustice and immorality.

Actual Sin:

Our sin is a direct consequence of our inclination to sin. It has a number of effects on us. The Magisterium teaches the following:

Sin is before all else an offense against God, a rupture of communion with him. At the same time it damages communion with the Church.51
Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul’s progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin.52
Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices forever with no turning back.53
Sin is at the root of all of society’s ills, from disorder in marriage54 to “structures of sin” in the social order.55 This perspective is totally contrary to what is `politically correct’ in the media and popular culture today.

The Ten Commandments:

The Ten Commandments are the moral base upon which society is founded. They are the necessary standard for evaluating the sinfulness or righteousness of behaviour and they are necessary for salvation. The Magisterium thus says:

From the very lips of Jesus, the new Moses, man is once again given the commandments of the Decalogue. Jesus himself definitively confirms them and proposes them to us as the way and condition of salvation.56
The council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them.57
Since they express man’s fundamental duties toward God and towards his neighbour, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations. They are fundamentally immutable and they oblige always and everywhere.58
The Ten Commandments state what is required in the love of God and love of neighbour.59
The commandments of the second table of the Decalogue in particular-those which Jesus quoted to the young man in the Gospel-constitute the indispensable rules of all social life.60
In fidelity to Scripture and in conformity with the example of Jesus, the tradition of the Church has acknowledged the primordial importance and significance of the Decalogue.61
Ever since the time of St. Augustine the Ten Commandments have occupied a predominant place in the catechesis of baptismal candidates and the faithful.62
Positive information about sexuality should always be part of a formation plan…Therefore the spiritual and moral dimensions must always be predominant so as to have two special purposes: presenting God’s commandments as a way of life and the formation of a right conscience.
The Ten Commandments, therefore, provide the objective standard for guiding human action. They are neither outdated nor arbitrary rules, but rather God’s revelation to humanity of what we require to function in a way which is properly human. This is especially true in family life. The Church teaches that family life is intimately linked to faith, to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or more accurately, to Jesus Christ himself. A direct consequence of this faith is Christ’s teaching on how to live: keeping the Ten Commandments, avoiding sin, and pursuing virtue. Catholic family life education, therefore, properly falls within the realm of Catechism. Catechism means introducing students to Jesus Christ, who is `the way the truth and the life’ (John 14:6), and on that base teaching the subsequent rules for social interaction and causes of social breakdown.63 Catechism is thus the first pillar of Catholic family life education. The second pillar is the application of this knowledge to the practical preparation for adult family life, marriage preparation.

B) MARRIAGE PREPARATION

The Church understands Christian marriage to be the foundation of family life.64 In addition, the Church’s emphasis on the sacramental aspect of marriage illustrates and reminds us of its supernatural dimension. In fact it is precisely this supernatural dimension which allows Christian marriage to transcend the purely natural. It is what all Christian marriage is called to be: to live the mystical love of God revealed by Christ to His Church. God created man in his own image and likeness: calling him to existence through love, he called him at the same time for love. God is love and in himself he lives a mystery of personal loving communion. Creating the human race in his own image and continually keeping it in being, God inscribed in the humanity of man and woman the vocation, and thus the capacity and responsibility, of love and communion. Love is therefore the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being.

…Christian revelation recognizes two specific ways of realizing the vocation of the human person, in its entirety, to love: marriage and virginity or celibacy. Either one is, in its own proper form, an actuation of the most profound truth of man, of his being “created in the image of God.”65

According to Pope John Paul II, marriage preparation has three major time periods called “remote,” “proximate” and “immediate.”66 The “remote” stage is

during childhood, prepuberty. About this stage the Holy Father says:

Remote preparation begins in early childhood, in that wise family training which leads children to discover themselves as being endowed with a rich and complex psychology and with a particular personality with its own strengths and weaknesses. It is the period when esteem for all authentic human values is instilled, both in interpersonal and social relationships, with all that this signifies for the formation of character, for the control and right use of one’s inclinations, for the manner of regarding and meeting people of the opposite sex, and so on. Also necessary especially for Christians, is solid spiritual and catechetical formation that will show that marriage is a true vocation and mission, without excluding the possibility of the total gift of self to God in the vocation to the priestly or religious life.67

Notice that in this stage there is no mention of the “nature of conjugal sexuality,” and that there is emphasis on solid spiritual and catechetical formation. Following the remote stage, is the proximate stage. Webster’s dictionary defines proximate to be “immediate,” “imminent,” or “close.”68 In Canada, students are proximate to marriage in high school, not elementary school.

Upon this basis there will subsequently and gradually be built up the proximate preparation, which-from the suitable age and with adequate catechesis, as in a catechumenal process-involves a more specific preparation for the sacraments, as it were a rediscovery of them. This renewed catechesis of young people and others preparing for Christian marriage is absolutely necessary in order that the sacrament may be celebrated and lived with the right moral and spiritual disposition. The religious formation of young people should be integrated, at the right moment and in accordance with the various concrete requirements, with preparation for life as a couple. This preparation will present marriage as an interpersonal relationship of a man and a woman that has to be continually developed, and it will encourage those involved to study the nature of conjugal sexuality and responsible parenthood, with the essential medical and biological knowledge connected with it. It will also acquaint those concerned with the correct methods for educating children, and will assist them in gaining the basic requisites for well-ordered family life, such as stable work, sufficient financial resources, sensible administration, notions of housekeeping.

Finally, one must not overlook preparation for the family apostolate, for fraternal solidarity and collaboration with other families, for active membership in groups, associations, movements and undertakings set up for the human and Christian benefit of the family.69

The key points from this paragraph are as follows:

1) Religious formation should be integrated with preparation for life as a couple;

2) Preparation for life as a couple includes the study of the “nature of conjugal sexuality”;

3) The “nature of conjugal sexuality” includes the “essential medical and biological information associated with it”;

4) The age for learning the “nature of conjugal sexuality” is high school, not elementary school.

Two points are worth stressing. First, preparation for life as a couple (marriage preparation) is properly a part of religious formation (catechism or religion class). This precludes the concept of a nonreligious or quasi-religious family life course teaching human reproduction, running parallel to a religion course, but does not exclude a family life course which emphasizes catechism, formation, and Church teaching.

Second, the appropriate age for learning human reproduction is `preparation for life as a couple’, which is high school, not elementary school. Parents do have the responsibility to teach this material in the home,70 but at an age appropriate to the development of the child.71 The discussion here, however, has focused on the classroom teaching of human reproduction. Classroom teaching of chastity and abstinence during adolescence, without the biological details, are in no way excluded by the Pope’s teaching.

Church teaching on these questions is further enlightened by the document Catechesie Tradendae. In it John Paul II describes four stages of Catechism according to age. In paragraphs 36 and 37 of this document, dealing with infants and children, no mention is made of sexuality. In paragraph 38 he says:

Next comes puberty and adolescence . . . Catechesis cannot ignore these changeable aspects of this delicate period of life. A catechesis capable of leading the adolescent to reexamine his or her life and to engage in dialogue, a catechesis that does not ignore the adolescent’s great questions-self giving, belief, love and the means of expressing it constituted by human sexuality-such a catechesis can be decisive.72

Puberty and adolescence, and not younger, is again clearly established as the appropriate age for introducing the topic of the appropriate expression of human sexuality. The Pope is also not saying that it is necessary to impart the complete details of human reproduction; but rather, he is saying that Catechesis should not ignore the fact that questions about love and the means of expressing it are being asked at this age. Chastity (abstinence) questions (without the biological detail) are therefore not excluded from the classroom when introduced post onset of puberty.

The Church, however, has said much more about sex education. Pope Pius XI wrote the following in his Encyclical Rappresentanti In Terra (Divini Illius Magistri) also called Christian Education of Youth:

Another grave danger is that of naturalism which nowadays invades the field of education in that most delicate matter of purity of morals. Far too common is the error of those who with dangerous assurance and under an ugly term propagate a so-called sex education, falsely imagining they can forearm youths against the dangers of sensuality by means purely natural, such as a foolhardy initiation and precautionary instruction for all indiscriminately, even in public; and, worse still, by exposing them at an early age to the occasions, in order to accustom them, so it is argued, and as it were to harden them against such dangers.

Such persons grievously err in refusing to recognize the inborn weakness of human nature, and the law of which the Apostle speaks, fighting against the law of the mind; and also in ignoring the experience of facts, from which it is clear that, particularly in young people, evil practices are the effect not so much of ignorance of intellect as of weakness of a will exposed to dangerous occasions, and unsupported by the means of grace.

