A Review by Alice A. Grayson

This review was originally submitted to Cardinal Law sometime after 1988, following our discussion that this text was used at St. Sebastian’s with the approval of the Headmaster despite parental objection. Cardinal Law declined to intervene, disregarding his responsibility to safeguard faith and morals in the Catholic school.

Understanding Sex and Sexuality
by Nancy Hennessy Cooney with Ann Bingham
Publisher: Religious Education Division
Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers; Dubuque, Iowa, 1987

Understanding Sex and Sexuality by Nancy Hennessy Cooney with Ann Bingham is a revised version of the original book published by Wm. C. Brown and Co., and authored by Ms. Cooney called Sex, Sexuality and You. The original book was severely criticized by Archbishop Daniel W. Kucera of Dubuque and countless faithful Catholic parents. It is only a matter of time before this new version meets the same fate.

Canon Law (Book III) (in The Teaching Office of the Church, Canon 827) states:

Books dealing with matters concerning sacred scripture, theology, Canon Law, Church history, or religious or moral subjects may not be used as textbooks on which the instruction is based, in elementary, intermediate, or higher schools, unless they were published with the approbation of the competent ecclesiastical authority or were subsequently approved by that authority.

The Decree on Censorship published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1975 repeats the same thought. In Understanding Sex and Sexuality, ecclesiastical approbation is noticeably and understandably missing.

Ms. Cooney, the author, is one of the persons who signed the “solidarity ad” in the New York Times, on March 2, 1986, which held that abortion could sometimes be a morally valid choice. Ms. Cooney’s educational and religious consultants are Raejean Kantor and Father William Kohler, the same people who were consulters for her ill-fated original publication.

Understanding Sex and Sexuality is objectionable for most the same reasons its parent book was. The format is the same; the sentences are identical in about two-thirds of the book; its philosophical basis is sexology. In one sense, this new book can be considered an improvement over the first, in that this new book includes more authentic Christian doctrine, and has removed the most offensive sentences in the abortion, masturbation, and birth control sections. In another sense, it is however, more insidious than its parent, in that in a more disguised fashion, it makes a case for dissent from the Magisterium in such areas as abortion, family planning, and homosexuality. By building the arguments to support these positions and then sprinkling some a priori church teaching on top of it, the result is that the student will fail to understand the Church’s position and then is urged “to make up his own mind.” The book betrays the worst aspects of an offensive sexual explicitness and the ideology of radical feminism.

Some concrete examples of harmful material are in order:

1. Ms. Cooney violates the principle of subsidiarity, which schools are obliged to observe with regard to the rights of the family. She writes from the perspective of an “expert,” consulting with and urging consultation with other anti-family “experts” to find out answers. This author is not positioned as writing in cooperation with and at the request of parents — who are the first educators of the child. Her introduction never mentions them. Sometimes, parents are alluded to, but only as offering one opinion — not as persons in authority. On occasion, parents are made to look old-fashioned, or uninformed, such as on page 21 (on physical maturity) and on page 41 (on skin hunger). Even the parish priest is omitted as an authority figure, as exemplified in the chapter on homosexuality. Paragraph two reads “If you have had some experiences that worry you, that cause you to question your own sexual identity — it’s important to find some “trusted adult.” Typically, there is no mention of the Sacrament of reconciliation or parents as responsible authority.

2. The illustrations in the book are too detailed for some young people, and respect for “delicacy” and “privacy” certainly indicates a need for parental discretion. This book does not take the latency period of child development factors into account.

3. The language in Understanding Sex and Sexuality is sexually explicit and offends decency. For example, why must children know that “the Mound of Venus (mons veneris) is the padded area underneath the inverted triangle of hair over the genitals. The mound contains nerve endings that add to sexual excitement when rubbed or pressed”? Nor is it necessary to instruct children that “stimulation of the clitoris can trigger an orgasm.” (p. 14) Methodological language such as this robs the child of his right to privacy and individuality; it is an assault on the mystery and intimacy of conjugal love and on the necessity of grace to preserve purity of mind and heart.

James Likoudis has written, “the sexual dimension of every person — and especially the child and adolescent — constitutes a personal secret. It is a mystery, and something sacred, to be covered by the veil of modesty and discretion — and safeguarded from unwarranted intrusion and desecration.” Ms. Cooney’s explicit secular humanistic approach constitutes precisely the intrusion of which he speaks.