In this extremely delicate matter, if, all things considered, some private instruction is found necessary and opportune, from those who hold from God the commission to teach, and have the grace of state, every precaution must be taken. Such precautions are well known, in traditional Christian education, and are adequately described by Antoniano cited above, when he says:

Such is our misery and inclination to sin, that often in the very things considered to be remedies against sin, we find occasions for and inducements to sin itself. Hence it is of the highest importance that a good father, while discussing with his son a matter so delicate, should be well on his guard and not descend into details, nor refer to the various ways in which this infernal hydra destroys with its poison so large a portion of the world; otherwise it may happen that instead of extinguishing the fire, he unwittingly stirs or kindles it in the simple and tender heart of the child. Speaking generally, during the period of childhood it suffices to employ those remedies which produce the double effect of opening the doors to the virtue of purity and closing the door upon vice.73

Some key points from this Encyclical are:

1) Classroom-based sex education is not allowed. This precludes co-ed sex

education;

2) Detailed, explicit instruction in human reproduction is not allowed;

3) The root cause of problems (immorality, etc.) is not lack of knowledge about

reproduction but rather weakness of will when exposed to occasions of sin;

4) An essential goal of instruction in human reproduction is the prevention of sin

and the practice of virtue (rather than just prevention of pregnancy or disease);

5) Detailed instruction in human reproduction is not appropriate during childhood.

These points are all confirmed by the document from the Pontifical Council for the Family, Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, issued in English in January of 1996. Following the Encyclical from Pius XI was an announcement from the Holy Office (a forerunner to today’s Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) on March 21, 1931.

In response to the question “May the method of `sex education’ or even `sex instruction’ be approved?”, it answered:

No. In the education of youth the method to be followed is that hitherto observed by the Church and the Saints as recommended by His Holiness the Pope in the encyclical dealing with the Christian Education of Youth, promulgated on December 31, 1929. The first place is to be given to the full, sound and continuous instruction in religion of both sexes. Esteem, desire and love of the angelic virtue must be instilled into their minds and hearts. They must be made fully alive to the necessity of constant prayer, and assiduous frequenting of the sacraments of Penance and the Holy Eucharist; they must be directed to foster a filial devotion to the blessed Virgin as Mother of holy purity, to whose protection they must entirely commit themselves. Precautions must be taken to see that they avoid dangerous reading, indecent shows, conversations of the wicked, and all other occasions of sin.

Hence no approbation whatever can be given to the advocacy of the new method even as taken up recently by some Catholic authors and set before the public in printed publications.

Pope Pius XII also disallowed sex instruction. In an address to the French Fathers of Families on September 18, 1951, he said:

Secondly, this (sex initiation) literature, if such it could be called, does not take into account, based as it is on nature, the general experience of all times, whether it be today or yesterday, which attests that in moral education, neither initiation nor instruction offers any advantage of itself. Rather, it becomes seriously unwholesome and prejudicial when not closely allied with constant discipline, with vigourous self control, and above all with the use of the supernatural forces of prayer and the sacraments . . .

…Even the principles so wisely illustrated by our Predecessor Pius XI in the encyclical Divini Illius Magistri [On Christian Education of Youth] on sex education and questions connected thereto are set aside-a sad sign of the times! With a smile of compassion they say: Pius XI wrote twenty years ago, for his times! Great progress has been made since then!74

Vatican II mentions sex education only once. The statement is found in the document Gravissimum Educationis. The context for this statement is set by paragraphs three and six which reiterate that all education is the duty of parents. Paragraph one includes the statement that “As they grow older, they (young people) should receive a positive and prudent education in matters pertaining to sex.”75 This Vatican II statement does not contradict earlier prohibitions against classroom-based sex education. But rather, it states positively what parents should teach their children.

These previous statements by the Magisterium provide the context for understanding the most recent statements from the current Pope. The previous statements have prohibited naturalist (education based on means purely natural and excluding grace) classroom-based sex education. They have emphasized the need to stress chastity and how this is to be done. They have also emphasized the need to avoid sin and occasions of sin. Thus, Pope John Paul II writes:

Sex education, which is a basic right and duty of parents, must always be carried out under their attentive guidance, whether at home or in educational centres chosen and controlled by them. In this regard, the Church reaffirms the law of subsidiarity, which the school is bound to observe when it cooperates in sex education, by entering into the same spirit which animates the parents.

In this context education for chastity is absolutely essential, for it is a virtue that develops a person’s authentic maturity and makes him or her capable of respecting and fostering the nuptial meaning of the body. Indeed Christian parents discerning the signs of God’s call will devote special attention and care to education in virginity or celibacy as the supreme form of that self giving that constitutes the very meaning of human sexuality.

In view of the close links between the sexual dimension of the person and his or her ethical values, education must bring the children to a knowledge of and respect for the moral norms as the necessary and highly valuable guarantee for responsible personal growth in human sexuality. For this reason the church is firmly opposed to an often widespread form of imparting sex information dissociated from moral principles. That would merely be an introduction to the experience of pleasure and a stimulus leading to the loss of serenity-while still in the years of innocence-by opening the way to vice.76

The points of note from this paragraph are:

1) sex education is the right and duty of parents;

2) sex education in schools is allowed but it

must not separate morality from biology
must educate for chastity
must teach virginity or celibacy as the “supreme” form of expression of human sexuality;
3) the Church believes that detailed information on human reproduction at too young an age, “the years of innocence,” is harmful to the child.

The years of innocence are explained further by the Pontifical Council for the Family as follows: It can be said that a child is in the stage described in John Paul II’s words as “the years of innocence,” from about 5 years of age until the onset of puberty -the beginning of which can be set at the first signs of changes in the boys or girls body (the visible effect of an increased production of sexual hormones). This period of tranquillity and serenity must never be disturbed by unnecessary information about sex.77

In some societies today there are planned and determined attempts to impose premature sex information on children…Such information tends to shatter their emotional and educational development and to disturb the natural serenity of this period of life.78
Two key points need to be emphasized from these paragraphs:

1) Sex information at too young an age is potentially harmful to the child;

2) The years of innocence end with the onset of puberty, indicated by physical changes in the body. The Pope goes on to say in paragraph 39: “They (parents) will therefore follow the educational lines mentioned above, taking care to show their children the depths of significance to which the faith and love of Jesus Christ can lead.” Schools are bound by the law of subsidiarity mentioned, to follow these educational lines.

Subsidiarity has been explained by previous Popes to mean that a higher level of organization, such as a school, must not carry out what is properly the task of a lower level of organization, such as parents. If schools co-operate in the parents’ task, they do so in a way which is subsidiary to parents, being bound to not usurp parents’ responsibilities.79

An explanation is needed if there appears to be a contradiction between the statements of John Paul II and Pius XI. John Paul II did not in any way contradict Pius XI since Pius XI banned naturalist classroom-based sex education. John Paul II has confirmed this ban, but has allowed the teaching of human reproduction in the classroom if done in a way which is not naturalist. He then states the conditions which need to be fulfilled in order for that to be the case. These conditions are not fulfilled by Fully Alive, as will be demonstrated. Pope John Paul II has stressed that education for chastity is essential. One of the Magisterium’s most concise explanations of education for chastity is as follows:

The virtue of chastity, however, does not at all consist solely in avoiding these faults. It demands something more as well: achievement of higher goals. It is a virtue which affects the whole person, both inwardly and in external behaviour. People should cultivate this virtue in a way which is suited to their state in life. Some profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God in a remarkable manner. Others live in the way prescribed by the moral law, whether they are married or single. However, in every state in life, chastity is not confined to an external bodily quality. It must purify the heart, as Christ said:`You have learned that they were told, “Do not commit adultery.” But what I tell you is this: If a man looks on a woman with a lustful eye, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart.’80

Granted the forcefulness of these admonitions, Christians of today-indeed, today more than ever before-should use the means which the Church has always ecommended for living a chaste life. They are: discipline of the senses and of the mind, vigilance and prudence in avoiding occasions of sin, modesty, moderation in amusements, wholesome pursuits, constant prayer, frequent recourse to the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist. Young people especially should diligently develop devotion to the Immaculate Mother of God and should take as models the lives of the saints and of other Christians, especially young Christians, who excelled in the practice of chastity.81

Therefore it must be stressed that education for chastity is inseparable from efforts to cultivate all the other virtues…82 The Magisterium has been very clear and consistent in explaining family life education to the faithful:

SUMMARY OF SECTION I

The term `Family Life Education’ (FLE) was chosen by Planned Parenthood as a euphemism for `sex education’.
The Church understands family life differently than does the secular world.
The Church understands the family to be of great importance, the building bloc of society.
Family life is founded on the sacrament of Christian marriage.
The intimate details of human reproduction are to be given to youth in an individualized and personalized dialogue, at an age appropriate for the child’s development, not in the classroom.
The “years of innocence” run from about age 5, to the onset of puberty.
Premature sex instruction during “the years of innocence” is potentially harmful to the child.
Catholic FLE includes two components, 1) Catechism, and 2) Marriage Preparation.
Catechism:

Life, and therefore family life, as well as marriage, finds fullness only in Jesus Christ.
Faith in Christ must characterize the life of all believers, and be the criteria for all moral decisions.
The Ten Commandments are the expression of God’s moral law.
The Ten Commandments are intimately related to actual sin and original sin.
Sin is primarily an offense against God and it disrupts communion with Him. Sin is also the root cause of all human problems.
Original sin has wounded our nature making us “inclined to evil.”
Catechism means introducing students to Jesus Christ who is `the way the truth and the life’, and on that base teaching the `God given’ rules of social interaction and the causes of social breakdown.
Teaching on chastity and abstinence is part of Catechism, and can be introduced during adolescence.
Catechism forms the first pillar of Catholic FLE.
Marriage Preparation:

Christian marriage is designed to be a reflection of God’s love.
Marriage preparation is very important and has distinct stages.
The age for classroom discussion on “the nature of conjugal sexuality” is high school, not elementary school.
Earlier Popes have warned against the dangers of classroom-based sex-education, and have banned naturalist sex instruction outright.
John Paul II has reaffirmed that parents have the right and duty to give their own children sex education. He has allowed schools to assist in this but he stresses the need to educate for chastity, to not separate morality from biology, and to teach virginity or celibacy as the “supreme” form of the expression of sexuality.
SECTION II. CONTRAVENTION OF CHURCH TEACHING

Section I explained Church teaching on certain aspects of family life. Section II explains how Fully Alive contravenes this teaching.

A) JESUS

The Church teaches, as we have shown in Section I, that the answer to all of life’s questions, including those subject areas covered by Fully Alive, is found in Jesus Christ. Fully Alive mentions `God’ on numerous occasions, but the name of Jesus is mentioned so seldom that He seems to be somewhat irrelevant. The 21 times that Jesus is mentioned in the student books, in eight years of Fully Alive are listed according to context as follows:

manger scene 1
prayer in His name 1 (followed later by prayer not in His name)
that He worked, played, went to school and had friends 6
that He went through puberty 1
that he experienced pain in his body 1
that he had relationships 1
fleeting references to Christ and His Church 1
leaving only nine other references to Jesus to cover all five themes for eight years. This disregard for the centrality of Jesus Christ is dramatically demonstrated by Theme I of Fully Alive. This theme is titled `Known and Loved by God’. According to the consistent teaching of the Church for 2000 years, and confirmed by the writings of the Saints for the same length of time, the most profound, most powerful, most overwhelming demonstration of God’s love for us is found in Jesus Christ, “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him will not perish but will have everlasting life.” (John 3:16). Fully Alive, however, as we have seen, ignores this demonstration of God’s love for us shown by Jesus Christ. Instead, its focus seems more intent on attempting to promote children’s self esteem by means which are naturalistic (repeated assurances that we are good and wonderful) than on teaching Catholic truth. Fully Alive’s error is in ignoring our fallen nature (original sin). Proper self esteem is good, but to be proper, self esteem must be based on Truth. This Truth contains three parts: 1) The knowledge that we are created out of love by God, in His image; 2) The knowledge that although God wants us to live as his children, according to certain standards (the Ten Commandments), our sin has led us to stray from these standards creating a chasm which exists between ourselves and God; 3) Through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God has bridged the chasm, making it possible for us to live, through grace, as his children. In this context Jesus Christ assumes his rightful place of being the central demonstration of God’s love for mankind, freeing us from our sins in order for us to respond to God’s love. In mentioning only God the creator, Fully Alive ignores our need for Jesus Christ as saviour, redeemer, and lover of mankind. As a result, Fully Alive promotes a view of life contrary to Church emphasis on the need to live a life of virtue and holiness.83

The Church also teaches that: “Christ is the centre of all Christian life. The bond with Him takes precedence over all other bonds familial or social.”84 This fact is never stressed by Fully Alive. This is illustrated on page 59 of the grade eight student book, where, in a section on looking after relationships, Fully Alive fails to mention a relationship with Christ at all, and puts relationship with God on the same level as relationships with people.

The Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is thus ignored or minimized. Three other important related aspects of this Truth link faith to morality. They flow directly from Jesus Christ, and cease to have meaning without him. These are original sin, actual sin, and the Ten Commandments.

a) Sin:

Freedom from sin is at the heart of the Gospel message.85 Fully Alive mentions sin only eight times in the student books over the entire eight year program. On page 104 of the Grade 6 student book, in a discussion on values, Fully Alive explains that the opposite of value is disvalue and that “another name for disvalue is sin.” In contrast, the Church teaches that sin is “before all else an offense against God.”86 The other seven references to sin are in passing. If sin is unimportant, then Jesus, who brings the forgiveness of sin, also must be unimportant. The Church teaches that sin is the root cause of marital breakdown.87

Fully Alive on the other hand states that `fear of intimacy’ is the chief cause of marital breakdown, again demonstrating its antagonism towards, and undermining of, Church teaching.88

b) The Ten Commandments:

According to Church teaching, keeping the Ten Commandments is essential to salvation, and the Commandments are the guide to all social interaction. Despite this, they are never mentioned by Fully Alive, even though Fully Alive calls itself “a religious program,” and discusses topics like abortion (5th commandment), sexuality (6th and 9th commandments), social justice (7th 8th and 10th commandments) and relationships with parents (4th commandment). A Catholic program dealing with these topics should be attempting to help students to live their lives in conformity to God’s revealed plan. Not mentioning the Commandments conveys to students that the Creator of the Universe has nothing to say on these issues and therefore need not be considered when making `life’ decisions. This complete lack of reference to any of the Commandments is another highly significant indication of the inherent danger of using Fully Alive as a tool for the formation of students.

c) Original Sin:

Over the course of eight years, while Fully Alive is explaining to children and young people how to interact in the world and in the family, it never mentions our inclination to sin. In fact the entire program presentation “shows a Pelagian disregard for original sin.”89 Pelagius was the English monk who pushed the false idea that there is no original sin. The Church affirmed the doctrine of original sin at the Council of Orange in 529 and again at the Council of Trent in 1546.90 If there is no original sin, then there is no inclination to do evil and therefore no need to warn against sin. Sin then ceases to be a major factor in decision making or life choices. As a result, there is no need for Jesus Christ to save us from the results of sin: death and bondage. This approach has tremendous implications on the child’s spiritual life, especially regarding the sacrament of reconciliation. The disregard for original sin can be seen in Fully Alive’s methodology for self esteem, its complete lack of reference to the Commandments, and in its treatment of sexuality.

B) CHASTITY

The Magisterium has repeatedly stressed the need to focus on chastity when discussing sexuality. Although claiming to `educate for chastity’, Fully Alive does not actually present Church teaching on this subject. The Church has defined the meaning of `education for chastity’. It includes not only the negative precept `thou shalt not commit adultery'(6th Commandment), but also includes the positive precept `be pure in thought as well as deed’ (the 9th Commandment). We will discuss these in turn, first the negative precept.

a) Adultery:

The Church has understood the 6th Commandment to cover the entire area of human sexuality.91 “Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.”92 The Church calls these practices, in themselves, grave sins. By Church definition, this means mortal sin, carrying with it the potential of eternal damnation. In faithfulness to God, and out of love for those who could be lost for eternity, the Church warns against those actions which are grave sins. In the Fully Alive student books, on the other hand, only homosexual acts are stated to be morally wrong. The other three items mentioned which are contrary to chastity according to Church teaching, are never stated to be morally wrong by Fully Alive. The phrasing used for these three items is such that Church teaching does not get presented. Fully Alive mentions chastity 12 times over the eight years. Chastity is not mentioned until grade seven. Human reproduction, on the other hand, is presented in grades 4, 5 and 6. The word `chastity’ is used 6 times in grade seven, and 6 times in grade eight. The Church teaching is hinted at but never presented on these 12 occasions. Fully Alive never states the simple Church teaching which is that according to God, genital sexual activity is lawful only within the sacrament of marriage. Any such activity outside of marriage is gravely sinful.93 The eight statements which comprise Fully Alive’s presentation of Church teaching on how to live in a way which is chaste, are presented here.

grade 6, p 56 Sexual intercourse outside of marriage does not respect God’s gift of sexuality.
grade 7, p 95 For single people, respect for the gift of sexuality excludes an intimate sexual relationship.
grade 8, p 73 Unmarried people . . . honour the gift of sexuality by refraining from intimate sexual acts, which are meant for marriage.
grade 8, p 73 Intimate sexual relationships are intended for marriage, and sexual intercourse is a special sign of the total commitment of a husband and a wife.
grade 7, p 67 The deeply committed relationship of marriage is the foundation on which a family is built. This is why the life giving power of fertility is intended to be used only in marriage.
grade 8, p 88 The most important reason for refraining from intimate sexual activity until you are married is because it is what God is asking of you. And what God asks of people is always what is good for them.
grade 8, p 95 There are only two ways to avoid getting an STD: Don’t be sexually active and have intimate sexual contacts with other people if you are unmarried. If you marry, choose someone who has the same values as you, and remain faithful to each other.
grade 8, p 95 Is it responsible for unmarried people to be sexually intimate with each other? Your Christian values tell you that it is wrong and wearing a condom doesn’t make it right.
These statements imply Church teaching. However, these statements do not convey the fullness of Church teaching about how God Himself has commanded us to live. They also do not convey the details of what actions are prohibited, as will be explained.