4. Phrases such as “skin hunger” and becoming “sexy” Christians immerses the students in an environment of recreational sex — removed from the sacrament of marriage, the necessity of grace, and salvation as a final end of marriage. Pleasure, rather, becomes an end in itself, exemplified in the homosexuality section where it is stated that although a homosexual could father a child, “such persons probably won’t enjoy heterosexual contact in the way that they would sexual contact with someone of the same sex.” (p. 64)

5. In fact, the homosexuality section appears as if it were written with the help of gay rights activists. In his letter to Bishops on The Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, Oct. 1, 1986, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has written that it is important “to avoid the unfounded and demeaning assumption that sexual behavior of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable.” The Cardinal noted that “it is an error to accept homosexuality as though it were not disordered.” Ms. Cooney’s book says the opposite. (pp. 63-66) She indicates that homosexuals are not sinners, and that we don’t know if they are capable of changing orientation. In fact, we do know that some can, and some can’t. (see Father John Harvey’s well-known studies) Ms. Cooney says that the Church teaches that the ideal form of sexual expression is “between a man and a woman…,” whereas Cardinal Ratzinger, faithful to the Magisterium, insists that sexual intercourse between husband and wife, open to life, is the only form of sexual intercourse which is morally valid.

Ms. Cooney is, also, totally non-judgmental in her discussion of sex changes, bisexuality, and transvestitism.

6. Ms. Cooney’s book’s section on feminism ridicules traditional roles of the sexes in such a way that it infers that there are no roles related to our sexuality. Her historical philosophy is that of radical progressivism; her approach to women is the antithesis of that described by Pope John Paul II in his recent apostolic letter “Mulieris Dignitatem.”

7. Understanding Sex and Sexuality also contains a paragraph which redefines the family in loose enough terms to include cohabitation: “A group of people who are close to one another, who trust and depend on one another, and share many of the same values, people who share responsibility for decisions, and who have committed themselves to one another for a certain period of time” (p. 48). Missing is the classic definition of a family as a group of people related by blood or marriage. This section also undermines respect for human life, by using such phrases as people having “more family than they know what to do with.” In another section on Family Planning, Ms. Cooney writes “The Church teaches that the right to determine when and how many children are born is a right that belongs to the married couples themselves.” (p. 60) What the Church really teaches can be summarized by Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae when he wrote, “in relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a large family, or by the decision made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth.”

8. The section on abortion is as representative as any on how Ms. Cooney gets around the teachings of the Catholic Church by appealing to “conscience” as the ultimate judge rather than conscience positioned in a context of faith with responsibility to obey the Holy Spirit which guides our Church (conscience detects moral truth: it interprets a norm which it does not create. cf. Gaudium et Spec. 16; Paul VI, General Audience, 12 February 1969; Pope John Paul II to the Bishops of New York State on their Ad Limina visit, October 15, 1988).

In this same section, Ms. Cooney describes being pregnant out of wedlock as burdensome and wrought with problems. She ignores the beauty of pregnancy and opportunities for spiritual growth that such an experience can yield through God’s grace. Ms. Cooney then proceeds to describe the evils of illegal abortion. Ms. Cooney never mentions that illegal abortions continue to occur in alarming numbers, now that abortion is legal. She also ignores the staggering numbers of overall abortions worldwide with the onset of legalizing abortion — or — its terrible toll on families and mothers with physical and spiritual complications, and the like.

Ms. Cooney next explains that pro-choice people are good people who don’t want to return to the days of illegal abortions, and of course, as persons, they shouldn’t be judged. She then explains that the Church teaches that abortion is immoral, leaving the clear impression that the Church’s attitude and teachings are inhumane.

Lastly, she concludes that “if we oppose abortion, we must help the children which will be born” and if you find yourself pregnant, you should seek help — even help from Birthright, but one should always remember “that Birthright counselors can only help you sort out your thinking, they cannot decide for you.” (p. 70)

This abortion section is a classic example of how an author can lead one to consider an immoral choice, and then, ignoring the demands of law, justice, authority, and obedience, encourage a youngster to make an “independent” choice contrary to God’s moral law.

Lest anyone think that Ms. Cooney, in her heart, even believes that chastity before marriage is necessary, I close my criticism of her book by citing her last chapter on “making decisions” — especially noting p. 79. Ms. Cooney mentions values which are necessary to develop — such as respect, love, honesty, responsibility, and creativity.

When discussing the need to assume responsibility for sexual behavior, Ms. Cooney alludes to the statistics of unmarried mothers, abortions, venereal diseases, and poverty. She says that “these people (sexually active youth) didn’t take responsibility for their own actions. They may have ignored their responsibility or counted on someone else to act responsibly so that they wouldn’t have to.”

Now, when one becomes pregnant, what do you suppose “counted on someone else to act responsibly so they wouldn’t have to” means? The answer is clear; “being responsible” means the avoidance of pregnancy when one is having sexual intercourse. Presuming that two dating sexually active teenagers were not practicing natural family planning, avoidance of pregnancy means using contraceptives.

Ms. Cooney’s Understanding Sex and Sexuality is a pure gift to Planned Parenthood, gay rights activists, and the National Organization for Women. But to Catholic parents, Ms. Cooney’s book is poison. It undermines self-discipline and self-esteem in youth. It is an assault on their privacy. It is calculated to erode their Catholic faith. It must be removed from our Catholic schools.

The Wm. C. Brown Co.’s Religious Education Division has done another disservice to Catholic education.