Statements 1, 2, and 3, at first glance appear to be acceptable. However, when looked at in detail the error can be seen. The Church teaches that, in obedience to God, we should avoid all genital sexual activity outside of marriage. These Fully Alive statements, however, say only that we should avoid “sexual intercourse,” “intimate sexual relationships” or “intimate sexual acts” out of respect for sexuality. The lack of clarity regarding Church teaching, which is presented to students by these statements, is as follows: 1) these statements are ambiguous as to what actions are prohibited; 2) students are told that `respect’ rather than `obedience’ is the criterion on which to base their moral choices (respect being a very subjective term); 3) students are told that sexuality, rather than God, is what needs to be respected. These statements, therefore, in no way help students either to understand Church teaching, or to give them an objective criterion for deciding between good and evil.94 Church teaching, again, is that all genital sexual acts outside of marriage are, of themselves, intrinsically evil, and that God prohibits intrinsically evil acts “always and without exception.”95

Statements 4 and 5 also do not adequately present Church teaching. These statements say only that marriage is the best place for these relationships, not that it is the only place for them. Statement 5 manages to include the phrase `only in marriage’, but sidesteps Church teaching by saying that `fertility’ rather than ` all sexual activity’ is only for marriage.

Statement 6 also implies, but does not present, Church teaching. God is doing much more than just asking. God gave the `Ten Commandments’, not the `ten requests’. The statements also do not present the significance and the gravity of disobedience to this particular `request’. The result is that Fully Alive’s choice of words again fails to present Church teaching. Finally, to say that what God wants for us is just “good,” is a severe degradation of His position. What He wants for us is not just good. It is best, and best according to the plan of the Creator of the Universe and Lover of Mankind.

Statement 7 again fails to present Church teaching. The Church does not teach that people should refrain from immoral sexual activity in order to remain free from disease. The Church teaches that people should refrain from immoral sexual activity in order to remain free from sin. If the Church teaching on morality is adhered to, then freedom from disease will likely result, but this effect is only secondary. Statement 8 again presents a subjective term, `responsible’, as the reason for avoiding immoral activity. Christian faith does not teach that sexual activity outside of marriage is not `responsible’. Christian faith teaches that sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful, immoral, and an offense against God. God is again ignored, and with Him Church teaching.

These statements then, are the total of what Fully Alive offers as Church teaching on chastity. Chastity is mentioned as being important, but there is no explanation of how the Church teaches one must live in order to be chaste, or that chastity is possible, or that chastity brings joy.96 Neither are the eternal consequences of not following Church teaching ever presented. Fully Alive says only that if you become sexually active and get a sexually transmitted disease, then, “in the absolute worst case, you could even lose your life.”97 The Church teaching is that losing your life is bad, but losing your soul is worse. Church teaching is thus never presented “in its purity and integrity,”98 as it must be according to the Magisterium. This lack of Church teaching may help to explain why a 1988 study done for the Canadian Youth Foundation found that the views of Catholic youth who attend Church regularly were not significantly different from the views of youth from secular society, more than 80% in both cases approving of premarital sex.99

b) Purity:

The Church presents the following as being essential to the pursuit of purity: 1) proper role models; 2) “constant prayer”; and, 3) avoiding occasions of sin. 100 The Church says that young people should take for themselves role models for chastity and purity. The Church offers Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and the Saints to the faithful. Jesus, although the primary role model for chastity according to the Church,101 is never presented this way by Fully Alive. The Saints are virtually not mentioned, so obviously they cannot be presented as role models. The Mother of God is not presented as a model for chastity, or as a model for family, or as our Mother. She is almost completely ignored. However, the Fully Alive Grade 1 parent book does tell parents to stop, when praying the Hail Mary, and explain to children, essentially, that “womb” is another word for “uterus.”102 Does the prayer then become `Blessed is the fruit of your uterus’? How does this help the child to pray?

Constant prayer is required for purity. Fully Alive does not promote the idea of constant prayer. Prayer is mentioned as useful in three separate sentences; on page 82 of grade 8, and page 95 of grade 7, and page 98 of grade 6. This is contrasted with the 105 pages on sexuality in those three grades. These three positive statements on prayer also need to be balanced with other statements from Fully Alive which put prayer on the same level as going for a walk, reading a book, or watching television.103

The Church also states that avoiding occasions of sin is necessary for purity. Fully Alive mentions in the grade 8 student book, p 81, that, “To seek them out (visual sexual stimuli) deliberately, leads one away from chastity and God’s plan for sexuality.”. This one weak statement, however, neither presents Church teaching nor realistically warns against adolescent temptations in society today. There is a major difference between just not `deliberately seeking’ visual sexual stimulus, and `avoiding’ visual sexual stimulus. One example of this is the pornography which is contained in a major portion of movies today, some of which are titled and promoted as seemingly wholesome entertainment. Video rental of movies is a major form of entertainment for young people today. If the intention is to just avoid deliberately seeking out occasions of sin, then logically it is not wrong to watch a movie which contains significant amounts of `occasions of sin’, as long as the parts which are `occasions of sin’, were not deliberately sought. Whereas the

Church teaches that all occasions of sin should be avoided. This argument applies to television as well. Fully Alive spends pages 106-108 in the grade six student book, warning against advertising and influences on values. It never mentions avoiding occasions of sin.

c) Morality vs Biology

The Church teaches, as we have shown in Section I, that the presentation of human reproductive biology in the classroom cannot be separated from morality. Fully Alive, however, first presents human reproduction in grade 4, but waits until grade 6 to give the first (weak and incomplete) statement on morality. The statement, “The husband’s penis becomes erect in order to fit into the wife’s vagina.”104, does not teach morality. This, however, is as close as Fully Alive gets to teaching morality before grade 6. Fully Alive therefore cannot be considered “education for chastity.”

C) SEXUALITY

a) Virginity and celibacy:

The Church teaches “virginity or celibacy as the supreme form of self giving that constitutes the very meaning of sexuality105.” It “has always defended the superiority of this charism to that of marriage.”106 The Church’s teaching on morality also requires that if the vocation of marriage is chosen, that both men and women choose to maintain their virginity until after the marriage celebration. Fully Alive, however, never presents this teaching. Instead, what it presents undermines Church teaching. First, virginity is mentioned only once in the entire program, (p 91, grade 8), and then only in passing. Even the biological evidence of virginity in women is omitted, despite the extreme detail of the presentation of female anatomy. Second, virginity is never presented, for either men or women, as being something good, to be respected, and chosen until marriage. Instead Fully Alive says, “Sexual pleasure is a wonderful gift that each person needs to understand and respect.”107 Fully Alive follows this statement by saying that sexual pleasure is one of the gifts that a man and a woman offer each other in marriage. It does not say that marriage is the only place where sexual pleasure can be experienced without grave sin. Saying that each person should understand (experience?) sexual pleasure certainly does not promote either virginity or celibacy.

Fully Alive also includes the following definition of celibacy on page 72 of the grade 8 student book. “They freely choose celibacy, a way of life that does not include an intimate sexual relationship with a husband or a wife.” By this definition, presumably, an intimate sexual relationship with someone who is not a husband or a wife is acceptable. Such lack of clarity neither promotes celibacy nor gives a clear presentation of Church teaching.

b) Age Appropriateness

The Church teaches that violation of the years of innocence is potentially harmful to children. The years of innocence end with the onset of puberty. Fully Alive, however, and in direct violation of Church teaching, presents human reproduction in the classroom, in grades 4 & 5. The vast majority of children in grades 4 & 5, have not yet entered puberty, putting them still in the years of innocence. As stated in Section I, premature sex information is potentially harmful to the child. The justification given by Fully Alive for this approach is that “sex hatred” is developing which, if left unchecked, would see a return of the heresy of seeing the body as evil. It goes on to say that this tendency must be forestalled by early information on human reproduction.108 This justification is ludicrous at best, but again demonstrates Fully Alive’s attitude towards Church teaching.

c) Explicit Instruction

The Church prohibits explicit instruction in human sexuality.109 Fully Alive violates this directive by its explicit instruction in grades 4-6. The Church’s ban on co-ed instruction is also violated by Fully Alive. The Church’s directives stem not from a fear of sexuality, but rather from an understanding of the need to promote purity and modesty in the area of sexuality (the 9th Commandment).110

d) Parental Control

Fully Alive contains a timetable for the presentation of the sex education material. Human reproduction is given in grades 4, 5 and 6.111 Faced with this timetable parents have only three options:

i) have the child receive the sex education material first hand in the classroom according to the timetable of Fully Alive, regardless of whether or not the child is ready;

ii) have the child receive the sex education material first hand from the parent ahead of the timetable of Fully Alive, regardless of whether or not the child is ready; or

iii) remove the child from the program and have the child receive the sex education material second hand in the school yard according to the timetable of Fully Alive, regardless of whether or not the child is ready.

The fact that the material on human reproduction is given in the classroom effectively eliminates the control over sex education which is the basic right of parents.112 This is described well by Archbishop Gervais who says, “If parents truly believe this program is harmful there is really only one course of action for them: to remove their children from the school.”113 This point needs repeating, because the chief proponent of Fully Alive is saying that if a parent does not like the program, their only option is to leave the school; not just the classroom, but the school! For Catholics this means either the public system, a private school, or home schooling.

Fully Alive teaches human reproduction to students. Because of this, it not only violates parents’ rights to be the ones to decide when the material is given, but also minimizes their role by doing their job for them. This is in direct opposition to the Pope who says that sex education is the “right and duty of parents.”114

The parent books that accompany Fully Alive, which attempt to help parents, in fact do not assist them in this task. The concept of a separate parent book is good. The parent book, however, should contain Catholic doctrine and vision of sexuality in even more detail than the student books. It should be presented in a simple and concise manner, to allow parents who may have forgotten, or who were never taught, to be informed on Church teaching. As they exist, however, the Fully Alive parent books are totally ineffective for two reasons. First, the parent books seek only to perpetuate the errors which have been described in this section, rather than promoting Catholic teaching in its `purity and integrity’. And second, the manner in which the parent books are written does not take into account the situation in which most parents find themselves today, with very little spare time and little inclination to expend the effort required to read through lots of words containing very little substance. The Fully Alive parent books are at best a lost opportunity.

We believe that to be truly respectful of parents’ rights, and to truly conform to Church teaching, the human reproduction component of a Family Life Program must not be presented in the regular classroom. This information should be made available to parents, and parents need to be the ones to decide when and how the information is given. Creative alternatives to assist parents do exist, such as school-sponsored father/son, mother/daughter sessions, for example.

SUMMARY OF SECTION II

Jesus Christ is barely mentioned and never mentioned as the ultimate demonstration of God’s love for mankind.
FA teaches that sin is a disvalue rather than being primarily an offense against God. It does not teach that sin is the primary cause of marital breakdown.
Despite Church teaching that the Ten Commandments are essential for salvation, and that they are the basic guide to all social interaction, they are never mentioned by FA, even though FA deals with topics like abortion, sexuality and social justice.
The program shows a “Pelagian disregard for original sin.”
FA claims to educate for chastity, but ignores so much Church teaching as to be completely ineffective.
The program never states the simple truth that genital sexual activity outside of marriage is gravely sinful. Rather, it couches the concept in subjective phrasing and unclear statements. This is particularly a problem since statistics show that Catholic youth who attend church regularly have views on premarital sex strikingly similar to their secular counterparts, more than 80% approving in both cases.
Jesus, the Holy Mother of God, and the saints are not presented as role models for chastity as they ought to be in a Catholic program.
Prayer is never promoted by FA as being essential, either to chastity or to life. On a few occasions prayer is mentioned in accord with Church teaching, but other times prayer is put on the same level as watching T.V., or going for a walk.
Students are not warned to avoid sexual stimulus and `occasions of sin’ in their viewing and listening habits.
Morality is not introduced until after students have received 5 years of reproductive biology.
Virginity and celibacy are not taught or properly promoted.
Despite Church teaching that human reproduction ought not to be taught before senior high school, and that addressing the questions being asked about sexuality is appropriate for adolescence and older, FA teaches human reproduction beginning in grade 4 (8-10 year olds), and lays the groundwork for this by teaching body part vocabulary beginning in grade 1.
FA also violates Church teaching by giving explicit instruction on reproductive biology, and by giving it in co-ed classrooms.
FA is not respectful of parents’ rights as the primary educators of their children, nor does it do an adequate job at assisting parents to impart a Catholic view of sexuality to their children.
SECTION III. SECULAR HUMANIST BACKGROUND

This brief has presented Church teaching on family life education, and how Fully Alive contravenes this clear teaching. However, it is necessary to go one step further. It is important to explore the foundation for Fully Alive, so as to understand why Fully Alive and similar programs can never be compatible with Catholic understanding of family life.

A) SECULAR HUMANISM

a) Definition:

Secular Humanism is best described by the principles of the Humanist Manifesto I (1933), and the Humanist Manifesto II (1973). The documents are condensed as follows:

Humanist Manifesto I:

The universe is self-existing, not created.
The individual is largely moulded by culture in a way which overrides his free will.
Religion consists in only those actions, purposes and experiences which are humanly significant.
Instead of worship and prayer, the humanist finds religious emotion expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.
All associations and institutions exist exclusively for the fulfilment of human life.
Humanist Manifesto II:

Moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational.
In the area of sexuality, intolerant attitudes often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion and divorce, should be recognized.
Secular Humanism focuses exclusively on the human. It opposes Church teaching because Catholicism, while maintaining that the human element is essential, insists that God cannot be put lower than first. The first Commandment is to love God. Love of your neighbour is second.115 The major confrontation between Catholicism and Secular Humanism however comes in the area of morality. The Humanist Manifesto II states that humanists believe moral values to derive their source solely from human experience, while the Church teaches that the source of morality (The Ten Commandments) is God. Fully Alive consistently places the human ahead of the divine, where the divine is mentioned at all. This is illustrated by Fully Alive’s presentation of Church teaching on birth control. The Church condemns birth control for two reasons: it is an offense against God, and it attacks the unity of the married couple.116 Fully Alive mentions the second reason but ignores the first. Other strong indicators of this philosophy are: the complete absence of any reference to the Ten Commandments, the lack of Church teaching on social questions, and lack of reference to offending God in the discussion of sexuality. There is also this quotation from page 27 of the grade 8 student books:

“Through their determination and faith, they have healed themselves and are able to give their children the love and care they were denied . . . “

The lack of reference to the need for Jesus Christ as the Divine Healer, in the preceding quotation, is also a strong indication of the secular influence in Fully Alive.

b) Non Directive Methodology:

The tenets of secular humanist philosophy are promoted in education through the use of non-directive methodology. This methodology was developed by Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers, who are the founders of humanist psychology. They, along with their colleague William Coulson, adapted their successful clientcentred clinically based therapy to educational settings, where it proved to be far less successful and often harmful.

The heart of the method is the discussion group, where the teacher plays the nondirective role of facilitator or manager. The students in the group are encouraged to find their own answers to suit individually felt needs and values. There are no objectively right or wrong answers or conclusions to the issues that are raised in the classroom.

This non-directive technique of open-ended discussion with the focus on the feelings, emotions and opinions of each participant is easily recognized as standard practice now in higher education, religious, business, political and government agency settings.

William Coulson, a devout Roman Catholic, has spent the last 20 years calling the attention of both educators and parents to the errors made by himself, Rogers and Maslow. The educational setting Coulson argues, demands directive, clear consistent teaching, particularly in the context of subject matters such as sex and drugs.117

Fully Alive is dominated by this non-directive methodology. The Church gives direction on the subject of sexuality: fornication, pornography and masturbation are mortal sins; they are intrinsically evil; and they are grave offenses against God; avoid these practices. A close look at Fully Alive consistently reveals the absence of directive statements, theme after theme, grade after grade. A most striking example of this lack of directive statements is the absence, especially when dealing with the family and family relationships, of any definitive statements establishing the basic family group as being comprised of father and mother living together with children.

c) Non Directive Sex Education:

For sex education the primary components of the secular humanist non-directive model are:

1. information,
2. decision making,
3. self-esteem.

i) Information:

It is to be understood that information is ‘always’ helpful and ‘never’ harmful. The information is scientific and therefore unconnected to values. The learner’s sexuality is essentially conditioned by the environment and heredity, and, therefore, no harm can come to the child from imparting this information.118 Fully Alive incorporates this attitude by the teaching of detailed vocabulary and topics in the classroom which, when taught, rather than being “always good” in fact work against Christian modesty. Some examples of this are: 1) detailed anatomy vocabulary taught in mixed classrooms in grades 1-4; 2) cervical mucus and menstruation taught to boys along with the girls in grade 5; and 3) erection, ejaculation and nocturnal emission taught to girls along with the boys in grade 5.

ii) Decision Making:

The teaching of decision making was widely implemented in the 70’s and 80’s as “values clarification.” Teaching students to make decisions through a “decision making process” is the same methodology, slightly modified, under a new name. Students “learn” how to make decisions by going through a step by step decision making process on hypothetical problems. The emphasis is on the process of choosing, not the content.119 Fully Alive presents decision making as follows:

• grade 1pp 61-63
• grade 2pp 57-59
• grade 3pp 60-66
• grade 4pp 60-74
• grade 7pp 108-114

Grades 5,6 & 8, also talk about decision making, but under the heading of commitment, and how to (decide to) make a commitment. For Catholics, decision making differs from the non-directive, secular approach by two significant aspects. First, Secular Humanism does not recognize the existence of God’s moral order. The basis for Secular decision making is thus not God’s plan, but rather subjective criteria. Catholic decision making, on the other hand, needs to stress the importance of adhering to God’s plan for humanity as defined by the objective moral order (the Ten Commandments). The second key difference between secular and Catholic decision making, is Catholic belief in a personal God. God knows each person by name, and has a plan for each one. Prayer, seeking God’s guidance, and submission are therefore essential. Fully Alive, however, does not have this focus. The lack of reference to the Ten Commandments, sin, prayer, and the lack of emphasis on a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, all demonstrate that the type of decision making promoted by Fully Alive is secular rather than Catholic.

iii) Self-esteem:

This concept of self-esteem is oriented to how persons subjectively feel about themselves; students are to be repeatedly told that they are “special,” “lovable” and “capable.”120 As (William) Coulson tirelessly explains to large parent audiences, the research says that non-directive sex and drug programs teach kids a very confused and frightening logic that goes like this: “I’m a wonderful person. Smoking or sleeping around aren’t so bad because I do those things, and I’m a wonderful person.”121

Fully Alive focuses on feelings to a large degree throughout the 8 years, but this self-esteem philosophy is best described in the grade 7 student book, page 100, as follows:

During this time of life, self acceptance, self respect are very important qualities for you to develop and nurture. If you accept yourself as the unique male or female that you are, you are less likely to look for acceptance through sexual activity. If you believe in yourself and know your own value, you will have the confidence to withstand sexual pressure and to say no. If you respect yourself as a male or female, you will be able to offer others the respect they deserve.122 As stated in Section II, the fundamental error of this approach is its disregard for original sin. Self- esteem cannot, by itself, reduce our inclination to evil. That is reduced, not by better self-esteem, but by grace. Self-esteem is natural, while grace is supernatural. Focusing on self-esteem to the exclusion of grace is a result

of Fully Alive’s disregard for original sin. As mentioned, the Church warns against the error of disregarding original sin.123 See section II, page 26 for a more detailed discussion on the question of self esteem.

B) SIECUS PROMOTED SEX EDUCATION

a) Methodology:

SIECUS, along with its sister organization Planned Parenthood, has established curriculum guidelines and methodology for a desirable sex education program.124 The approach consists of three stages which will be discussed in order. This is explained in part by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead in her article in the October 1994 Atlantic Monthly where she describes the New Jersey comprehensive sex education program promoted by SIECUS.

The SIECUS curriculum is explained:

Part I of the SIECUS curriculum, for grades 1-3, consists of education in body part vocabulary, which has the following purpose:

• it provides the basic knowledge on which more complex concepts can be built;
• it desensitizes the students to sexual talk thus breaking down inhibitions.125

Fully Alive teaches body part vocabulary beginning in grade 1. By the end of grade three the following terms have been taught:

• uterus – sperm – cell division
• vagina – birth canal – conception
• penis – pregnant – male
• scrotum – ovum – female
• vulva – cell – navel
• breasts – umbilical cord – sac
• ovaries – testicles

Part II of the SIECUS curriculum, for grades 4-6, consists of human reproduction and changes at puberty. SIECUS insists that this be done with boys and girls not separated; again, to break down inhibitions. Its purpose is:

• Fertility begins for some at approximately grade 6. Children can, should and will express their sexuality as the hormones kick in. Knowledge about reproduction will help them in this.126

Fully Alive teaches human reproduction and changes at puberty during grades 4-6, and with boys and girls not separated.

Part III of the SIECUS curriculum, for grades 7-9, consists of decision making and birth control. The purpose is:

• Decision making and birth control information are to help the grades 7 – 9 make `responsible’ choices about their sexuality. Responsible, in this case, means how to have sex without getting pregnant.127

Fully Alive teaches decision making and birth control during grades 7 & 8. Thus it can be seen that Fully Alive exactly matches the SIECUS methodology on sex education. The SIECUS methodology is based on the belief that early sexual activity is helpful to children. As such, it is designed to promote ‘so called’ ‘safe’, ‘responsible’, and ‘uninhibited’ sexual activity among youth. Some of the more anti-Catholic, immoral aspects of sexuality promoted by SIECUS are not found in

Fully Alive, (pro-homosexuality, pro-masturbation for example). However, the almost exact match in methodology between SIECUS and Fully Alive demonstrates that the underlying understanding of sexuality is the same. The claim that the same methodology (utilized by SIECUS and by Fully Alive), will produce different results (early sexual activity for SIECUS, chastity for Fully Alive), simply by the removal of some anti-Catholic content, is highly erroneous. In fact Fully Alive, by the definition of Planned Parenthood, is considered to be a comprehensive sex education program.128

b) Kinsey:

SIECUS and the authors of Fully Alive believe that sex information at an early age is helpful to children. This belief is promoted through comprehensive sex education. This belief is based on the child development theories proposed by Alfred Kinsey.129 Kinsey developed his theories as a result of research which he and his colleagues carried out between 1938 and 1953. Kinsey and his coauthor published two books on sexuality entitled Sexual Behaviour in the Human

Male130 in 1948 and another in 1953 entitled Sexual Behaviour in the Human Female.131 These books supposedly showed the scientific basis for Kinsey’s conclusions. Included in these reports were sections on male and female child sexual response. Based on his `scientific’ data on child sexuality, Kinsey claimed a number of things:

• That he had disproven Freud’s latency theory.132 Freud had argued that children are sexual from birth, but that this interest in sexuality became quiescent or latent, during approximately the ages 6-12.
• That children are `sexual from birth’.133 Sexual in this case means erotic, that children can be sexually active from early childhood. The phrase `sexual from birth’ is a key indication of the use of Kinsey child development theory.
• That early sexual activity is beneficial to children.134
• That negative response in children to sexual stimulus or activity is a result of societally induced inhibitions.135

These conclusions are so fundamentally opposed to Church teaching that there is no possibility of them both being right. Either the Church or Kinsey is wrong, and not just slightly wrong. The one which is wrong must be catastrophically wrong. A closer look at Kinsey’s `scientific’ work is justified. Kinsey and his colleagues obtained data on sexuality for the Male report in two ways; obtaining records by interviews with some 5300 individuals, and from the records (recorded observations) kept by certain “technically trained” individuals.136 Those interviewed, however, included prison inmates (25% of the 5300 total interviews) the majority of which (1200) were sex offenders.137 Pimps, male prostitutes and exhibitionists are also included (some 200 of the total).138 In addition, Kinsey claims to make no distinction between those considered “normal” and those considered “neurotic” or “psychotic”.139 For the child sexuality component, the recorded observations were made of either boys in self

The data described cannot be anything but sexual abuse. Tables 31 and 34 of Kinsey’s Male Report, list observations made on children as young as 2 months old, while they were manually or orally manipulated in an attempt to produce `orgasm’.141 Kinsey reported boys as young as 5 months old and girls as young as 4 months old ‘achieving’ orgasm. Kinsey also reported that some of these `observations’ lasted for extended periods of time, while records of multiple orgasm were kept. An 11 month old was reported to have been ‘observed’ for 1 hour. One four year old was ‘observed’ for 10 hours, another for 24 hours. The results of these ‘observations’ were then reported by Kinsey in tabular format to demonstrate the orgasmic potential of children.142 This data cannot be obtained without severe, criminal, sexual assault. This individual had claimed to have sexually assaulted a vast number of children over a many year time span, and had kept carefully documented notes on each assault. It is from this unscientific, unverifiable, criminal, sexual assault that Kinsey claimed the `scientific proof’ for his theories on child development. Because his data was obtained from criminal and immoral activity, his conclusions must not only be wrong, but also destructively misleading. But Kinsey’s theories, whether people realize it or not, form the basis for most of secular society’s current understanding of sexuality.

A few quotations from the Female Report should further illustrate the deviant and grotesque nature of Kinsey’s attitude towards sexuality which underlie all of his conclusions. If a child were not culturally conditioned, it is doubtful if it would be disturbed by sexual approaches of the sort which had usually been involved in these histories. It is difficult to understand why a child, except for its cultural conditioning, should be disturbed at having its genitalia touched, or disturbed at seeing the genitalia of other persons, or disturbed at even more specific sexual contacts. When children are constantly warned by parents and teachers against contacts with adults, and when they receive no explanation of the exact nature of the forbidden contacts, they are ready to become hysterical as soon as any older person approaches, or stops and speaks to them in the street, or fondles them, or proposes to do something for them, even though the adult may have no sexual objective in mind.143

There are of course adults who have done physical damage to children with whom they have attempted to have sexual contacts, and we have the histories of a few males who have been responsible for such damage. But these cases are in the minority, and the public should learn to distinguish such serious contacts from other adult contacts which are not likely to do the child any appreciable harm if the child’s parents do not become disturbed. The exceedingly small number of cases in which physical harm is ever done the child is to be measured by the fact that among the 441 females on whom we have data, we have only one clear-cut case of serious injury done to the child, and a very few instances of vaginal bleeding which, however, did not appear to do any appreciable damage.144

The task of promoting Kinsey’s child sexuality theories in the area of education, (comprehensive sex education) has been assigned by the Kinsey Institute in Bloomington Indiana to SIECUS.145 As we have said but need to repeat, SIECUS claims Kinsey to be the scientific basis supporting its comprehensive sex education programs. A Kinsey coauthor, Paul Gebhard, was a recent director of the Kinsey institute. Another Kinsey coauthor, Wardell Pomeroy, was a SIECUS director.146 The far reaching influence of the SIECUS comprehensive sex education mentality can be seen by the consideration given by the Saskatchewan Government to making SIECUS style comprehensive sex education/family life education mandatory for Saskatchewan schools.147

SUMMARY of SECTION III

• Secular Humanism is anti-Catholic because it rejects God, moral absolutes and sin, to focus on what is merely human.
• Secular humanism is promoted effectively through non-directive methodology developed by Maslow and Rogers.
• Non directive methodology rejects objective standards or absolutes, like the Ten Commandments, to focus on feelings and opinions.
• Fully Alive is dominated by Secular Humanist assumptions and methodology.
• Non-directive sex education has three components: information, self-esteem, and decision making.
• Fully Alive has a significant focus on each of these three components.
• SIECUS, a Secular Humanist organization, promotes comprehensive sex education.
• SIECUS promoted sex education methodology contains three time periods: Grades 1-3 teaches body part vocabulary, grades 4-6 teaches reproduction and changes at puberty, grades 7-9 teaches decision making and birth control.
• Fully Alive follows the SIECUS methodology almost exactly. The methodology, when used by SIECUS, does not promote chastity. It is highly erroneous to expect that this same methodology will produce chastity when used by Fully Alive.
• SIECUS promoted sex education is based on the child development theories of Kinsey.
• Kinsey developed his theories on child sexuality based on data collected from 1938 to 1953. Kinsey and coauthor published two books, one in 1948 titled Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, the second in 1953 titled Sexual Behavior in the Human Female.
• Kinsey claimed 4 things: 1) that Freud’s latency theory was false, 2) that children are sexual from birth (sexual meaning erotic), 3) that early childhood sexual activity is beneficial to children, 4) that any negative perceptions regarding childhood sexual activity are a result of societally induced inhibitions.
• The group from which Kinsey collected data included a high percentage (25%) of prison inmates, primarily convicted sex offenders.
• Kinsey’s child sexuality data was obtained as a result of immoral and criminal, sexual assault.
• Kinsey’s conclusions are scientifically invalid because of the sexual assault.
• Kinsey’s theories on sexuality dominate secular society today.
• The Kinsey Institute was established to promote Kinsey’s `so called’ scientific findings regarding sexuality.
• SIECUS is intimately connected to the Kinsey Institute and has been given the task of promoting Kinsey theories through comprehensive sex education.
• The Saskatchewan Government is considering making SIECUS based sex education mandatory in Saskatchewan schools.

CONCLUSION
Our Lord says in John 14:6: “I am the way the truth and the life.” The Church has consistently stressed the Truth contained in these words of Our Lord, when teaching about Catholic Education. Catholic Education, including family life education, must be based on Christ, who is `the way the truth and the life’. Catholic Education requires that programs be clear and forceful in their presentation of Catholic doctrine. Catholic Education requires that all programs conform completely to Catholic Church teaching. Fully Alive does none of these. Its philosophy and methodology are based in Secular Humanism, a philosophy fundamentally opposed to Catholicism. It ignores and violates Church teaching on numerous occasions. Fully Alive is, in fact, the very antithesis of Catholic education. The evidence is sufficiently compelling to justify having it removed from any Catholic School System. Respectfully submitted this 8th day of September 1995.148 on behalf of the Family Association for Catholic education.

Updated February 1, 1996.

Updated February 3, 1999.

Don J. Larmour President

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bibby, Reginald W., & Donald C. Posterski. Teen Trends: A Nation In Motion. Toronto: Stoddart Publishing Co., 1992.

Catechism of the Catholic Church. Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. Ottawa, Ontario: Publications Service, 1992.

Chambers, Claire. The SIECUS Circle, A Humanist Revolution. Belmont, Ma: Western Islands, 1977.

Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Churches. Washington D.C.: Canon Law Society Of America, 1992.

Engel, Randy. Sex Education: The Final Plague. Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers Inc., 1993.

Flannery, Austin, O.P., General Editor. Vatican Council II, More post conciliar documents. Northport, N.Y.: Costello Publishing Co., 1982.

Flannery, Austin, O.P., Editor. Documents of Vatican II. New revised edition. Grand Rapids Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984.

Foy, Monsignor Vincent. From Winnipeg To Fully Alive. Vanier, Ontario: Human Life International, 1992.

Kinsey, Alfred C., Wardell B. Pomeroy, Clyde E. Martin. Sexual Behavior In The Human Male. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1948.

Kinsey, Alfred C, Wardell B. Pomeroy, Clyde E. Martin, Paul H. Gebhard. Sexual Behavior In The Human Female. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1953.

Nikiforuk, Andrew, If Learning is Natural, Why am I going to school?. Canada: Penguin Books, 1994.

Planned Parenthood Ontario. The effectiveness of current sexuality education in the Ontario School System. Distribution to all School Board candidates prior to municipal elections of November 1991.

Reisman, Dr. Judith and Edward W. Eichel. Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The indoctrination of a people. Columbia: Lochinvar-Huntington House Publications, 1990.

Richards, Dinah, Ph.D.. Has Sex Education Failed Our Teenagers, A Research Report. Pomona, CA: Focus on the Family Publishing, 1990.

Santin, Sylvia Pegis, General Editor. Fully Alive, Grades 1-8, Student, Family and Teacher Books. Don Mills, Ontario: Collier MacMillan Canada Inc., 1990.

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary. Toronto, Ontario: Thomas Allen & Son Ltd., 1980.

Whitehead, Margaret, M.A. and Onalee McGraw, PHD. Foundations for Family Life Education: A Guideline for Professionals and Parents. Arlington, VA: Educational Guidance Institute, 1991

PAPAL LETTERS and ENCYCLICALS:

Leo XIII:

Inscrutabili Dei Consilio (Evils of Society). Rome: April 21, 1878.

Sapientiae Christianae (Christians as Citizens). Rome: January 10, 1890.

Satis Cognitum (Unity of the Church). Rome: June 29, 1896.

Militantis Ecclesiae (St. Peter Canisius). Rome: August 1, 1897.

Pius XI:

Rappresentanti In Terra (Christian Education of Youth). Rome: December 31, 1929.

Paul VI:

Humanae Vitae (Regulation of Births). Rome: July 25, 1968

John Paul II:

Redemptor Hominis, (The Redeemer of Man). Rome: March 4, 1979.

Catechesie Tradendae (Catechesis in Our Time). Rome: October 16, 1979.

Familiaris Consortio (The Christian Family). Rome: November 22, 1981.

Centesimus Annus (The Church’s Social Teaching). Rome: May 1, 1991.

Veritatis Splendor (The Splendor of Truth). Rome: August 6, 1993.

Vatican II:

Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church). Rome: November 21, 1964.

Gravissimum Educationis (Christian Education). Rome: October 28, 1965.

Dei Verbum (Divine Revelation). Rome: November 18, 1965.

Gaudium Et Spes (The Church in the Modern World). Rome: December 7, 1965.

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

Personae Humanae (Sexual Ethics). Rome: December 29, 1975.

The Book “Human Sexuality”. Rome: July 13, 1979.

Pontifical Council for the Family:

The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality. Rome: January 22, 1996.

Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education:

Catholic Schools. Rome: June 24, 1977.

SUPPLEMENTARY BIBLIOGRAPHY (Background material not cited in the text)

Gillis, Rev. J., Sean O’Reilly, MD, & Diane McNicholl. An Analysis of Sex Education — The Destruction of our Canadian Children. Vanier, Ontario: Human Life International. Kilpatrick, William Kirk. Psychological Seduction: The Failure of Modern Psychology. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Inc., 1983.

Gairdner, William D. The War Against the Family, A parent speaks out on the political, economic and social policies that threaten us all. Toronto, Canada: Stoddart Publishing Co., 1992.

Marshner, Connie. Decent Exposure How to Teach Your Children about Sex. Franklin, Tennessee: Legacy Communications, 1994.

O’Reilly, Sean, M.D.. In the Image of God, A Guide to Sex-Education for Parents. St. Paul Edition, 1982.

Vitz, Paul C. Psychology as Religion – The Cult of Self-Worship. Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.D. Erdmkans Publishers.

Leo XIII:

Libertas (Human Liberty). Rome: June 20, 1878.

Affari Vos (Manitoba School Question). Rome: December 8, 1897.

Providentissimus Deus (Holy Scripture). Rome: November 18, 1893.

Arcanum (Christian Marriage). Rome: February 10, 1880.

Spectata Fides (Christian Education). Rome: November 27, 1885.

Pius X:

Pascendi Dominici Gregis (Against the Doctrine of the Modernists). Rome: September 8, 1907.

Pius XI:

Casti Conubi (Christian Marriage). Rome: December 31, 1930.

Pius XII:

Humani Generis (Some False Opinions Which Threaten to Undermine Catholic Doctrine), Rome: August 12, 1950.

John Paul II:

Dominum et Vivicantum (The Holy Spirit in the Life of the Church). Rome: May 18, 1986.

Redemptoris Missio (Mission of the Redeemer). Rome: December 7, 1990.

Evangelium Vitae (Gospel of Life). Rome: March 25, 1995.

Footnotes:

1. 1. Pope Leo XIII, Militantis Ecclesiae, (Rome, 1 August 1897), par 15.
   2. Pius XI, Rappresentanti in Terra,(Rome, December 1929), par 7,8.
   3. John Paul II, Catechesie Tradendae,(Rome, 16 October 1979), par 69.
   4. II, Gravissimum Educationis (Rome, 28 October 1965) par 8.
   5. II, Gaudium et Spes,(Rome, July 1965), par 22.
   6. Paul II, Veritatis Splendor (Rome, 6 August 1992), par 2.
   7. Pius XI, Rappresentanti in terra (Rome, 29 December 1929) par 20.
   8. John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, par 113.
   9. Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, (Rome, 18 October 1990) Can 20.
   10. Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, can 634.
   11. Pius XI, Rappresentanti In Terra (Rome, 31 December 1929) par 80.
   12. Leo XIII, Militantis Ecclesiae (Rome, 1 August 1897) par 18.
   13. Leo XIII, Inscrutabili Dei Consilio (Rome, 21 April 1878) par 13.
   14. Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, Can 597.
   15. Vatican II, Dei Verbum (Rome, 18 November 1965) par 10.
   16. Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, Can 598-9.
   17. Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (Rome, 29 June 1896) par 9.
   18. Vatican II, Lumen Gentium (Rome, 21 November 1964) par 25.
   19. Secretariat for Catholic Education, Catechesis on Human Sexuality (Washington D.C.: Archdiocese of Washington, 1993), pp.10-11.
   20. Father Alphonse DeValk, “Why we return to Fully Alive once more” supplement to The Interim, (February 1992).
   21. Monsignor Vincent Foy, From Winnipeg To Fully Alive (Vanier, Ontario: Human Life International), pp. 26-27.
   22. Father John McGoey, “The themes of Fully Alive: A Critique”, The Interim (November, 1991).
   23. Randy Engel, Sex Education: The Final Plague(Rockford, Ill.:Tan Books Publishers 1993) pp.19-20.
   24. Claire Chambers, The Siecus Circle: A Humanist Revolution (Belmont, Ma: Western Islands, 1977) pp 51-97.
   25. Pontifical Council for the Family, The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, (Rome, 22 January 1996) par 77.
   26. Ibid, par 65.
   27. Ibid, par 66.
   28. Ibid, par 75.
   29. Ibid, par 129.
   30. Ibid, par 133.
   31. Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, (Rome, 10 January 1890) par 42.
   32. John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, (Rome, 22 November 1981) par 86.
   33. John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, par 14 & 55.
   34. John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis, (Rome: March 4, 1979) par 1.
   35. John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, par 3.
   36. John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, par 2.
   37. John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, par 8.
   38. Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education, Catholic Schools (Rome, 24 June 1977) par 34.
   39. John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, par 88.
   40. John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, par 26.
   41. John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, par 88.
   42. Catechism of the Catholic Church (Ottawa, Publications Service, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, 11 October 1992) par 1696.
   43. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 1955.
   44. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 1846.
   45. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 407.
   46. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 407.
   47. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 407.
   48. Pius XI, Rappresentanti In Terra (Rome, 31 December 1929) par 60.
   49. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 418.
   50. Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, par 123
   51. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 1440.
   52. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 1863.
   53. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 1861.
   54. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 1606-7.
   55. John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, (Rome, 1 May 1991) par 38.
   56. John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, par 12.
   57. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2068.
   58. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2072.
   59. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2067
   60. John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, par 97.
   61. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2064.
   62. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2065.
   63. John Paul II, Catechesie Tradendae, par 5.
   64. John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, par’s 14 & 55.
   65. John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, par 11.
   66. John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, par 66.
   67. John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, par 66.
   68. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, (Toronto, Ontario: Thomas Allen & Son Ltd., 1980), p 922.
   69. John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, par 66.
   70. Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, par 64.
   71. Ibid, par 119.
   72. John Paul II, Catechesie Tradendae, par 38.
   73. Pius XI, Rappresentanti In Terra, par 65-68.
   74. Quoted in Sex Education: The Final Plague by Randy Engel, p 52.
   75. Vatican II, Gravissimum Educationis, par 1
   76. John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, par 37.
   77. Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, par 78.
   78. Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, par 83
   79. Ibid. Par 23.
   80. Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Personae Humanae (Rome, 29 December 1975) par 10.
   81. SCDF, Personae Humanae, par 12
   82. Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, par 23
   83. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2013.
   84. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 1618.
   85. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 1846.
   86. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 1440.
   87. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 1607.
   88. Fully Alive, Foreword to the teacher books, grades 1-4. p iii.
   89. Human Life International, “Catholic School Sex-Ed Programs Assailed”, Social Justice Review, pp. 7-9.
   90. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 406.
   91. Catechism of the Catholic Church par 2336.
   92. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2396.
   93. SCDF, Personae Humanae, par 7.
   94. SCDF, The Book “Human Sexuality”, (Rome: July 13, 1979), par 3,4.
   95. John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, par 115.
   96. Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, par 73
   97. Fully Alive, grade 8 student book, p 93.
   98. John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, par 113.
   99. Reginald W. Bibby & Donald C. Posterski, Teen Trends: A Nation In Motion, (Toronto: Stoddart Publishing Co., 1992), p 118.
   100. SCDF, Personae Humanae, par 12.
   101. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2394.
   102. Sylvia Pegis Santin, General Editor, Fully Alive, Grade 1 Parent Book (Don Mills, Ontario: Collier MacMillan Canada Inc., 1990), p. 26.
   103. Fully Alive grade 7 student book, p 47.
   104. Fully Alive, grade 5 student book, p 58.
   105. John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, par 37
   106. John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, par 16.
   107. Fully Alive, grade 7 student book, p 97.
   108. Fully Alive, Foreword to the teacher books, grades 1-4, p iv.
   109. Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, par 133.
   110. Pius XI, Rappresentanti In Terra, par 68.
   111. Fully Alive, Grade 4, pp. 45, 46, Grade 5, pp. 54, 55, 58, Grade 6, pp. 60-63.
   112. Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, par 23.
   113. Archbishop Gervais, “Sex education: Archbishop defends Catholic program”, Ottawa Citizen, September 22, 1992.
   114. John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, par 37.
   115. Matthew 22: 37-39.
   116. Paul VI, Humanae Vitae (Rome : July 25, 1965) par 13.
   117. Margaret Whitehead and Onalee McGraw, Foundations for Family Life Education A Guidebook for Professionals and Parents, (Arlington, Va: Educational Guidance Institute, 1991), p.7.
   118. Whitehead and McGraw, Foundation for Family Life Education, p.8.
   119. Whitehead and McGraw, Foundation for Family Life Education, p. 8.
   120. Whitehead & McGraw, Foundation for Family Life Education , p. 9.
   121. Andrew Nikiforuk, If Learning is so Natural, Why am I Going to School, (Canada: Penguin Books), p. 27.
   122. Fully Alive, Grade 7 Student book, p. 100.
   123. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 407.
   124. Planned Parenthood Ontario, The Effectiveness of Current Sexuality Education in the Ontario School System, (Distribution to School Board candidates prior to municipal elections of November 1991).
   125. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, “The Failure of Sex Education” Atlantic Monthly, October 1994, p.60.
   126. Whitehead, “The Failure of Sex Education”, p. 60.
   127. Whitehead, “The Failure of Sex Education”, p. 64.
   128. Dinah Richards Ph D, Has Sex Education Failed Our Teenagers: A Research Report (Pamona Ca: Focus on the Family Publishing, 1990) p 17.
   129. Chambers, The Siecus Circle, p 38.
   130. Alfred C Kinsey, Wardell B Pomeroy, Clyde E Martin, Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1948).
   131. Alfred C Kinsey, Wardell B Pomeroy, Clyde E Martin, Paul H Gebhard, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1953).
   132. Kinsey, Male Report, p 180.
   133. Kinsey, Male Report, p 182.
   134. Kinsey, Female Report, p 169.
   135. Kinsey, Female Report, p 121.
   136. Kinsey, Male Report, p 177.
   137. Dr.Judith Reisman & Edward W. Eichel, Kinsey Sex and Fraud, (Columbia:Lochinvar-Huntington House Publications, 1990),p. 22.
   138. Kinsey, Male Report, p 216.
   139. Kinsey, Male Report, pp. 7-8.
   140. Kinsey, Male Report, p 177.
   141. Kinsey, Male Report, p 176 & 180.
   142. Kinsey, Male Report, p 180.
   143. Kinsey, Female Report, p 121.
   144. Kinsey, Female Report, pp 121-122.
   145. Reisman & Eichel, p 130.Reisman & Eichel, p 126.
   146. Vicky Dillen, “Government Mandated Sex Education” Choose Life News, Jan 95, p 6.
   147. Prepared by Don J. Larmour, P. Eng., and by Deborah L. M. Patrick Larmour, B.A., LL.B.